everybody it's 830 and since we've got a little bit of a heavy agenda we'll go ahead and get rolling for those of you with a packet we're missing one staff report Paul's went to make copies of that she's gonna bring back it's for the WML under three numbers or under three letter C the WML properties to Paul is going to bring the staff reports for those all right the first plan on our agenda FRP 26 9 Turner property in Meadowthorpe Community Business Center Turner Commons this is located at 125 Turner Commons way final record plat the purpose of this plan is to subdivide the existing three lots into ten lots and to create the private street right-of-way so we've got East Main out here this is Forbes and then the this is the way this plan is depicted they've split it up this this portion extends here so just for the sake of fitting it all on page they've they've split it up so they're showing the private street right-of-way and then the associated lots and within the development so under requirements not met number one upload flattened PDF to a cell and just a reminder for all our design professionals please flatten your PDFs before you upload them to a cell and that includes any revisions and updates and that just helps when we're trying to look at plans as a group on a screen and we've got these boxes that keep popping up and that just helps better for presentation and to be able to use these in an efficient way number two correct title to final record plat number three denote name and mailing address property owner and or developer number four denote private utilities number five label sidewalks and depict the trail in the cross-sections as applicable number six add urban county engineer certification number seven addition of standard notes for sanitary sewer and easement maintenance and number eight a preliminary subdivision plan is required when there's planned infrastructure we we've not been able to find a preliminary development plan or I'm sorry a preliminary subdivision plan for this and this is a final record flat so under waivers number one alternate cross-section for industrial local street again we look back to see if there had been waivers for this up to this point and and we couldn't find any under design considerations number one review all a cell of comments provided by the Division of Engineering number two an independent sanitary sewer connection is required for the created lot please verify each lot has connection under plan questions and concerns number one has all infrastructure been completed number two is the stormwater management area located by address on the plat and number three is maintenance of on-site stormwater management defined we do recommend postponement at this time due to the lack of the approved preliminary subdivision plan and the need for a waiver for an alternate cross-section so that we have sign offs for engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike pit open space addition of utility and streetlight easements Division of Water Quality's approval of the cap requirements US Postal Service and then finally number 12 to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met here in and with that I'll open it up to the committee for discussion you can remove landscaping okay you can remove environmental quality too you so we're three number three and number six any other any other discussion on this one all right applicant here you hello I'm Brian Ward Palmer engineering I just guess I'll go through the numbers here beginning with one I thought we had a flattened PDF uploaded to a cellar it should be there I don't know why it wouldn't be but I'll double check that we'll update the title as requested you know the name mailing address property owner developer yeah we can add that thought it was on there but it may not be denote private utilities all the sewer for this has been constructed and there's a clean out for each lot I presume I just need to show the sewer line on the plant sidewalks to pick the trail and cross-section yes I can label those items as well they're on the approved development plan but I can put them on the plant as well and include that in the street section additional standard notes sanitary sewer easement maintenance yeah I can we can add that that's that's no problem preliminary plan is required okay preliminary subdivision of requirement there's a there is planned infrastructure I believe all the infrastructure is approved or constructed except for maybe some surfacing of street paving a surfacing of streets and things of that nature I know we've got a water quality basin nearly complete constructed the storm sewers constructed the sewer sanitary sewers constructed I'm wondering do we need and it's all shown on the print on an approved development plan do I need to submit a separate subdivision plan even though it's shown on an approved development plan and it's in construction or constructed it may have been like an administrative miss but typically you would for any infrastructure you would have a subdivision plan it would just be both they'd be like point development plan subdivision plan okay when you so I mean we've got a man three years there for years good well came in for that but I think y'all real got got serious about it about three years ago okay so yeah and awesome question last question is a waiver for the cross-section of the street those streets are the exact streets on the approved development plan as well so we still have to get a waiver for them even though they're approved on a development plan you want a second waiver for the same thing that's the question if you do we'll just we'll follow the paperwork for a second waiver it's just I think it's we looked at it and it should have been at some point addressed and I think it just hasn't before now if it doesn't meet the standard cross-section then it it would have to not it would require I was positive we came back to the last development plan last year we requested that waiver if you all didn't see it in the file because I thought that was one of your conditions if not we'll follow the waiver request by Friday because I think that's the deadline right yeah and and I can look again but we Cheryl and I went through and we okay we didn't thought we looked for the the preliminary subdivision plan and we looked on the development plan right it's a development yeah yeah yeah yeah okay we'll file it then by Friday on the preliminary subdivision plan issue you know this the reason we're doing this is that this law right here we've been trying to get subdivided based on a call of staff last September and we submitted a minor plan we were told we can't do the minor plan to submit final record plat we've done this so like I'll begin like if we have to go back and do a minor subdivision plan and then come back for final record plat and we're delayed to six months like I just want to know like what we have to do because we didn't down this road we tried to do a minor plan we had to a fight was not with planning staff over how many lots there were and we just have a disagreement on what deeds mean for lots versus tracks and we were told in that conversation with Tracy way to do a final record plat is a major plans that's what we've done if we have to go back and do a preliminary subdivision plan tell us what the rules are I'll follow it but I don't want to have these plans these calls with staff we do something and we have to come back and do it again because this would be the third time we have to change what we're doing I just want to know what the rules are so you'll tell me what what we have to do and we'll go do it I think what's happened is we've realized that there wasn't a preliminary subdivision plan and I I wasn't part of the process before so I can't speak firsthand how how it all went all I'm we can when Tracy gets here we can talk to her about it too we haven't had a chance because she was stuck out of town yesterday and so we couldn't discuss it but it looks like to us that there had never been a preliminary subdivision plan and you have to have that before I don't I don't disagree with that here's my question this is like this is the first time we before anybody's you're getting caught up in probably some of the minutiae but I just wanted this I've got to get this lap this lot platted I've been trying since September's when we had an initial call with staff you won't tell me the rules to do it I'm gonna get it done I just I just can't keep coming back and being