you you you you you you all right before the sake of time we're gonna go ahead and get started we're we're still waiting on a couple people but we can move forward just kind of a reminder if you come up to talk about a plan or comments or anything make sure you state your name for the record and who you're with just so we can we can make sure we get that okay our first plan on the agenda final record plat FRP 2535 in DC property unit 3 lot 3 Ashland Baptist Church Wellington this is located at 483 West Reynolds Road the purpose of this plan is to create public right-of-way to be dedicated and to release an access easement a portion of utility easement in a sanitary sewer easement so this is Wellington down here this is Dorchester this is the right-of-way being dedicated this is the large church property this is the park property back here we have an aerial on this one but that's okay so under requirements not met number one to note this property shall be developed in accordance with the approved final development plan number two correct Commission certification number three urban county verify urban county engineer certification is correct number state is number five but number four include include note number 29 from MJ DP 2452 the agreed judgment number five addition of street tree note number six addition of address for the basin to note number seven and number seven depicted to note the drainage easement that's available on 601 Wellington way the park and that again that's this larger parcel back here no waivers are requested or identified at this time under design considerations see all a seller comments provided by the Division of Engineering number two some of the notes on the plat are extraneous remove notes and I think Tracy and I looked at note for can stay I think but remove note 6 9 17 and 18 and renumber plan questions or concerns number one clarify what is to be dedicated number two discuss procedure for releasing easements number three discuss discrepancy between cross-section a cross-section BB on MJ DP 2420 and MJ DP 2452 number four who will be responsible for the 19 feet of space between the western sidewalk of Dorchester place and the adjacent property line and I believe believe that's along that property line does that sound right number five ensure all easements are depicted and then we have sign offs for engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester Department of Environmental Quality bike ped open space addition of a utility and streetlight easements as required by the utility companies and the urban county traffic engineer and number 10 correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met here in and with that I will open it up to the committee for discussion Chris is a waiver not necessary for this termination Tracy and I talked about it yesterday and she said that it is stubbing into this property so at this time it wouldn't be required but it could be a problem when they come in to develop further develop that property so she said at this at this time now you can remove landscaping from that one okay and environmental quality okay so number three and number six I guess did did they discuss the street cross-section with you guys at some no not not directly with me anyway how it changed from the DP to now right now or at least I don't I don't remember any discussion about that anybody else the applicant that you James you I'm James Chambliss land surveyor with prime AE here on behalf of our client a you associates I guess the as far as the difference between the cross-sections on the MJ DP and what we're showing here on the plat for Dorchester place on cross-section a a yeah I'm not really sure how your pointer works okay I increased the width of the right-of-way from the 52 feet the ship that's shown on the MJ both MJ DPS because what's shown on the development plans is based on the east line on this existing utility easement it's a 30 foot wide utility easement total and I don't know that if we held that east line of that utility easement we're going to create a 15 foot wide lot if I don't included in the street right-of-way and it goes from Wellington way all the way up to where the former property line is where the access easement ends so I've included that extra 15 feet into the street right-of-way and unless the city is going to let us create a 15 foot wide lot all the way up along there and I don't think that's going to happen because if we don't include that 15 foot wide strip where the utility easement is laying then we've got a useless 15 foot strip that the church will own and they can't really get any access to it they can't do anything with it so I understand what you're saying but the roadway could have been placed a little closer to the property line at this point well the question is who's going to own and maintain that 15 feet well it's going to be a dedicated right-of-way to city of Lexington so it'll be if this goes through the way we have it put together at this point it will be responsibility of LFUCG so that seems to be something that you would need to request it ahead of time well yes we didn't streets and roads would be responsible for that maintenance you know you're just automatically saying hey here you go you're gonna well let me ask this question is the city going to let us create a 15 foot wide lot going up the property line that's not allowed either so that should have been considered okay well we can we can have that discussion I agree with that so does it need a waiver request to the cross-section that's what I was gonna ask now you need a waiver to if you're not matching a cross-section that's in the roadway manual which is what you showed on your development plan you know that matches that but if you don't have okay well if that's not what's shown here yeah well and unfortunately I was not given that guidance at the office from our design team so I don't see that as well I hope that won't be an issue moving forward and we can go through with that with I think Chris can give you yeah yeah well and when you brought it up I thought well I'm just gonna have to sit down with Chris and we'll go through whatever steps we need to go through so so the waiver deadline is Friday if you want to I mean like you'll have to submit the waiver request Friday and okay we can move forward with that and the other option would be that the adjacent property owner takes that additional property because normally yeah you know your properties on this side of the street you're responsible for the mowing strip or utility strip not the city even though that is right away so I'm sure there's some things but you'll have to state your reasoning and your justification for why you changed it okay and also the utility easement that is within our proposed right-of-way for Dorchester the reason we are looking to release that portion of the 30-foot easement which will be 15 feet it's going to be within the proposed right of way so that's the only reason we're showing that on there and I have already spoken with Debbie Barnett to figure out what I need to do to get the documentation for the release of that easement and I have preliminary easement exhibit easement release exhibit for that and then also up here at the top if we go through with this right-of-way dedication this little piece of the 12 foot sanitary sewer reason I'm also planning to try to get that released since that will also be within this new right-of-way so and I have an easement release document put together for that as well but as Debbie has told me she can't do anything with it until the plan gets recorded and I can put that information on the release exhibits so I have already sent the release exhibits on the 15-foot utility easement portion to be released to the utility companies so I'm just waiting to hear back from all of them on what else I need to do for them any other issues or questions I think just at some point they'll need to be just clarification as to what's being dedicated I think traffic brought that up I know we talked about that well I mean I know you tell it but there's this there's a note that says the hatched area and clearly that's not what is being proposed as being dedicated so just make sure that that that whatever you're you know make sure the drawing matches the description so we can we can understand what you're what you're dedicating because it's not it's not shown that way okay all right well I'm sure I can add some language or something to clarify for you okay anything else anybody else anything looks like staff's recommendation is approval yeah we could add if we're going to recommend approval we probably should add the waiver planning planning Commission approval of the waiver under the waiver necessary yeah yeah as a sign off yeah okay Chris will you be available tomorrow for me to catch up with you on the waiver information early in the day okay but probably not tomorrow afternoon okay before lunch okay well I'll call you bright and early tomorrow how's that sounds good okay and there are a lot of questions about I mean he's not able to answer the question about whether the land is going to be given to the properties next door dedicated to the city for the waiver there seems to be a lot of questions that are a lot of ifs okay well the intent here 15 feet of land that's in question which is a lot yeah and you can dedicate that to the adjacent properties like Vaughn said I mean is that is that something you can handle with sign off Vaughn or is that who would who will be yeah yeah and the adjacent property owner would have to agree to accept the portions yeah all of these things would need to be worked out before the waiver could be approved I think correct I mean so it it could affect well I mean ultimately it's gonna affect what the cross-section looks like and what the specific waiver request should be so I mean it might need to be a postponement said is that the direction the committee thinks we should go I'll make a motion for postponement okay so there's a motion for a postponement of PL in FRP 25 35 NDC property unit 3 lot 3 we need to fix the notes under requirements not met to read four five six and seven the removal of landscape examiner's approval of landscaping and number six Department of Environmental Quality's approval and then we need to add in the Planning