told right well it looks like it looks like according to the requirements not met that you need a preliminary subdivision plan so I would just go with that for now until you hear otherwise okay same with the other things that are listed here that that's what this is the requirements of the ordinance so that's a requirement of the ordinance unless someone tells you otherwise so it looks like you need a waiver and you need a preliminary subdivision plan so that's where I go forward so on the infrastructure regardless of if the infrastructure is completed we still have to have a preliminary subdivision plan if the infrastructure is completed do I still need that okay take a look in the lens subdivision regulations it goes over the process of developing infrastructure and and then there's a bonding provision in there too so I've looked at that that's really yeah okay all right thank you all right anybody have anything else on this good okay staff's recommendation is for postponement so the motions for postponement of PLN FRP 26 9 Turner property at in metaphor Community Business Center with the removal of number three landscape examiners approval of landscaping and number six Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas and greenways so moved all in favor is anyone opposed all right you we're moving forward to FRP 26 10 lock me or track for lot one and over a golf club course and amendment we are located out here off at Todd's Road excuse me this is Country Club Drive coming in from some four plexus in this area coming through into this area they have a expired development a preliminary development plan on these townhomes here and what they're trying to do is subdivided into individual lots plus a third lot or an additional lot there they want 14 single-family lots and then a separate lot we just did a zone change last month in this area to rezone a portion of this property to business for the adjacent property where the Carson's is so with that like I said currently the preliminary subdivision plan final development plan has expired so the requirements not met the file the file plan does not comply with the required planning process established by the land subdivision regulations specifically articles 4-3 and 4-4 the plan cannot be approved prior to the preliminary approval of the preliminary subdivision plan so they will need to file a new preliminary subdivision plan design considerations review all a cell of comments with Division of Engineering access this access and sewer to each lot are not yet complete please verify easement shown on plat match infrastructure and field playing questions and concerns discuss the expired development plan which references the certified final development plan in note number 12 excuse me then we go to the staff recommends a postponement with the should the plan get approved we'll have engineering traffic landscape addressing urban forest or environmental quality bike and ped open space additional utilities and streetlights documentation division water quality US Postal Service and then it says connect correct all note deficiencies with that I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions or if anyone can be removed from this list you go landscaping three and six to be removed anyone else have any other comments or questions yeah I think we'll be filing our final development plan quickly on this and I think we could combine that with a preliminary subdivision plan to take care of that and put this one obviously you'd have to come have come after that so I think we can take care of it by this through the process and can I ask for a little clarification if we have property that's been developed and it's been sitting for X number of years we won't come back and do a subdivision plan will we always have to go back through the PSP even if it looks like a fully developed site it depends on if you have infrastructure that's been built okay so if you don't need any new infrastructure if you don't need to build a road do the stormwater or sanitary sewers if those were all built and then you stopped then you can proceed with a okay well off to look at it I think you have you have to record all your plats within five years of the plan you probably do need a new preliminary subdivision plan I mean that's been in the ordinance since the 80s so that's nothing new well I remember we used to come along if the street had been built you know ten years later we might divide out some more lots from whatever the big parcel was and I just wanted to know if I need to start telling people they got to do a PSP prior to just going straight to plan I mean yeah if there is infrastructure to be okay but if the infrastructure is there we've had sewers and roads in before we've come along the plats later I just want to see where that falls and you probably brought in plats with that to dedicate right-of-way and easements but maybe not subdivided the parcels out into smaller parcels yeah I mean I think normally you guys follow the process you build it then you record the easements because you want to turn that over to us and I'll hold on to it for a long time right well you know there have been places where we've had all the infrastructure in and we just didn't record individual lots that's what I'm worried about I think we have to evaluate it on a case-by-case you know just it depends on how much infrastructure you did build didn't build what you recorded did you follow the plan okay oh is there any more questions on this one all right anybody got anything else no good all right so the staff's recommendation is for postponement so the motion is for the postponement of PLN FRP 2610 lock mirror track for a lot one and over a club course amended with the removal of note number three under conditional sign offs and number six so moved all in favor is anyone opposed motion passes so this case will just stay in on the tech committee agenda until you submit a new plan or something else that would trigger you coming back and getting an approval recommendation so it doesn't automatically switch to approval even though you get your preliminary subdivision plan approved again this plant needs to match that right yeah we right now you're assuming it will but we haven't seen it so we don't have any idea and would it be at the same TRC as or do I have to wait until the PSP is approved or certified you can get it approved you just can't get it certified until everything's built right your plat can't be certified until you've ready to you have sewer to each lot and you know all the regular requirements yes I was just wondering if they can appear at the same TRC as the preliminary subdivision plan sure just on the same track okay well they won't ever be on the same track a plat always follows a preliminary subdivision plan yes yes okay we're gonna move on down the agenda we're gonna go to PLN FRP 2611 Sebastian property unit 3 lot 77 amended this property is located out off Leastown it faces Leastown Road and then this is white oak trace I believe they have proposal for 20 buildable lots on the property coming off of white oak trace with an access easement running along behind homes facing Leastown and then you'll have several townhomes facing this single-family lot in the rear requirements not met addition of sinkhole note for adjacent properties addition of geotechnical note for from plat plat s 377 no waivers design considerations infrastructure work is incomplete plan questions or concerns is the side four-foot sidewalk easement along 9196 existing will the sidewalk along 79 through 90 ultimately connect to the sidewalk along Leastown Road have all the easement releases been completed verify easement depicted on plat match infrastructure and field staff recommends approval with the following conditions engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality a bike and ped open space utilities and streetlights documentation of division water quality US Postal Office and then correct all note deficiencies listed requirements not met here on and I open it to the committee to see if anyone can be removed from this all right there's any landscaping can be removed okay okay are there any other comments or questions if not applicant good morning again Rory Kaylee yeah partners this one's approval I like this the plans of questions and designs considerations yes we're almost done with the infrastructure trying to get there the four-foot sidewalk is not for the existing yet sidewalks that are shown on this planner are going in and there is a location the long stretch of units 79 through 90 connect back to the other townhouses and then there is a spot where it will tie out to the Leastown Road Street not each house runs out but there's one that serves that whole string there don't believe we have all the easement releases yet but we can't record until we do and any questions you good yep no other questions on our end all right this task recommendation is for approval so the motions for approval of PLN FRP 2611 Sebastian property unit 3 lot 77 amended with the removal of condition number 3 landscaper landscape examiners approval of landscaping so moved all in favor is anyone opposed motion passes thank you okay move along this is our first development plan MJ DP 2627 Hayes and property Montmullin Street subdivision ever Lexington this is located at 121 Peral Street 118 Montmullin Street and 545 553 563 South limestone so on this plan this is South limestone here the building fronts South limestone this is Peral Street and then this is Montmullin here so this this development takes up the whole block between Montmullin and Peral Street there was a recent zone zone change to form based b1 the purpose of the plan is to depict a multi-story mixed-use building utilizing the neighbor neighborhood business form based project provisions of the b1 zone the plan includes 155 residential dwelling units and non-residential space they are proposing ill and a leasing office actually shows two leasing offices or it's just labeled twice they also show in internal an internal parking structure on the lower levels of the building with the residential above the change between this and the preliminary the main changes are they previously showed an entrance off of Montmullin in roughly this location and an entrance off Peral here and it appears as if they've combined it into one and I believe in the previous iteration the levels on the parking structure weren't connected and now they are and I may be wrong about that they can correct me if I am but then they're they're showing the associated upper levels of the building under requirements not met number one denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved number two denote the development plan shall comply with the area area character and context study as approved by the Planning Commission per zoning ordinance article 8-1603 number three certification number four provide provide full-size paper copy of the lighting plan number five provide updated area character and context study reflecting changes made from the preliminary development plan number six label all spaces within the building I believe there's some there's some spaces shown that particularly here and here and if they it looks like they may be unexcavated space on the lower level but they just need to be labeled number seven submit an open space exhibit that match the site statistics box on the development plan number eight provide bicycle parking facilities that comply with zoning ordinance article 616-12 number nine submit a tree inventory map tree protection plan as a separate document number ten dimension all driveways and walkways number eleven commercial driveway entrance shall comply and comply with standard drawing 307-2 number twelve the existing retaining wall to label the existing retaining wall at the rear of the property number thirteen update the note under the limestone cross-section and number fourteen to note square footage of commercial space and site statistics box there are no waivers requested or identified at this time and under design considerations see all a cella comments provided by the Division of Engineering number two if a sewer capacity application has already been filed it will have to be updated prior to the issue issuance of building permits sanitary sewer analysis is needed to evaluate the additional flow on the existing system and number three what is the proposal for stormwater management number four reconcile depicted creek street cross-sections with more recent plats number five clarifies sidewalk widths number six verify and discuss existence of power pole and sidewalk on mont mullin street and then under plan questions or concerns number one discuss change to dimension of street tree well on South limestone cross-section number three discuss increase in lot coverage building square footage number of bedrooms and height of building number three confirm this location will have trash compactor or dumpster number four a consolidation plant will be needed to combine the various individual parcels before building permits are granted number five discuss tree boxes planners and proximity to utilities on limestone and we do recommend postponement at this time there's questions regarding the increase in height of the building and lack of an updated area character in context study then we have the sign-offs for engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike pit and open space division of fire division of waste management division water quality US Postal Service and then finally to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met and that won't turn over to the committee so number six any other discussion with the committee okay good morning Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant Rory Kaley is here Ryan bum is also here with subtext you know how rarely it is that I actually speak to this committee we're hoping that we are going to be able to ask for an approval this morning if the concern is the height we've we basically confirmed that the only change in the preliminary plan is two feet eight inches if we need to cap that at the 90 feet that was shown on the preliminary plan we are more than happy to do that and we can kind of work through any type of amended final plan during the kind of construction process we would love to get started we've been working on this project for about a year and a half and so whatever you all kind of need us to be doing throughout the certification process throughout the construction process we are more than willing to to do and work with you guys but if really the the issue that's listed for the reason for postponement is the height and we're talking about we have 90 feet as opposed to 92.8 inches the lack of a area character and context study well but we submitted that and your plan changed so the only change really was the two feet eight inches on height and your access points and we're happy to talk about access points throughout this so that should be shown in the character elevations okay okay is there any way we can do that during certification because I mean truly the Planning Commission approves that you just want to move yeah this as expeditiously as possible and I'll turn it over to the developer specifically but we're here to do whatever you guys want on this project I think you all know that as everything has gone through kind of here that we are but this requires Planning Commission approval and they have specifically approved the study and all the elevations associated with it because they're saying hey we're gonna relax all of the lot height yard requirements if you're going to build that yeah and if and if they don't know what that is if nothing has changed on the elevations well if on that on Mount Mullen it doesn't have an access anymore then there's no garage or no entrance and on Pearl Street it's shifted to where the light is no the entrance the entrance into the garage was previously further from the light and now it's closer okay so we are here at your all's discretion we truly are just a warning if you change materials if you change yes you're coming back to the Planning Commission and this is this is one of the few times you will see me up here truly just saying we are here at your all's discretion we just really want to move forward Ryan if you want to say anything in this regard yeah I just I just wanted to stretch stress our our timeline we've been working on it for about two years now overall we've made incredible strides with the neighborhood and I think everyone agrees they would like to see this be successful and we are at the point where we're every 30 days this jeopardizes the you know as we're beholden to the academic calendar so we're already about 60 days behind where we should be at this point so 30 additional days or whatever it would take to come back around here would be extremely meaningful are the box I guess our only case is that the box is the same the materials the