Commission's approval of a waiver so moved second all in favor all right that this plans postponed and so just just to clarify with our new four four three process that would mean you would need to come back next month to tech and then it could be approved at tech okay if the waiver is approved and everything else is straight down okay all right all right appreciate it thank you okay moving right along next plan is FRP 26 7 Coventry Belmont farm Belmont center lots 1 through 11 this is located at 2450 Georgetown Road 2313 Remington way and 2441 Huntley place the purpose of this plan is to subdivide one parcel into 11 lots and public right-of-way and create easements and building setbacks and we also have a continued discussion on the development plan associated with this later in the agenda under requirements not met let's go back and see so we got Georgetown Road this is Huntley place that goes along the rear of the property there's existing development in this area and then Citation Boulevard to plan south so this is basically at the corner the northeast corner of Georgetown and Citation and then they're just depicting the lotting scheme for the development and I believe part of the part of this is to release that or create easements and I think they're working on trying to release that easement as well we are showing public right-of-way in this area and then there's a leave this is a private private Street so under requirements not met number one to note the property should be developed in accordance with the approved final development plan number two to note that number two to note this development is within the Royal Springs water supply protection area number three to note areas with alluvial soils will be developed in accordance with article 611 of the land subdivision regulations number four correct title block to match staff report number five depict adjacent streets and parcels with dashed lines number six depict easements with dashed line types for clarity number seven depict cross-section for proposed public right-of-way between lots two and three and that is this right away up here number eight denote name of proposed road number nine denote private utilities number ten denote drainage and other easement maintenance responsibilities number eleven denote street addresses for all lots number twelve clarify line work to depict various setbacks easements and dimensions number thirteen correct typos in purpose of amendment number fourteen clarify note number three and tree protection plan notes number fifteen add square footage of canopy coverage provided in statistics box number sixteen identify wetlands and intermittent streams environmentally sensitive areas as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers and to note is non buildable we did have an on-site meeting about that and it'll we can talk more about that on the development plan as well but it's the wetland is generally in this this area and we had a couple meetings with jihad about the results of that meeting and the subsequent work that they've been doing with that see number seventeen denote public sewers that sewer established to each lot number eighteen depict all existing and proposed easements number nineteen depict floodplain elevation or lowest adjacent grade for parcels adjacent to the intermittent stream there are no waivers requested at this time under design considerations number one CSL a comments provided by the Division of Engineering under plan questions or concerns number one are you requesting a waiver of substantial completion and number two discuss timing and status of MJ DP 2576 at this time we do recommend postponement their questions regarding the location of the wetland intermittent stream and non build areas and if the plan should be approved the standard sign offs engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester Department of Environmental Quality bike pad open space addition of utility and streetlight easements US Postal Service and to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met here and that I'll turn it over to the committee open space can be removed thank you thank you landscape can be removed as well as I mentioned in my comments there's the sanitary sewers for each lot hasn't been constructed yet so that is something that they'll probably need to request a waiver for substantial completion and they also didn't show a cross-section for the public street they're proposing anybody else math good morning Matt Carter vision engineering so a couple things I wanted to clarify I think Chris you said there was private street I believe that's in this area and then up here is a public street so I don't know if that was mentioned but we've been meeting with engineering and Vaughn you can correct me if I'm saying anything out of place jihad he's working with with getting this wetland delineated and getting everything filed there we'll have to come up with some language that describes the process and where we're at what we're doing and engineering will have to review those notes and approve those notes as part of their sign off so that's where we're at on the wetlands as far as waivers go we're we're going to be following waivers this Friday and we're going we're going to ask to be able to bond the sanitary sewers and the public street so we'll be following that Friday so I guess my question is since we are following that it'll it kind of changes the process where it'll have to go to the Planning Commission so will it stay on track like go to the subdivision committee and then go to the instead of waiting a month to come back to technical committee yeah and then I guess in the past I've done this I don't know if you'll still do it but we've gone back to the technical committee after the Planning Commission heard a plan just to run it through again and I don't know if that's possibility right so if with the waiver the waiver goes to the Planning Commission but if we postpone based on that then they would need to come back next month to tech for with the plan for approval so the Planning Commission won't approve the final record plan they'll only approve the waiver so that just kind of bear that mind that's that'll be our process so if it's recommended approval then that would be contingent upon the waiver being approved by the Planning Commission and then then they could go for certification after that but if we recommend postponement then they would need to come back next month with the final record plan after the waiver approval so there is no language yet around the wetland and all of that correct like there hasn't been anything submitted regarding I know you're in talks with them but there isn't any actual language or anything developed yet so that's that's I mean I don't Vaughn you can speak to that but how are you comfortable I think we met with jihad yesterday and he said he could get us the environmental study by next week but I don't know that's enough time to have everybody review it and comment on it by a subdivision committee I mean if it takes I guess I would depend on if we got it also on Friday and everybody had a chance to review it because it's not just engineering I think environmental services and planning and anybody else thinking of water quality but probably want to look at the impacts and the mitigation plan because that's what we haven't seen as mitigation plan in full documentation and I think when we talked to jihad yesterday we mentioned that that we'd recommend postponement on the development plan because of and he agreed to that I think I don't know that it was verbalized exactly like that I think we we laid out the steps but the timing I don't think was specified I can't remember exactly but I guess in no matter what happens engineering's got to approve the language so it's it's it's engineering and it's really should be part of their sign off the way I look at it so hopefully y'all would agree so anybody have anything else what's the difference in the public and private road coming out of Georgetown this right here was it's always been planned to be public and this this private here it just functions more as like an access easement there's gonna be a lot of entrances off of it and it was never also it was never in the long range planning of how this property was to be developed it's across the road from Innovation Drive I believe and I know they proposed a light at one time or something it's KYTC approved those two access points the access points are approved signals are not approved okay anybody else okay so the staffs recommendation is for postponement so the motion is to see which property are we on here Thomas and Anne property no coventry okay motion is for postponement of PLN FRP 26 7 coventry Belmont Farm Belmont Center lots 1 through 11 amended and with the removal of the landscape examiner's approval number 3 from sign off and number 8 open space planner so moved well and then we also need to add provided Planning Commission grants the waiver for yeah I was thinking about that I don't I don't know that we do because it's gonna come back and it'll be on the next like if it's postponed I like last time I think we needed to add that either well but if they don't approve the waiver either way it's gonna come back it'll come back and then we would have that condition on the it would do it yeah I was just gonna say we might as well just go ahead and add it just okay it's it's covered so that we know that they've got a request a waiver okay and that okay so then we'll add to that no 12 Planning Commission's approval of the waiver under should the plan be approved so moved second all in favor see you in a post okay we're gonna move on down the agenda we're gonna go to FRP 26 8 Thomas and and Asbury property this is located out off of for 4810 Briar Hill Road we have North Cleveland leading into Briar Hill currently this is one large piece of property and they're wanting to cut this piece of property out of this they have a very small showing a very small frontage on to Briar Hill Road which doesn't meet the minimum requirements but they're wanting to subdivide from one lot to two this is located in the PDR purchase development rights so they will have to get approval from PDR group requirements not met no building permit shall be issued until health department has issued