elevations with the rig with the exception of those access points are all the same and we're happy to get those exhibits prepared in the next 48 hours to just satisfy that that that's the case and I would just make sure that you know if you're adding two feet at the top that that's reflected in those elevations as well and if you can do a summary of those changes so that it's an almost an addendum to your previous submittal as opposed to a brand-new submittal sure I think then put both of those in a cella okay and you will be at the Planning Commission in two weeks okay two weeks from tomorrow okay so it's not a full 30-day wait those things can happen in this next two weeks right I mean we know what a recommendation from this committee means and so we we are hoping for an approval recommendation because I mean it's cards on the table time and we're happy to do whatever you guys so so Tracy so these two items that you all have listed are procedural right like like so so I guess I'm guessing I'm asking is that's right that's right so but that will go back before the Planning Commission if they submit those things in time what I'm what I'm trying to figure out is is there are there technical implications that cannot be resolved between now and then that's what I'm trying to separate those two things so that's the question to this committee yes are there items that we do not feel like can be resolved if provided that I yeah so I think we understand your request we just have to figure out like if that's something we can do based on the procedural piece correct and if it impacts technical issues then probably not and if it doesn't maybe which is to be on the terms of why the postponement goes with regards to the height we're happy to put that at 90 if that is a direct concern and we very much will update the character study with regards to the access point I defer to my wise counsel here with regards to any other all right try to go through these sewer capacity I'm told that we have got the sewer systems flushed and they're ready to be I guess you guys do some sort of study on them I know Tom has been in contact with us and okay it's gone going it's just needs to be done before everything gets attached and built and everything else okay stormwater is inside underneath the building I don't know what the correct phrase is but it's handled on-site I guess as much like the other one we just did on Maxwell the cross-sections I didn't see a plat on our parcels that was more up-to-date but we can look for a new reference to the plats the sidewalks we are maintaining six foot on Mount Mullen and Prowl and eight foot on limestone there's a couple of things regarding that that we had questions about that we talked about in our plan review at one point you showed you talked about a recess on the limestone corridor is that still there so is the actual width of the sidewalk wider than eight feet so what are you showing because in the cross-section shows eight feet but then there was some talk of a recess what seven yeah it shows it's it's it's noted as eight feet on the plan it shows seven feet in the cross-section and then there's also a planter called out and it's like are those built in movable should even be noted on here like so we're trying to figure out what's the usable space right is the tree well is it a DA compliant you can walk across it or is it a tree well with no sidewalk around it so those are some things that impact that usable width adjacent to an arterial street and so we're trying to figure that out but we don't feel like we have the right information to do that so make sense that's kind of where these came from the planters are a planter they're not so accessible yes right so do we need to we don't need to see those no I mean they are built infrastructure there it'd be a curved a curved planter raised or curb curb height six inch it's like a landscape landscape correct landscape buffers okay the building is recessed four feet from the building edge so it's actually it is depicted on there it's just challenging to see but that adds four feet to the pedestrian so you actually do have between 11 and 12 feet of pedestrian walk so you might correct those cross-sections just to show what that usable width is so then we can because we were like it you know it becomes a you know just it helps us understand what's there would you would you be able to add a note about the maintenance of the planners to the street trees I think are codified as far as well I'm not sure there are this but we might be just using different Brian might be just using different terms if it's just an at grade with the sidewalk we would call that it just a tree well where you're gonna plant grass or trees or something a planter I think we were envisioning like above ground and then a tree or shrubs or something being in there to basically prevent people from crossing the street anywhere you know like a hard edge right along the roadway and so that's where I think yeah we understand yeah it's it's tree wells are it's the entire width with plantings in between the trees as well so we want that it's not going to be built up it won't be a physical barrier but it would be an impediment to discourage crossing the street yeah okay we were just making sure we understood that and make sure that that recess was still there and we think that the utilities will be removed from overhead there so plan on small trees something in that planter and we think we're going to be able to work out so we don't have the conflict above I'm told there's this district all but one pole can be removed I think a long limestone something about one streetlight can't be switched over so I think that's the one that has to stay on and is the intent a great thing it was just the the streetlight was just the timing we didn't want to because it would leave a three or three to four hundred foot gap for maybe six you know depending on how long it takes y'all to get started and we were just worried about lighting until because it doesn't take them that long to get it out of the way so we didn't want to do it now maybe August or September before you actually need it out of the way okay so just let us know when it comes closer when you're actually starting to work and we'll get it you can move yeah we just didn't want the light to be missing for unnecessarily for an extended period of time and will those tree wells and plants be maintained by this property owner yeah the problem Mount Mullen we have the sidewalks away from the building and the planters up next to it to soften the edge along limestone to discourage students crossing over that's where we moved planter at the curbs edge and brought the pedestrians up under the building with that little overhang and we'll maintain the we'll get in there the minimum sidewalk distances and show on the section where the I think we can add how the overhang will affect that cross-section and just to put it on the record absolutely nothing is changing on building materials building appearance anything at all with like the only change really is just these access points and 2 feet 8 inches but if we need to cap that at 90 or we can cap it at 90 or we're happy to do that anybody else did you answer the solid waste oh yeah the plan on doing the same thing as that max well which is private hauler with carts that will come out of the building and there's a location along sidewalk and curb where they'll be stacked for pickup day a problem so they're gonna hide in the little square there where it says trash and then so we've got a site plan that we're working out where would the trash carts will be rolled to and set for pickup I know it from the previous one we had to have it strapped off and I think we had a curb edge to hold them all in place and all that stuff anybody else yeah they're not the little plastic ones are a little bit bigger does anybody else have questions Chris are you yeah long okay are you all okay with an approval okay all right is it nothing else that's good okay so the motion is for approval PLN and PLN MJDP 2627 Hayes and property Multnomah Street subdivision Everett Lexington with the removal of condition six Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas and greenways so moved all in favor is anyone opposed all right thank you okay we're moving forwards we're going to have a PLN MJ 2628 LFU CG Mill Creek subdivision unit 3 Jonestown this property is located off of a Armstrong Mill Road we have green tree down in this area we have a large we had a storm project that went through here not too long ago what they're doing is they're coming back in to add the pool on to the the development plan because they had removed it because it was within the floodplain so they've been working on a Lomar and so with that they're to revise the Lomar the floodplain area on the plan with requirements not met all to note all building pay buildings paving signs fences walls retaining walls that are depicted this note from building inspection to note areas with alluvial soils will be developed in accordance with article 6-11 of the land sub regs to note no building permit shall be issued until a final development plan is approved to note no land disturbance construction clear native vegetation or mowing and note from engineering to note the Greenway HOA area shown here on is a portion of the West Hitman conservation Greenway corridor we have a long note for that identify the center line of the blue line stream addition of record plat information lighten hatching for legibility the last plan some of that hatching made it difficult to read update Street cross-section for Armstrong Mill Road there was improvements done along Armstrong Mill we need to get the correct street cross-section remove stream hatching from the buildings update sanitary sewer capacity application on file addition of post-development canopy coverage methodology and site statistics for the tree canopy list the proposed VUA interior tree canopy in accordance with articles 18 to pick the regulatory flood protection elevation and or flood protection yeah elevation add Clomar number to purpose statement and upload copy of Clomar to a solid record there's no waivers at this time design considerations fire department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of exterior building measured by an approved route another what is the proposal for the stormwater management plan questions or concerns provide update on status on one more process will these buildings have an automatic sprinkler system staff recommends approval with the following conditions engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike and ped open space division of fire waste management division water quality and US Postal Service and then connect we need to correct all note deficiencies as requirements not met you want to make sure that we know where we are with the letter of map amendment request in that process because we don't want to be a permitting for the pool until that has been finalized and with that I open it to you all to see if there's anybody that can be removed for a sign-off you can remove address you please thank you number four anyone else if not I'll leave it to the applicant you Rory Kaylee a partners even though Rob was the only one I was gonna ask for everyone to remove themselves this plan the structures are up I was out there yesterday the only thing that we're back here in front of you all to do is to put the swimming pool on the patio deck behind the clubhouse the we took the certified plan before added the pool actually the deck changed a little bit to fit the pool shape in there so I was really not expecting such a huge change to the DP the loamer has been through division engineering they've okayed that and it's been sent on to the feds so as soon as we get the actual letter back that reference can go on this plat officially and we changed it we've already shown the line that is being requested to go to so that the conflict is no longer over the pool area as soon as we get that letter number that's what we need to put on here and then we'll be asking for the certification and the pool building permit stormwater all that was that the look at the play on the far left side up there in the tail of this area that we left undeveloped don't really any of these things that can go away be great you know if the buildings would be sprinkled it looks like there's a question about that I can find out they're all permitted I don't know how the permit was written up whether they are so those four buildings the apartments besides the pool those are already constructed and he said they've been permitted and co2 and all that I don't they don't all have their CEOs there wasn't it but they were the ones I could see you know the constructions in the way I saw the first three they were under roof okay but I believe he has had all of his permits drawn which is why we're now at this stage he's ready to close up the clubhouse start working on the inside he wants to get the pool added okay fire scoop anybody else have anything okay staff recommends approval so the motions for approval of PLN MJD P 2628 LF you see Gmail creep subdivision unit 3 in Jonestown with the removal of number 4 address offices approval of street names and addresses under conditional approvals so moved all in favor anyone opposed motion passes thank you we're moving down the agenda we're going to MJ DP 2631 I'd allow our subdivision unit 1 section to track a amended this property I'm sorry I'm sorry we're going to go back this is MJ DP 2630 WML properties LLC two keys this is located out of Upper Street and Pine Street this was a restaurant it's changed changed over several different times now they're putting in the two keys restaurant they have a patio the parking is in the rear so the purpose this plan is to add a patio and change circulation for parking requirements not met label sidewalk on street cross-section to pick construction entrance location correct spelling and conditional zoning to label and to mention fenced areas in the rear of the building these areas back here we don't know what these areas are just look fenced off label location of doors re-established curb where old access on to Upper Street is being removed at this time we have no waivers been presented design consideration if area of disturbance is over 2,500 square feet a land service pyramid is required the patio has been put in if amending the driveway use commercial driveway entrance compliant with STD drawings playing questions and concerns discuss the need for waivers for vegetated open space discuss location of open location of some dumpster discuss removal of entrance point on South Epper discuss the use on the property in the b1 zone does the raised patio disrupt the existing drainage pattern currently the staff recommends postponement but should this be approved then we need engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forester Department of Environment quality bike pad open space Division of Water Fire and Water Division of Waste Management Division of Water Quality the US Postal Service and then correct all note deficiencies listed as required not met here on I'm open it see if anyone in the committee can be removed from this number six you can remove addressing please number four can be removed okay anyone else if not I'll open it to the applicant morning I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett partners here on behalf of Pope's time Lexington 3 LLC it's two keys tavern they're looking to open up two keys on Upper Street and have constructed a patio got a little ahead of permitting on this situation so we've brought forth a final development plan amendment to bring them into compliance sidewalks are shown but I'll get those added labeled I can show a construction entrance but there's no anticipated no more construction typo the fenced area that's just in closing their utility HVAC or ventilation system generator or whatever they've got in their services locate the doors I'm not in the habit of showing doors on development plans, but I don't have a problem. There are currently, I think what may be driving that question or that comment, there are three windows on the side of the building, one, two, or three of those will be opened into a doorway to access the patio from the side of the building. So that was currently the, there's a door fronting on Pine Street near the corner and on Upper Street near the corner, and then there's obviously a door at that service ramp that goes into the kitchen area for service deliveries. Sorry, are those going to be like roll-up doors? Or pedestrian doors? No, I think it's just man door, yeah, pedestrian door. But I will confirm that. I think the intent was just to leave the header on each window and create a pedestrian door. Yeah, well, we can reestablish the curb. I'm looking to see who I'm looking for on Upper Street. Disturbance area, our disturbance of the patio was less than 2,500 square feet, although I thought it was 5,000, but if it's 2,500 now, that's what it is, but we're under 2,500, so that wasn't, a land disturbance permit would typically not have been required. We don't anticipate amending the driveway. We don't anticipate making any revisions to the, behind the building. My question, I question the vegetated open space waiver. We're going from zero to something, so I don't know if we're making a non-conforming use better and that's no waiver required or a waiver would be required to bring us up to the, what is required, 10%? 