a septic tank permit and notes shall be required on a final subdivision plot plan to that effect identify blue line stream on the property addition of general notes from previous plan to note who is responsible for easement maintenance currently they're showing an access easement through the adjacent property so I'm not sure if they're wanting to continue to use that proposed access easement or if they're going to want to create a drive out this little strip here if they do we want to denote KYTC and traffic engineering's approval the new access to Briar Hill Road they will need to ask for a waiver for lot frontage for track to be because this does not meet the minimum requirements of 750 feet it's yes it is existing but it still needs to meet the minimum requirements to be able to subdivide design considerations see all seller comments provided by the Division of Engineering contact addressing office to discuss address assigned to track for track a which is the existing lot and then the proposed lot if no existing public sewers to the property on site system is required playing questions or concerns is there a joint maintenance agreement for access to to be staff recommends approval with approval the waiver for the frontage with engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester Department of Environmental Quality bike and ped open space addition of utility and street light easements the US Postal Office PDR purchase development rights approval the subdivision of property and provided the Planning Commission grants the waiver for the lot frontage and approval is denoted on plan and with that I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions show you can take take me off a sign off number seven bike and pedestrian okay anyone else need to be removed yeah landscape we can come off as well open space can also be removed okay any other comments if not applicant I'm Gary Rowland cam surveying and just on the access easement it's in it's an existing access easement that goes through the adjoining property there's a fairly lengthy document that created it six seven page document recorded with County Clerk so I'm sure it covers maintenance as far as that access easement of course our people I think they intend to keep using that driveway that's in the access easement even once it's subdivided off but of course they'd have road frontage up there so I would assume that you know that they could get permission to put a new access in but I'll be happy to answer any question my question when is the deadline for the for the waiver request Friday Friday at 4 p.m. Friday 4 p.m. okay and I can answer any questions if anybody has any was a little flag out on to barrio created for I don't know purpose of putting a driveway because we would not want to drive ways in that close proximity to each other so if it's being created with this it's it's an exist it's existing I mean that that is the road frontage so it was created when when the total when 40 that when the 4098 Briar Hill Road was created okay that's what created the road we're not what my idea all right thank you anybody else okay so the motion is for approval of PLN FRP 26 8 Thomason and Asbury property with the removal of under staff recommendations of landscape examiner number three number seven bike a pedestrian planner and number eight open space planners approval so moved second all in favor anyone opposed all right okay we'll continue down the agenda this is a preliminary subdivision plan this will be PLN MGS to be 2602 this is for patching Wilkes unit 3 we are located out this is Winchester Road out in this area this is patching Wilkes Drive that comes through here we just looked at the preliminary subdivision plan for this area now we're looking at what's left inside the middle of the property creating 42 single-family lots and one HOA lot blow up a little bit closer they're creating a private street coming through the center here connecting to the public street that turns around connects over here towards the circle that will then take and lead you over to where the proposed Kroger store is that they've been working on it currently has there's three homes existing homes one two we go back and you can see down here there's the third house that's why you see the drive through through the open space area so with that requirements not met to note no land disturbance construction clearing native vegetative or mowing shall occur denote areas of alluvial soils will be developed in accordance with the land sub regulations addition of proposed street names provided a common open space exhibit per requirements depict all existing and proposed easements add floodplain elevations where necessary there's a large floodplain that runs along the back property here we have the floodplain comes up this way along this property and then down through here but you can see this line this dark line right here is the property boundaries and the floodplain goes up into all of these lots through here so we need to make sure we have the floodplain elevations label existing farm roads proposed driveways to existing residents waivers necessary local residential street cross-section and collector street cross-section design considerations a sanitary sewer analysis is needed to evaluate the additional flow for the existing system and a sanitary sewer capacity application is required prior to issuance of building permits playing questions and concerns discuss construction of wetland and stormwater management on lot 3 lot 3 is located in this area here up off a patch and Wilkes Drive then it says discuss letter of map revision for patch and specific specifically for lots 25 to 32 25 to 32 again are these lots here that are have a large amount of the floodplain created on it we didn't know where they were with the Lomar and what the process are there environmentally sensitive areas on the site discuss roadway construction in relation to the floodplain and permitting requirements you're going to have to cross the floodplain in this location here our provisions for maintenance of the private street define is maintenance on site stormwater management define has the impact embankment of the existing pond and discharge pipe been inspected is a no-rise study required staff recommends approval with the following sign-offs engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike and ped open space vision water quality provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver for the cross-sections and then correct all note deficiencies I'm going to open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions anyone can be removed if not applicant Morning, Rory Caley with the A Partners I guess I want to start with the waivers I don't believe I need waivers because the item to the collector street that is approved on two separate plans already and all we're doing is continuing it and transitioning between the two so if they're already approved by the Planning Commission elsewhere I don't know why I need a waiver and then I'm also I don't remember needing waivers for private streets is this something new hi Tracy welcome to the show I'm ready okay your streets public streets have to be built to the same standards as private private streets have to be built to the same standards as public streets and I thought that was a structural site it's not not but it needs a waiver it's not just Planning Commission approval of a section that seems new okay all right does that seem new to anybody else yeah I was here a month ago with the cross-section and there was no waiver it was just the Planning Commission approved the cross-section because you moved your trees well it was it's yeah that's that it was still the same width yeah from what they approved before right and when we approved those it wasn't the waiver it was just continuation of existing but if I got right one waiver I guess it's the same same waiver request same one letter maybe maybe we were confused about the cross-section but okay didn't seem to match the subregs can we agree to that yes okay all right a lot of Vaughn's questions let's see revolve around stormwater and there is it's stormwater management plan is the impervious disconnect and it was part of a water quality exhibit we've turned in and the clomer is also to make to build the road we have to have that clomer to connect through the floodplain there for the collector Street we're waiting on that yeah for the top section already have the construction plans it's already built but there is a large easement and a constructed wetland on lot three so there's just needed a little more information on this plan to represent what your proposal is moving forward for the stormwater management all right and since we got that does your clomer involve changing anything between the basin this basin and the creek so the backyards of those like nine months no no changes there that's what Tom told me is that what you've seen I don't yeah I don't think I had the clomer information okay this yeah this area from the creek up to the pond all of that I believe is what he was calling the impervious disconnect which is fancy words for it alone as far as I can tell and then the OPSS system for this area included the patch and Wilkes farm when it was designed originally so we thought that was answering the capacity question we still have to file the form I guess but it we believe that it was included originally and should not be an issue verifying the notes for DWQ our stormwater management plan it says that the note 10 on the plan you're asking about that that note is good and that it was no rise studies required at this time the stormwater management plan was submitted and approved and we thought that the flood protection elevations should be will have to be shown on the FRP we thought that the PSP was a little early without having the full construction plans drawn up yet but then again maybe some of this is new requirements I'm trying to catch up on okay what about the embankment that's above those 12 lots are oh the existing pond um we have not I don't know if folks who built the townhomes before us did any sort of study with theirs it's just something you or engineers might want to look into just okay that the existing lots that were mentioned so on the farm on the farm there were several houses built over the years and the driveway across the dams been in existence for a long time everyone's familiar out there that goes to Barry's house that is intended to stay through this development and not try to you know make him come out the backside on to Charleston Drive I guess that's the other option so the open space lot is this the lake there's a trail already around the townhome side we're working on how that would function and connect with us so I'll try to clarify that with you I think that's all the notes I have anybody else all right staffs recommendation is approval so the motion is for the approval of PLN MJ SUV 26 to patch and Wilkes unit 3 with no changes second all in favor anyone opposed all right motion passes thank you we're going to continue down the agenda first development plan MJ DP 2613 New Town Springs lot for a Jaggers amended we are out this is Newtown Pike out this direction we have Newtown Center running behind it we last development plan we had in was for this little hole for Panera we have this lot wraps around the Panera what we're doing is we're down here just south creating a lot for Jaggers development showing the building and the drive-thru there's a better zoom up so we're showing the connectivity between the adjacent properties we're showing the access coming off of Newtown Center we have the drive-thru double drive-thru dumpsters the structure in the center and additional parking with that requirements not met no building permit shall be issued unless the final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission remove reference to old plan if you look at the overall plan they have this is the proposed lot but they also have proposed on this lot and that reference needs to be removed denote property boundaries with solid lines and adjacent properties with dash lines clear clarify area of amendment on the vicinity map addition of topography information removed proposed from lot for the reference of the old plan they had the old plan number down in the lower right-hand corner dimension walkways points of ingress and egress denote height of canopy depict lot five on plan face to show connection and remove the property boundaries we're showing the property boundaries up here off a lot to which is a lot further up the street down here that's this area here down here is the corner for the tire discounters is hoping to show that on this and remove the other portion just so that we can make sure that we can verify that these connections line up for the adjacent property we don't want to have that connection incorrect location addition of utility easements per plan Board of Adjustment approval must be granted for a drive-thru in the B1 zone this property is on B1 and the previous applicant went to the Board of Adjustments for the drive-thru and you will be required to do the Board of Adjustments application clarify number of parking spaces provided addition of lot coverage for a ratio interior landscape and open space in the site statistics agree you don't have all that information for all the previous slots but we need to make sure that we have that going forwards so if any other amendments come through then we can update that additional information on the rest addition of address on plan face addition of building line and zone lines on plan flight face this property is split zone because of the adjacent to Newtown Pike we have agricultural along the Newtown Pike for the trail and then the property is zone B1 clarify Commission certification the 25-foot cross section crossing will need to be reduced to 24 to or modified to a raised crossing parking islands were utilized as part of the pedestrian pathway within a parking lot shall be graded separate by a minimum six-foot inch curb move pedestrian crossing in front of the stop bar in the drive-thru lane provide dumpster enclosures and concrete pad details add the correct address for the basin and note number 12 to pick parking areas to comply with interior landscaping requirements at this current time we don't have any waivers listed design considerations verify the existing storm system can support the increase in runoff from this development plan questions or concerns discuss construction access location it was showing going through the adjacent property how wide is the entrance from Newtown Center way is there a joint maintenance agreement or commercial development group identified for maintenance of the access easement this is an access easement to the rear for all access and to these individual lots the staff recommended approval with the following sign offs engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike and ped open space division of fire division of waste management documentation of water quality capacity the US Postal Service and then correct all note deficiencies as required not met with that I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any comments or questions or if anyone can be removed at this time if not the applicant we have the applicant there we are whoops you good morning my name is Brandon Goldberg I'm with Greenberg Farrow we're the designers for the proposed Jagger's restaurant I did have a few questions just for clarification if that's okay I can start with those and then possibly answer any questions item 9 the second part of that removed property boundary for lot 2 is that the whole dash rectangle at the top okay I just thought it would be better to show the area below to show how that connects up oh tire discounters yep yep and we're reaching out to tire discounters to get their plans so we can show our alignment but I was just curious about that second part thank you Board of Adjustment thank you for that I just want to confirm the filing deadline for that is it for eight okay thank you the number item 14 addition of addresses on plan face is there any specific area you want us to show that or can we just pick an empty area typically it's usually by the entrance point okay just to show it's closer to that Street for that address I did have a question about 17 the 25-foot crossing will need to be reduced to 24 feet or modified to a raised crossing um I'm assuming that's the crosswalk that's kind of on an angle on the bottom of our plan yes the skewed okay and then item 22 last one to pick parking areas to comply with the interior landscape requirements I will have my landscape architect look at this but I wasn't sure if there was anything specific that was glaring as it relates to the interior landscape requirements you have 90 foot for your parking down here you have 11 and so typically that's about nine parking spaces are permitted so you have 90 feet before you have to put an island okay so you might want to review that okay thank you I did have some feedback on the design considerations verify the existing storm system can support the increase in runoff I did speak with a landlord our landlord this morning and they confirmed that the existing storm system can support the increase in runoff from our development and they had mentioned that EA partners did infiltration basins for the adjacent Panera and Starbucks so we'll do the same and were there any other questions you guys might have yeah I had a couple and I thought I had these comments in but if not your cross-site access will need to be a DA compliant you're showing stairs in that sidewalk and that's not a DA compliant so you'll have to address that you're you're crossing where we suggest that you move the crossing in front of the crossbar at the drive-thru lanes front stop bar definitely that would also need to be a race crossing because it's larger than 24 feet in width or you could choke down the crossing on both sides and make it 24 feet and you wouldn't need you wouldn't need it it wouldn't need to be a race crossing at that point just at the crossing you could bulb out or do something of that nature okay just want to make sure that you're aware of that yeah and there's a unfortunately we're kind of stuck with a little bit of a grading differentiate between us and the tire discounters so we had the stairs there but we might have to revisit that with some ramps one thing I'll call to your attention is we have a standard drawing for concrete entrance aprons so if you'll look at that and adjust your plan accordingly you're showing your drive-thru stack from the menu point you're supposed to have a six car stack you have labeled a bypass lane which you can't count it as a bypass lane if you're not showing your stack in your one lane and your cars cannot be bumper to bumper there has to be a four foot gap between the cars and an 18 foot car okay I apologize you said from the menu board that's our beginning of your six cars you have six cars so your your car number one is at your order menu point okay and then you have to have six cars total so you would have five behind the menu car okay and the standard dimension is 18 foot car with four foot gap between the rear bumper of the lead car and a front bumper of the car behind it okay I think it's gonna probably impact yes the design of your parking lot and how that wraps around yes yes I'm thinking that's the route we'll have to go yes anybody else Applicant, do you have any other questions? You good? I'm good. Okay. Thank you. All right, so the staff's recommendation is for approval, so the motion is for approval of PLN MJDP 2613 Newtown Springs Lot 4A, Jaggers amended, with no changes. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. All right, moving along. Next plan is MJDP 2614 Aylsford Edition Block 5, Lots 1 through 3, Woodland Village. This is located at 401 Woodland Avenue and the purpose of this plan is to depict a proposed three-story multifamily residential building. This property recently went through a zone change and we've seen the preliminary development plan for this. This is, it's at the corner of Woodland and Euclid. There's an existing three-story apartment building here. They're proposing to build a new three-story apartment building, which is, pardon me, located where there currently is parking. So under, zoom in here, sorry about that. So yeah, we've got the existing building, the proposed building in the back, and then the associated parking with that. Under requirements not met, number one, denote correct commission certification. Number two, provide details of the dumpster enclosure and concrete pad. Number three, add RLA stamp to tree protection plan. Number four, verify the usable and vegetated open space number in the site statistics box. No waivers requested at this time. There was a waiver, variance waiver, for the zone-to-zone buffering along the parking lot. And that was approved. Under design considerations, number one, address for the new structure is 409 Woodland Avenue. Number two, address sanitary sewer capacity. And number three, ensure by design that this development does not flood adjacent properties or public streets. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, what is the proposal for stormwater management? Number two, does the impervious area of the development area increase or decrease? And under, we do recommend approval with conditions, sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, fire, waste management, Division of Water Quality's approval of the CAP requirements. Finally, number 12, U.S. Postal Service sign-off, and then 14 to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee. Do you have any questions or discussion? You can remove environmental quality. Anybody else? All right, Tony. Morning, Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Anderson Communities. Don't have a lot to add other than making some corrections. We are increasing impervious area a little bit, and I think I've got a statistical error on my site statistics. Either that or on the open space exhibit, they don't match. And other than that, any other questions? Ask for approval. Take a look at your entrance apron, make sure it meets the standard. Okay, I think that's, we were intending to use the existing. I suppose if you're not damaging it, it doesn't need to be replaced. Yeah. I'm not sure what else. Okay, well, we'll address that. Yeah. So you don't have a, I'm not sure that you have a proper turnaround at the end of the parking lot. Looks like you'd have to climb back over top of the sidewalk, turn your car around at the end of the parking lot. There is no turnaround other than just the parking spaces. I think that needs adjusting because there's not enough room to turn around to get the car. There's two cars in the existing parking lot. We're just shortening it, so the turnaround is shorter. And I don't disagree, but the standards today are different than when this parking lot was built. Well, are you saying we'll need to ask for a waiver? Do we need a waiver for that? All right, we'll have to ask for a waiver for an existing parking lot. How? We're shortening the parking lot. How is the trash not back in the right way? We had a turnaround proposed with a driveway off Euclid Avenue, but that was determined not desirable also. So, I mean, if I have to have a waiver, we'll ask for a waiver. Well, we've already had waivers and variances applied for the zone change. Had that been an issue with the zone change, we would have addressed it at that time. That's all I'm saying. Is the trash truck going to back out into the right-of-way? Yes. That layout was determined as the best solution, and it was presented by this committee, or proposed by this committee, that we accepted it. We're good with it if the thing, but you'll have to have gates on that enclosure, though, as far as the... Yeah, that's fine. I mean, if we have to ask for a waiver, we'll ask for a waiver. I think the question is, is that a requirement in the zoning ordinance? If it is, then he needs a waiver. If it's not, he doesn't need a waiver. State, what do you say? I think this goes back to the development community says we have too many regulations, but this is... There's no dispute here on that. This is why, because I physically know if I have a curve against the end parking stall, I cannot turn that car. I have to be able to swing the car at a little slight angle, and a five-foot bump out is due to our standard, and it's been that way. You're talking about the end unit, the end two parking spaces only? Okay, all right. Well, I'll talk to Dennis about that. How much swing do you need? What's in the ordinance? I don't know that we get that specific detail in the ordinance. Typically, we have a five-foot bump out at the end has been kind of a standard answer for as long as I can remember. All right, we'll look at that. Yeah, thank you. So is the path forward to change to the site plan or a waiver? So is it going to be a change to the site plan, or is there going to be a waiver request? Well, I think I have till tomorrow to make that decision, don't I? Okay, then we'll just add that note 11, and then it'll go away. So I just want to remind everybody, a waiver, you're waiving a regulation that's in place in the zoning ordinance. If it's not in the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission can't grant a waiver to that, right? If it's something that your division requires and has a guidebook or standards for that, typically those guidebooks have a waiver process or variance process within your division. So maybe that's going to the director and asking for that kind of flexibility, but if it's not in the zoning ordinance, I can't facilitate a waiver, right? My job in planning is to facilitate waivers to the zoning ordinance and the subregs. So we can meet tomorrow and kind of find out where we need to go, again, to make the best development for the people who have to live there. That's the goal. So everybody good? That was my question. I don't care either way. Anybody have anything else? Tony, you good? Yeah. All right. I mean, do you have any more questions? Probably the appropriate question, yes. Okay, so staff's recommendation is for approval of, so the motion is for approval of PLNM JDP 2614 Ellsford addition block 5, lots 1 through 3, Woodland Village amended with the removal of, under sign-offs of number 6, Department of Environmental Quality approval of environmentally sensitive areas. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. All right, thank you. Okay, we're going to move down the agenda. We're going to MJDP 2617. This is the great house property, lot 9, Villages at Great Acres. We just saw a zone change on this property. This is Lee's Town Road, Lucille. This is Ruby River. This is the zone change. It was split zone for residential and then B3. They rezoned it to B3. Half the lot was B3. So they're rezoning for B3 so that they could put in a credit union. Now they've taken it through and we can see our zone line in this location. And so they're showing development of a bank with drive-thru windows and parking. Again, this is Lee's Town Road along this edge here and this is Ruby River up in this area. With that, we have to note development shall comply with Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. Denote no land disturbance, construction clearing, native vegetative or mowing shall occur in vegetative buffer zone. Provide details for the dumpster enclosure and the concrete pad. Ensure the VUA required screening is not counting towards vegetated or usable open space. Addition of RLA stamp or ISA certification. Certified arborist name and certification number on tree protection plan. Depict any environmentally sensitive areas on site. Clarify location of construction access. Denote height of canopy. Addition of record plat information. They are currently working on a record plat at this time to subdivide and create this as an individual lot. So if this gets recorded prior to the plan, the development plan coming in, we'd like to make sure we have that correct cabinet and slide on the plan. Addition of address on plan face. Clarify outdoor lighting. Clarify commission certification. Design considerations. Automatic or manual gate system shall require the pre-approval of the Lexington Fire Department. Plan questions and concerns. The vegetated space on the plan right of the building should be used, could be used for usable open space if the area is activated by a bench or a picnic table. When will LOMAR be filed by the Division of Engineering? Discuss the status of FRP 26-3. That's the plat that I'm creating this as an individual lot. Have the trails mentioned in note number 14 been constructed? The staff recommends approval with the following sign-offs. Engineering traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, bike and ped, open space, fire, Division of Waste Management, Division of Water Quality for capacity, assurance program, United States Postal Service, and then correct all note deficiencies. I'm going to open this to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions or removal for sign-offs. If not, applicant. Good morning. Chris Howard with Carmen. A couple of questions. Item six on the requirements not met, depicting the environmentally sensitive areas. This is a carryover of the previous development plan and the only thing we're changing is that. Yeah in my comments I mentioned it looked like some of the lines from previous plans have either dropped off or setbacks or vegetative buffer streams and you know this this is the plan that I'm looking at with the whole plan and all the notes and so I just wanted to make sure nothing got left out that needed to be on the plan. Okay. Typically we like to make sure we carry all information forward so that it should ever be amended. Right, I didn't know, I didn't realize anything if it dropped off of that. I talked with with Gary Rowland before he left. He's, I think there's three sign-offs remaining on the final record plat. That's engineering, urban forester, and cable review. So odds are they'll they'll hit before we get there. In terms of the plan questions, the LOMAR, we're not involved in that and I really can't answer that question. The same with question number four regarding the the trails on note 14. Then on the conditions, condition number eight, the greenways and green space. Do we really need to, I mean that previous plan, we're not really affecting those. I mean do we need a sign-off on that? Yes. The open space exhibit currently does not meet regulations. Oh that goes back to the bench? Yes. Comment, okay. Yeah, and if you have questions about how to lay that out and the site statistics, let me know. What about item 12, the post office? I'm assuming those kiosks are dealing with the residential side. Wouldn't that have been approved prior to the previous plan approval? This