10% is required and right now you have 409 square feet. Yeah. So we had zero. Which is 3%. Yeah, so we had zero, we've gone to 4%, so I don't, I mean, if we need a waiver, we need a waiver. If we don't, we don't. So the tree in the back corner, that's not existing? Where are you adding vegetated open space? I'm adding to the right of the dumpster. Correct. In the patio. In the patio. The patio fulfills the usable open space, yeah. I mean, we've got ample usable open space. You have a small area of the next to the patio labeled as vegetated. I'm just having a flashback of when we did all the open space text amendments and Valerie, our former senior planner, saying, we don't want to count open space back behind the dumpster. Because that is not, doesn't really meet the intent of the ordinance, right? Who wants open space next to the dumpster? Well who wants open space in an industrial area? I mean, who wants open space on an urban patio? I mean, you know, so, I don't think this is an argument about do we want open space. I think, it's the location, I mean, there's nothing wrong with that designation of open space. It'll shade the patio. It'll do what's intended. So I mean, Tony, I think you've just explained why you need a waiver. I mean, if I need a waiver, I need a waiver, but if it's legitimate to say I have an existing non-conforming use, and I'm making it better, do I need a waiver? In this case, and in tomorrow's case? Well, are there, tomorrow, I'm not sure about what tomorrow's case is, but... Well, that's what I'm saying. I mean, we're, you know, there's precedent, and so... Well, there's no parking requirements anymore, so it's possible that you can meet on site. Also, you know, nothing's been approved in terms of the size of the patio that was installed without a permit. So, in my mind, it was possible to meet it, or is still possible, with some other site changes. I mean, you went ahead and did other site changes, so why not take out a parking space and meet it? Or, you know, whatever the... So the waiver is required? Okay. Yes. And we have until, what, Friday to file the waiver? Okay. Yes. Location of the dumpster? That's a... Yeah, I think, previously, when we were serving that business, we were entering off Pine and exiting out onto Upper. Correct. You know, that's going to be non-accessible. The parking along Pine, both, you know, is that going to add to the parking on Pine because of that entrance? Are we going to be able to back in, back out onto Pine Street with the traffic around the curbing and stuff out there? Will they mark that off? Will they yell that out? Will they sign it? I mean... And the overall distance of the backing, that's kind of concerning to waste management, right, because the length of the trucks and then what we got to... Again, we can't say we're going to be there at 4 o'clock in the morning. It might be 10 o'clock in the morning. It could be, you know, that's up to that driver and how they're running. Right. We understand that. Traffic, David, managing the parking off of the entrance, can we address that? So the backing out is the... It's always tight going in there. Now we got to worry about coming out of it backwards. So I understand. I recognize that as similar to what we did on Woodland. If we needed to, maybe, you know, I don't want to. I don't think it's... But perhaps we bring it closer to Pine Street, so that might be a solution there if we need to. So... How do you think about the older sites? There's kind of that give, you know, as you heard with your Woodland site, there was... People didn't like the dumpster being so close to the sidewalk, but then, yeah, what's the practical? How do you get to the means to the end? So... Yeah. Okay. Well, that's why it's down here as a discussion item, so we'll continue to work through that. Discuss removal of entrance point on South Upper Street. Obviously that's been done. So... The... No. I think our concern was, is it impact the... If it impacts the crossover, the sidewalk, can you just take it out, cut it out and rebuild it? Is that what you're talking about? I think it was circulation through the site was the big concern, because you're eliminating any circulation through the site, which affects all your deliveries, not just solid waste. So it's an urban site, and we have a service court now, rather than a drive around the building. I think use of the property in the B1 zone, you know, it's a restaurant, it'll continue to be a restaurant, and we're adding a patio, so that does have proximity to... It's not a restaurant. It is a restaurant. They're anticipating that this be a restaurant, more than a bar. We can clarify that with the owners, but that is their intent, that it's by definition not what it has been, but with the new facility, they have a bigger kitchen, and they anticipate that it function as a restaurant. An accessory bar to the restaurant. That's my understanding, but we can get that clarified. I don't think the patio disrupts grading. I'll verify that, but the flow is not going that way. It should be fine, but I'll confirm that. I recognize the postponement, so we'll continue to work and resolve some of these outstanding questions. Tony, have you applied for a CAP application on this? I don't know that they have, no. They only do that. Yeah, okay, that's fine. But again, we're going from a restaurant to a restaurant, so... The patio triggers additional... That's fine, yeah. Is there an available capacity in the area, or is it a problem area, or do you know offhand? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So that's... We just need it for... Process. Yeah, process. Yeah, okay. That's fine. Any further questions? Hey, Mike, anything else? Tony? You good? All right. Thank you. All right. All right, so staff recommends postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PLN, MJDP 2630, WML properties, LLC, two keys amended, with removal of conditional sign-off number four, Addressing Office, and number six, Department of Environmental Quality. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. Sorry about that. We'll now go to Idle Hour. I apologize for that. MJDP 2631, Idle Hour Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 2. This property is located here off of Richmond Road at the corner of St. Margaret. This is the Idle Hour Shopping Center. This is at the far end, closest to the residential area up here in the rear. They had a plan that was approved with a bank with a drive-thru, and then a restaurant with a drive-thru. Now they're coming back in with two restaurants with drive-thrus, changing the circulation and the parking areas on this plan. So requirements not met, denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission, correct orientation of the facility map to match plan face, dimension driveways, walkways, ingress and egress, dimension vehicle use areas, screening, dimension buildings, canopies and patios, reduce the radius on all curbs to reduce the dimension for crosswalks. They have large radiuses on all of this, so that increases what is to be 24 feet as the maximum crossing area. So we don't know why they have such a large turning radius on these. Any drive-thrus must obtain a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustments with change in the zoning ordinance, all drive-thrus required to do a Board of Adjustment application, modify all driveways off access easements and sidewalks to comply with engineering standards, provide bicycle parking facilities that comply with the zoning ordinance, depict all existing sanitary sewer easements, waivers necessary at this time, none have been applied for, design considerations, see all of the comments in the Division of Engineering, commercial driveway entrance shall comply with the standard drawing 307-2, plan questions and concerns, discuss if this lot is going to be subdivided and how it relates to each building to have sewer connection, discuss stormwater management proposals and ownership and maintenance. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions, engineering traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forest or environmental quality, bike and ped, open space, Division of Fire, Division of Waste Management, Division of Water Quality, U.S. Postal Service, provided that the Board of Adjustment approves the conditional use permits for the two drive-thrus and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met hereon. I'll open it to the committee to see if anyone can be removed as sign-offs. Environmental quality can be removed. All right. Anyone else? If not, I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any other questions. If not, the applicant. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Under the questions and concerns, discuss whether the lot's going to be subdivided. So at this time, there's no talk. The owner has no plan to subdivide it. They're going to keep it as is. Not to say in the future, you know, they may subdivide it, but I understand if they do, it'll have to comply with any requirements related to the subdivision. Stormwater management, currently the site is pretty much impervious, and what we're proposing will not exceed the impervious that's there now. If it does, we may have to do some detention, and we'll work with the engineer on that. But if we do, it's going to be underground, under the pavement, and we'll incorporate that into our water quality as well. But our water quality most likely will be something under the pavement. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer. Anything? All right, anything else, Matt? That's it. Thank you. All right, so staff recommends approval. So the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2631, Idle Hour Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 2, Track A, amended, with the removal of environmental qualities, approval of environmentally sensitive areas, and greenways. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. Okay, moving along. Next development plan, MJDP-2634, Pfister property, the Taylor property. This is located at 151 Locust Point Way, and this is off of Mount Tabor Road. The purpose of this plan is to depict proposed residential commercial building parking circulation and proposed right-of-way. So we just looked at the preliminary development plan not too long before this. So this is Mount Tabor Road to the left. Richmond Road is a little bit north of the plan, and this is Locust Point Way. Currently, the right-of-way terminates roughly in here. I'm sorry, not the right-of-way. The built street terminates here, and there's a portion of right-of-way onto the property, and this plan shows dedication of a turnaround. They're depicting three mixed-use buildings, mostly residential. One here with residential in this corner, or I'm sorry, commercial in this corner, commercial in this corner, and then this building kind of wraps around this corner of the property. And then there's a residential building in the middle with clubhouse and amenities, and then the parking is arranged kind of around that center. There is a zone line on this, so the rear portion is R4, I believe. Under requirements not met, number one, denote no building permit shall be issued unless until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Number two, provide lighting plan that meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Article 30. Number three, reduce the line weights for the hatching over the trees. It's just really dark, and it's hard to see some of the information under the hatching. Number four, denote construction access. Number five, correct Planning Commission certification. Number six, depict north arrow on the vicinity map. Number seven, label contour intervals. Number eight, upload open space to a cell that includes requirements for both B1 and R4 zones. It must include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number nine, alter pedestrian crossing from Building 3 to Building 2B. Number 10, dimension driveway widths and flare adjacent to the cul-de-sac. Number 11, fire department access must have an unobstructed width of no less than 16 feet. Number 12, provide bicycle parking facilities that comply with Article 16-12 of the zoning ordinance. Number 13, extend the island median at the entrance to reduce the pedestrian crossing width to meet the preferred crossing distance. And that's, I believe, Scott, you're talking about this island here, to extend that out. Just so it creates a pedestrian refuge at the end of the island there. Number 14, depict existing sanitary sewer easements. Number 15, remove the Georgetown Road landscape corridor reference from Note 8. No waivers requested at this time. Under design considerations, number one, see all Acela notes provided by the Division of Engineering. Number two, fire department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of a building, measured by an approved route. The distance shall be extended to 450 feet if the building is protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. And then the question, will these buildings be sprinkled? Number three, sanitary sewer analysis is needed to evaluate the additional flow on the existing system. Under plan questions or concerns, number one, discuss removing Notes 13 and 14. Number two, discuss if lots are going to be considered or how 114 Mount Tabor will be served. And number three, discuss timing sequencing of the release of right-of-way and dedication of new right-of-way. Staff recommends approval with conditions, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike bed, open space, Division of Fire, Division of Waste Management, water quality's approval of the CAP requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and finally, to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. With that, I'll turn it over to the committee for discussion. This map behind me. The only comment I have is the stormwater management area is existing, and it is on two parcels, which currently, by the new standards, or the current standards, would not be allowed. So just make sure you have a maintenance agreement in place, because I understand that PRATS or whoever it was owned both parcels at one time, so they didn't care. But if this parcel gets sold, there needs to be an agreement in place that that stormwater management area is both properties' responsibility. So if there's a violation, that both properties are responsible and not just one, not wanting to take care of it, and one always having to take care of it. Matt? Yeah, just make sure that basin's sized accordingly also. And we also think there's a storm line running along plan north, just along that property edge, that may have an easement associated with it. Just make sure that that easement is not going to impact your building locations. Applicant? Matt? Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. We'll look into the storm easement. Didn't know it was there. It's not shown up on the plat for this property, but if there's one, it may be helpful for us, too. So the owner of the properties here, he said as far as the detention goes, he'll work with PRATS to come up with some kind of arrangement or agreement on maintaining it. And he said he would even go as far as to say he'll maintain all of it if necessary. But he'll work that out with PRATS. I know it's a little unusual for a detention to be on two lots, but it is what it is. For the fire department access, the building will be sprinkled, so I guess the 450 rule will apply. We will provide the sanitary sewer analysis when we submit our construction plans. We'll probably do it before the development plan is certified, so we will be submitting that. Yeah, Chris had to step out, but, yeah, with the CAP application. Yes. Thank you. And notes 13 and 14 talks about removing these. Is this like a discussion item, or does staff just want them removed? I mean, note 13 says a consolidation plat will be required prior to applying for a building permit, and we're not anticipating consolidating the property unless there's some reason we have to do it. We're hoping they could just stay as is. Do any of the buildings cross a property line? I know initially that one at the bottom did, but you changed it so it may not. Yeah, so the property line runs right down here. This building's not, and then you're right. This building used to, but, you know, when we ran into the issues with the public right-of-way, we