was years ago. The U.S. Postal Service was coming to these meetings and they asked to be put on all plans, so. But I mean if we don't have it, we don't have a kiosk as part of this. I imagine we can remove that because it's probably going to be delivered to your door or to your corporate headquarters. You're not going to have mail to this address. I don't know. That was just, like I said, something that they asked four years ago, that they be included on all sign-offs on all properties. Yeah, I mean given there are... Do we know where to go get those sign-offs? He responds, I see. Do you all see it sometimes in the emails? I think since they requested that and there are kiosks elsewhere on this plan, right? Yeah, so I mean I know that seems kind of redundant, but it's just... Okay, no, that's fine, I'll just... Chris, is that a drive-thru in the back? What is at the back of the building? Towards, on the Leestown side? Yeah, the Leestown side. So that's the two-lane drive-thru. There's not, it's kind of the new system, it's not a drive-thru window per se. It's, what are they called, Sam? ITMs, where you just, it's right there at the, like the ATM machine of old days, where you interact with the teller right there on the video screen. Okay, I think you still have to have a six-car stack with the current regulation. For a bank? Paracrediting? Yes. That is being worked on right now to be revised, but the current regulation is... Are we allowed to stack in that, given that this is a one-way traffic? Will we be allowed to stack, which I think that's actually what we're doing. I think we've somehow lost our cars on this, but I think the stacking starts here and goes in. If you've got two lanes of, this kind of goes back to that Jagger plan, if you have... I think because you have two lanes coming in, I think you can show your six-car stack on the lane close to the building, you'll be fine. But does that, so you can't count any of the cars in the second lane as part of that? Is it a bypass lane or is it a different use? Is that where your ATM is going to be? I'm saying if there's two, if there's one in each lane, can you count any of the, let's say, let's say we're dealing with the inner lane here. Right now it's six per lane, is the way it's currently written. As I said, we're working on getting that changed, but the current regulation is six stacked in that one lane. So if you have two, is that total of six per each? But you can double count that obviously if you... Okay. You don't have to show that on this plan. If you showed six on the interior lane for this plan, you would be fine. Okay. I'll have to check that, but I think, I think we just, the cars dropped off somehow, but I'm not sure there's six. I guess it depends on where that ATM is located. Okay. I'm good. All right. Anybody else? Applicant, do you have any other questions? Chris? All right. The staff's recommendation is for approval. So the motion is for approval of PLNM JDP 2617 Great House property to the Village of Great Acres, lot 9, with no changes. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Next plan, MJDP 2619, the Maxwell, excuse me, Lyndhurst subdivision, and this is located at 201 East Maxwell. The purpose of the plan is to request a waiver to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court and add a pergola to rooftop patio above three-story portion of the structure. So we've, we looked at this previously, got East Maxwell, Stone Avenue, and Lexington Avenue, and then Hagerman Court previously came in and went through the site, and they are in the process of having that right away released, but it has not been released at this time. They have dedicated right-of-way from the existing Hagerman Court out to Stone Avenue. So what they're asking, there's a, there's a retaining wall along the north side of Hagerman Court, and then the the proposed building along the south side with a five-foot sidewalk, so they're asking for a waiver to not have to put a sidewalk on the north side of Hagerman Court. Under requirements not met, number one, denote all building buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls 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. Number two, denote structures built in areas of alluvial soils will have a foundation and footer detail prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Number three, correct commission certification, and number four, correct vicinity map to reflect current lot configuration. It just shows the old multiple lots prior to all the lots being consolidated, minus the right-of-way for Hagerman Court. Let's see, waivers necessary to request, request to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court. Under design considerations, number one, the sidewalk should be built on the five feet of space provided. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, confirm that trash and recycle compactors will be used at this complex. Number two, what is the status of relinquishing the previous Hagerman Court right-of-way to adjacent properties? And under, staff does recommend approval with sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, bike ped, open space, Division of Waste Management, Division of Water Quality's approval of the CAP requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and then finally, number 12, provided the Planning Commission grants, WAV 26-5 to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court, and then number 13, to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll turn it over to the committee. I spoke with the engineer that's been following this construction and he says basically that area is already graded for that level space, and then my question is, if it's not concrete sidewalk, what's it gonna be? Dirt? Grass that somebody has to weed eat? I don't know. Right. And then again, you're dedicating this public right-of-way, so who's gonna maintain it? Right. I don't understand. I looked multiple times for the justification in the waiver record and didn't see it, so maybe they have more information. You can remove number two under requirements not met. Okay. Anybody else? Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. So when we originally filed this, we discussed about not doing the sidewalking, so it's not a new concept for us to do this. The reason we didn't do it before is we didn't get our waiver filed in time, so we just wanted to keep the ball rolling because time was important for them to meet their schedule. So I'm back revisiting this. So we feel the sidewalk on the south side is, for what it's going to be used for, is more than adequate to serve the needs. It's going to serve the needs of the apartment and anybody walking down the alley. Currently there's no sidewalks in the alley. They do have a concrete strip behind the curb where all the garbage cans sit on, but there is no sidewalks on the alley. Yeah. Well, okay. It's a street. It's one way and it's kind of a non-typical street. You know, it doesn't really meet any kind of standards for Lexington. So the new street where we've realigned it, it doesn't necessarily meet standards either. We had to have a waiver to make the right-of-way 34 feet as opposed to 52 feet. So that part of it is two-way, but the rest of the Hagerman Street is one-way. So the wall that, there's a wall that kind of runs down this side. The wall itself kind of makes the sidewalk there a little bit imposing because you got a wall on one side and a curb on the other. So you don't have a lot of, I guess, room to maneuver on it. When you get to the end, when you get to the end down here, there's no sidewalks that we're picking up into. Whereas this sidewalk actually ties into the building and will be used quite a bit. As far as concrete versus grass, I mean, it won't be dirt, it will be grass. And can you show me a street in Lexington that doesn't have grass utility strip on it? It's, yes. But I guess the property owner generally adjacent to that utility strip is responsible for the maintenance. So now is the maintenance going to be the people on the other side of the wall, which doesn't make any sense? And then is this apartment going to mow that strip? Because it's part of this development? Well, we can we can make that a condition upon approval. I still don't understand. That that's mowed, but I mean, who mows the median in Polo Club? I mean, this happens all over the city. I don't know why that's such an issue here. It's supposed to be identified on the plat who's responsible for the median. Okay, well we can add language that department will, as part of their maintenance of their site, they'll maintain the grass strip on the other side and keep it mowed. It is a little confusing because the, I mean, I know this may not be new to you all, but on your development plan you showed it. So regardless of your timing of your waiver and all of those other things, it was showed to us with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. There's five foot there. You can build a five foot sidewalk there. There are tons of times that you and other folks have brought in sidewalks directly adjacent to walls, right? And we've even asked for increased width, but we still get five feet because of the wall next to it. So I hear a lot of your arguments, but what I don't understand is just why not put the sidewalk in? It doesn't matter that there aren't sidewalks somewhere else. There may eventually be sidewalks there. It's a two-way street. If there's not a sidewalk on that side, people will tend to walk in the roadway as opposed to on the sidewalk. And you can make any argument you want, but we have sidewalks on both sides of roads as a part of the requirement because it's a safety issue. It just is a safety issue. So it's not safer to not have a sidewalk there, and it's not impossible to build a sidewalk there. So I don't quite understand any of those other arguments around why it shouldn't go there because they don't address the safety of people walking in the street versus a sidewalk. So that's that's what I don't understand. You're not saying it's unsafe to build a sidewalk. You're not saying that it's safer to not have the sidewalk. So why not have the sidewalk? I'm saying it won't be used. Well, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I mean, this will be used. No, no, you can't say it won't be used. You can't say it won't be used. You just can't say that. It decreases the safety of the public right away. That's it. I mean, it will be used. If it's there, it will be used. Okay, so if that is your concern, is the city going to build sidewalks down this one-way street? So the question is, is your development plan going to build the sidewalks on your property as shown on the development plan to meet the condition that's required? You can ask for the waiver, but we're saying we're not in favor of that. Just because you have to build a sidewalk doesn't mean the city's going to go in and put sidewalks in every street they've approved since, you know, 1928. Oh, no, they won't. Exactly, so that's not a legitimate argument. But we do when we build new projects. You know that, right? Like, we are going back and fixing all of the sidewalks that didn't get built as a part of development for the last hundred plus years, all the time. So that's why we require them now, right? Because we have to do that. So we're not, the city first of all, which is us, right? Everybody, right? We build sidewalks as a part of any road projects that we do. Well. I mean, right? Right? So that's why we're asking you to do the same. I just don't agree with your argument that, I mean, to me, safe is let's get people going down the sidewalk that is to the south that has no constraints on it. And it's where most people with any common sense are going to walk on that side because it actually goes somewhere, whereas the other side doesn't. The point is. Well, I mean, he brought it up. Right, right. We're having a discussion. The point is that the safest condition is a sidewalk. So. On both sides of the street, as we were showing in the development plan. Regardless, you still can go after the waiver. You'll just have to convince the planning commission of that. On the south side, will you not have the building face at the right of way, or no? No. So, your argument about no. Yes, yes. The sidewalk is at the. No, she said the building. On the south side. The building. It's a question. I don't know. The building is back here. It's set back. And there's a grass strip between the back of the walk and the building. It's ten feet. There's a building set back of ten feet. All right. Thanks for that clarification. I just wanted to have more information. Um. The other question is. Um. Are we going to build a sidewalk. Just to where. Their property ended. If it's required. Or is it going to be required to be built. Here where there currently is no sidewalk. Well. You built the new street. And the street. Requires sidewalks on both sides. So. The street requires sidewalks on both sides. In our subdivision regulations. So. The whole length. All right. I'm going to move on. On the. Pergola. Does anybody. Take issue with the pergola. I've. I've talked to building inspection. Building inspection says. We have no problem. With pergola. So. Will it be visible. From the right of way. The planning commission established. A three story limit. On that portion of the building. Which your applicant agreed to. And. So I'm wondering. Will the pergola. Actually appear like it's a four story building now. Instead of three. Or will it be set back. I mean it'll be. I don't know what the right word. Opaque. You can see through it. It's just provide some shade. It'll be along that wall. That faces. Lexington Avenue. So. It'll be. Along this side. And. You know one thing that's changed. Since. Since this was approved too. And it was discussed. Was those before there were houses across the street. And now it's approved for. You know something of similar size. I'm not sure. The height of it. But it's. Again. Was that a condition. Of the zoning. That you can't have a pergola. It just wasn't brought up. And now it is. Yeah. There were elevations. That the applicant provided. And the planning commission approved those. Specifically. With a note that they. Agree with those. Yeah and I don't think there was an elevation. On Lexington Avenue. There was an elevation on. Maxwell. And there was an elevation on Stone. Right. Which didn't depict the. It didn't depict any. Structural improvements. Above three stories. What I'm saying. There's no elevation that. Showed it. It showed it. It showed Maxwell. No we already had this conversation in house. Which is why your plan only got certified. With three stories. When you filed it you had four. And we had to circle back and say no. You went to the planning commission. With these elevations that had three. Right but was there an elevation. On Lexington Avenue. No it was on Maxwell. Three stories. Three and then it went up to seven. There was no view of this area. There was an elevation. Okay. It covers the entire frontage. Along Maxwell. Okay. Again are you against the pergola. Or. Is that something we can do. Or cannot. Based on. What you just said. Building inspection said yes. Well I think. We can look at the ordinance. A little closer. I think you're allowed three stories. Without planning commission approval. And over three stories. Needs planning commission approval. Okay. It's not over three stories. It's a pergola. It's an active. Outdoor area. On the roof. Of the third floor. It's active. I mean. There's going to be people out there. There's grills. It's a seating area. And. Now we want a pergola over it. I wouldn't say that's four stories now. It's still three stories. I don't think building inspection. Necessarily. Yeah. They're saying. I guess. We're okay with a pergola. Does it meet the ordinance? Is the question. To me it's. Improvements above three stories. Require planning commission approval. But it was always approved. With improvements above. Not a pergola. Which is a structure. It says right there. Rooftop patio. So it's approved. If it was approved. You wouldn't need to file an amendment. To add it. Only reason. I'm filing amendments. Because planning said you need to file an amendment. Building inspection said you're good to go. And building inspection. Is not in charge of enforcing. The zoning ordinance. So. Let me answer. These questions on here. Firm trash and recycle compactors. Will be used. Yes. Everything's internal. There's nothing external. No dumpsters. Or there won't be herbie kirbies. Or anything outside. Status of Hagerman court. Abandonment. So. We have filed this. Actually quite a while ago. And it's in the hands of. Nathan Dickerson. I'm not sure his department name. But. I think it's environmental services. He. No. It's the department of public works. That's not what his business card says. You're probably right. Business card. Question. If this waiver would go through. Without the sidewalk. You would have to amend the plat. For Hagerman court. That is a part of that. Public works. Acceptance. No. We have to do one final. Consolidation plat. Didn't you already file one. To dedicate the right of way. Yeah. Hagerman court. This portion. This is all dedicated. It's actually from here to here. This part is existing. It was always there. So you'd have to do a plat amendment. We have to do. A final plat. It dedicates any utilities. That need to be added. Which we don't anticipate there is any. And it consolidates. The right of way. It's not showing on here. Right now we have two lots. And when the next plat. Will consolidate the right of way. And the two lots all into one property. I understand. But the dedication. That is going through shows. Two sidewalks. And then you want to take it off. It seems like. They are approving and accepting something. And then you are going to change it. Okay. This was discussed. A long time ago. And this is. What I was told to do. Let's wait. I know. I don't follow. What you are saying. Just currently. The plat that is going through. Shows two sidewalks. Which is what everybody agreed on. And what the council will accept. As public right of way. And then with this amendment. You are proposing. You are taking the sidewalk off. And it just seems. I can't take it off on a plat. It is the development plan that approves it. I understand. It is the approval of something. And then you are changing it. If this gets approved. On the development plan. I will amend the plat. And adjust the section on it. It will no longer show sidewalk. It is a order of operations. All right. I think we. I thought this was a really simple thing. And it has turned into. A hair puller. Do you have anything else? No. Anybody else? All right. The staff's recommendation. Is for approval. Of PLNM. JDP 2619. The Maxwell and Hersta division amended. With the removal of note number two. Under requirements not met. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? The motion passes. With the opposition. With opposing votes. From traffic engineering and engineering. But the motion still passes. If we need that for the record. Thank you. Should I say it? Because Matt. You don't have affidavits for this one. Or for Bryant. You put up your signs. And your pictures. And your affidavits. Have not been submitted. I think Cheryl is reminding you. That those are due. At tech committee. And we don't have them yet. So just an FYI. Okay. And then again with Bryant properties. Okay. Just want to kind of reiterate it. Make sure that. We're crossing our T's. We're going to move forward. To MJDP 2622. Bryant property amended. This property. Is located. Off Bryant Road. This is Pleasant Ridge. Up here at the top. Manor Wars down at the other end. We were just talking about this last month. Because we had a preliminary in for it. The preliminary was showing. The hotel. Here in the front. They were looking for. This portion of the property. They had a plan in also. To have this private access. Dedicated to public right of way. And then they were showing us. A layout for. Apartments. With 100 apartments. And then. A green area. Open space area. At the meeting. Last month at the meeting. This plan was. Put to a continue. Discussion to the next planning commission meeting. We. So we have a new plan. For preliminary. But this is the final development plan. So they're submitting the final development plan. Which we think is a little early. Before the preliminary has been approved. By the planning commission. All buildings. Paving signs. Fences walls. Retaining walls. Change buildings. From A through D. To 1 through 4. And this is where I'm talking about. Based on the outcome of the preliminary development plan. Application. Will need to denote waiver. Approved. Provide a revised plan. That conforms with the zoning ordinance. And then the final development plan. Questions. Staff is recommending postponement. Should the plan be approved. We have engineering traffic landscaping. Addressing. Urban forest or environmental quality. Bike and ped. Open space. Division of fire. Waste management. Documentation of division water quality. U.S. postal service. And then correct all note deficiencies. I have not had time to look at the preliminary. But I'm hoping to get that reviewed. Prior to the next planning commission meeting. Which then we should have revised conditions for that. So I'll just leave that open to you all. To see if there's any other comments or questions. Staff. Applicant. If you want to make any comments. Staff. Applicant. If you want to make any comments. Staff. Applicant. Matt Carter. Vision engineering. I guess my big question is. Can this. Go forward. Or do we. I guess procedurally we have to wait. Until the. Is it just wait until the planning. Preliminary is approved. By the planning commission. Or does it have to be certified. Well. It has to be certified. Otherwise it's useless. Right. Your preliminary plan has to be certified. Then your final plan gets certified. Approved and certified. But I mean. Can this go through the process. But we don't get sign offs. Until the other is. Here's my concern. This plan that got filed. Does not look like the file. The plan you brought in. Yesterday or Monday. You need to review. As a body. Yes. I think the preliminary plan needs to get approved. By the planning commission. Theoretically that can get certified. Fairly quickly. Then you can have the final plan. Approved by TRC. Okay. I'm in agreement. I'm not going to sit here and discuss this. Because it's not the plan. We're going forward with. It's different. It addresses a lot of. Concerns people have had. That's the one you all need to be looking at. With sign offs from TRC members. When they sign off on the preliminary. Then they see the final. That matches. That is an easier process. I agree. You'll have to resubmit new prints. For this. To match whatever gets signed. Okay. All right. Anybody have any other. Additional questions? Okay. The staff's recommendation is for a postponement. The motion is for a postponement. Of PLNM JDP 2622. Bryan property. With no changes. So moved. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Right. Right. Okay. Next plan. MJDP 2623. Beaumont forest unit 2. Lots 2 and 3. We do also have a preliminary plan. In the process for this. It's currently in certification. And the purpose of this plan. Is to depict the parking lot. Circulation and detention. This is located. At 2400 great stone point. This is. Harrodsburg road. The property backs up. To Harrodsburg. It does not have access off of Harrodsburg road. And then Alexandria comes down. And intersects Harrodsburg road. Roughly here. And this is great stone point. That comes off of Alexandria. And this is members way. Which comes off of the cul-de-sac bulb. There's an existing building. On I believe it's 2400. And then they're proposing. To expand their parking area. Onto the lot to the east. Which is 2401. And then have a connection. Out to members way. For that portion of the. Parking lot. And then one of the conditions. Is that the lots will be consolidated. Or they would need to get a conditional use. Stand alone parking on that lot. But I believe the intent is for consolidation. So under requirements not met. Number one denote zoning and site statistics. Number two denote correct commission certification. Number three correct. Illegible text in the lighting schedule tables. And lumen area statistics. On the lighting plan. I think the information is there Matt. But it's like a screen shot. That they've blown up. And it's really blurry. And you can't read the text. On the lighting plan. Number four sidewalk should be seven feet. Adjacent to parking. Or a waiver will be required for five feet. Number five. Note number 16 is redundant. Number six provide and depict bicycle parking. At 10% of the total vehicular parking provided. Number seven amend tree inventory. Maple to be saved is incorrectly listed as black cherry. Number eight. Add RLA stamp. Or ISA certified arborist name. And certification number on tree protection plan. Number nine. Depict and label tree protection areas. And provide mitigation plan. And add to justification and statistics boxes. You cannot use articles 18 or 26. Requirements for mitigation. Number ten. Upload correct open space exhibit. Discussed and approved on 2-18-26. Ensure the common open space note is included in the development plan. Number 11. Lot consolidation. Or board of adjustment approval of conditional use permit. Shall occur prior to plan certification. Number 12. Preliminary development plan must be certified prior to plan certification. Like I said. It's in the sign off phase at this point. Under design considerations. Number one. Dumpster enclosure can only have the dumpster. No other containers are allowed. Number two. Verify stormwater capacity for quality and quantity is available in the existing systems. And number three. See previous comments for MJDP 26-5. And under. There are no planned questions or concerns at this time. And we do recommend approval with conditions. Sign offs for engineering. Traffic engineering. Landscaping. Addressing urban forester. Environmental quality. Bike ped. Open space. Division of fire. Division of waste management. Division of water quality. Approval of the cap requirements. U.S. Postal Service. And finally to correct all noted deficiencies. Listed as requirements not met herein. And with that. I'll open up to you all for questions. Comments. Discussion. You can remove water quality cap. Okay. Anyone else? We can probably take off the post office. Okay. If they're consolidating. They won't need a mailbox for parking lot. Yeah. All right. Any other questions? Applicant. Matt Carter. Vision engineering. We have a question. We have a question. We have a question. We have a question. Preliminary development plan was. All the sign-offs are in. So. And we submitted a MILR for final certification. So we should be. Once you all get your review done. We should be good on that. Storm water capacity. Those calculations were done. Turned into engineering. I think engineering is on hold. But I'm not sure. Those calculations were done. Turned into engineering. I think engineering is on hold. Until this plan gets certified. Before they'll do their final review. But. There is storm water capacity. And all that's taken care of. And on this one. We're ahead of the game. As far as. We already have our construction plans finished. And they're just waiting for this plan. To be certified. And approved. Other than that. If you've got any questions. I'll be glad to answer those. I've got one for you. Scott. Yes. That dumpster location. Down there. That is going to be a separate. Enclosure. Yes. From that sharp object. Material thing. It's not the same enclosure is it? Fred talked about it. Last month I think. There's a sharps container. And. It has to be a separate. If I understand from solid waste. The sharps container pickup. Is picked up by a different group. Not solid waste. So there's like a separation between. What is sharps? It's like a medical equipment. Vaccination. Sharp. Sharp things. Sharp material waste disposal. I've never. I mean. It looks. It looks like a container. Of type. If it's going to be in that dumpster enclosure. It's going to be separated from it. It needs to be separated from it. I'll verify that. Yeah. Fred this too. When we looked at the preliminary plan. There was no sidewalk in those islands. Kind of southwest of that cul-de-sac there. And it's dimensioned at 6 feet. And it appears to be back of curb. It needs to be 7 feet to meet the ordinance requirement. We think if you include the face of the curb. You'll be there. But it's hard to tell at this scale. It's supposed to be 7 feet. Just so you're aware. Yes. Right in there. I think you've got it. Try and remove a tree too. If there's. Do what? It looks like you're depicting a tree there. So yeah. In the middle of the sidewalk. So if you're installing a sidewalk. I think you can remove that. Yes. Just so you're aware. That's what we'll be looking for. When this comes through. Yep. Anybody else? Matt. You good? Good. Okay. So staff recommends approval. So the motions for approval. PLN. MJDP. 2623. Beaumont Forest Unit 2. Lots 2 and 3. With. The removal of sign offs. Sign offs for the Vision All Equality. Capacity Assurance Program. And the United States Postal Service Office. Approval of kiosk locations or easements. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right the motion passes. Okay we're moving down the agenda. We're moving to our zone changes. This is going to be MJDP 2515 Lockmere Track 4B a portion of Andover Club. This is Todd's Road here. And this is everybody knows Carson's out here. They're proposing to rezone a piece of property here from the R1T zone to a B1 zone so that they can add additional parking. This was a development that was done several years ago for fourplexes connecting up to this direction up through here and then coming off of the Country Club this way we had a proposal for town homes down in this area. This one? And backwards sorry. Okay. Had them backwards. Then this is the part of the property and there's a large open space with a pond. But what we're looking at is rezoning this piece of property right here adjacent to the parking lot for the Carsons cutting out a piece of what was developed over here with the fourplexes. So requirements not met. Denote all buildings paving signs, fences, walls, retaining walls that are depicted and described. On this development shall be required a separate review by building permits. Denote no building permits shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Upload open space exhibit to Acela. Include the open space requirements and the site statistics. Note and label height of canopy. Addition of addresses for all properties. Addition of building lines. Addition of missing ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...