slid that building back, and so it's no longer over the property line. And then as far as the right-of-way goes, we're not going to have the right-of-way released now. We're going to extend the road within the right-of-way, and we're no longer asking for a waiver. We'll just put the cul-de-sac at the end as we've got shown here. I think that might be referencing how the Locust Point right-of-way extended through the properties at some point. That right-of-way will have to be addressed before you'll be able to get your building permits. Well, there's an actual right-of-way right there. I understand about the cul-de-sac, but didn't it extend all the way through the parcel? No. Oh. It extended up to this property line right there. So the only way to have parking with no other buildings in the R4 portion is a conditional use. So they need to be on the same. So the parking can be accessory in the R4 zone to the B1, but they need to be on the same lot. Otherwise, it becomes standalone. It's the only use of that lot. Yeah. So, yeah. Well, we'll consolidate in that case. Okay. So then in that case, it seems like we would want to keep note 13, the one about consolidation. And I don't know what 14 was. And 14, it talks about the commercial component of the building. And it's not showing on here, but within the clubhouse, there is a commercial component. It will probably end up being some type of like a coffee shop, and it will be open to the public. So that was what that note was related to. But with that, I'll be glad to answer any other questions. Matt, for example, Building 1, you've got Building 1A and 1B. There's a line drawn between the two. Are these two distinct buildings, or is there actually a connection, a hallway connection between them? They are one building. I mean, it's one building that is connected by this breezeway. And so this was discussed on the preliminary. Right. To make it work, it has to be one building. We ask you to remove the lines between them to clarify it, too. Okay. So this line is what you're talking about here and here? Yeah. Okay. We can remove it. Yeah. No problem. Then you just remove the – because Building 1, 1A just becomes 1. Okay. Yeah. That's fine. In which case, I made some notes in there because I wasn't sure how the building numbers went. So in this case, we should just follow along and just remove the 1As and the Bs, and we're okay. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Matt, are you good? Oh, wait. Never mind. Sorry. I just want to make sure that my note 11 is clear of what I'm saying. So apparatus access is 20 feet, right? The only exception to that is when you have a one-way. And that's where I was talking about with the entrance and the exit. That's what I'm looking for to make sure that's 16 feet. Yeah. We have the room to do that. We've got no problem. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Good. All right. Let's see. Staff recommends approval. So the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2634, Pfister property, Taylor property, with no changes. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Next plan, MJDP-2636, Coventry, Belmont Farm, Lot 6. Purpose of this plan is to revise the limits of the tree protection area associated retaining wall and parking. So this is Citation, and I believe this is Huntley at this point. And then this is Gatton Way. This was previously approved, and there are minimal changes to this. The spaces down here are a little bit smaller parking areas, and there's a retaining wall there, and then there was a revision of the tree protection area. Under requirements not met, number one, correct the overlapping text on the bottom right of the plan. Number two, denote no change in proposed lighting from previous plan or provide lighting plan. And I believe what's going on there is that under the previous plan, other lighting plan wasn't required. So as long as there's no changes, we don't need a new lighting plan. Number three, carry over updated tree protection information from the previous plan. Number four, verify correct commission certification. Number five, upload an open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number six, dead end fire department access greater than 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved fire apparatus turnaround, see parking lot access by buildings one and two. Number seven, depict internal pedestrian walkways to meet the following standards, a minimum of five feet wide where there's no vehicular curb overhang, a minimum of seven feet where there is vehicular curb overhang. Number eight, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. There's no waivers requested at this time. Under design considerations, number one, fire department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior building or extended to 450 feet if the building is protected by an improved automatic sprinkler system. And then number two, will building seven have an automated sprinkler system? Number three, verify stormwater management capacity and quality requirements are met and locate on the DP. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. And then we do recommend approval with the sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing urban forest or environmental quality, bike pit, open space, division of fire, division of waste management, water qualities, approval of the cap requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and to correct all noted deficiencies. And with that, I will open it up to the committee. You can remove addressing, please. Number four. All right, Tony. Thank you, Chris. Tony Barrett here on behalf of Remington Apartments LLC. Jared Talley, representing with the ownership, is here with me today as well. But as Chris indicated, this is not a lot of change to the plan. Tree protection is driving the plan. We're shifting a retaining wall, lengthening the retaining wall, to maintain the existing tree line along a portion of the grade area at the bottom of the plan there. This tree protection area here. And then we're removing the tree protection along here and bringing up the new material in that place. Along that fence line is, upon closer inspection, is primarily honeysuckle and pear tree and pretty small volunteer fence row material. So we can provide an improved landscape with new material and provide a better situation along that area. But requirements not met. My text got duplicated from my tree exhibit in my development plan, so they skewed a little bit. We are no change to the lighting plan. We did file a lighting plan through the building permit process, but no change to that. Three, updated tree protection information, okay. Commission certification. Five and eight are basically the same. I have no change to the open space, so that shouldn't be a problem. But we'll get that taken care of. Fire department, we're not doing any changes to the circulation. The buildings are all under roof. So I don't know that there's, I don't know what we need, how we would approach that. There's no change to essentially the access or the drive aisles or the building locations. So we'll talk about that if we need to. Design consideration one is the fire. Building seven will, yes, it will have automatic sprinklers. And then stormwater management, again, we have no change to the surface area. In fact, we're reducing it a little bit because we're shortening our parking bay depth along the rear of the property line. So, and then who will own and maintain stormwater management area? Those were questions that were all addressed during permitting, so, or the prior development plan, so I'm not sure how those would be affected. Again, it's a major plan, but there's not a whole lot going on. And I'd ask if you don't need to be a sign-off, if we can eliminate your requirement. So, I don't know. It just seems like a lot of sign-offs for not affecting much of the plan. So. Quick question from Chris. He just wanted to check to see if you guys had submitted your cap application. Make sure that gets in soon, if it hasn't. Well, we have permits. Okay, so I would assume yes to that, but just make sure. Yeah, I mean, we're under roof. Okay. Far along, yeah. I don't see any change for the sanitary sewer requirements. Our post offices, we've got that. There's no change to that. So, I don't know. I can see, like, just a few people needing to be signing off on the plan. So, I don't know. I can come off as long as you don't take out the Royal Springs note. Well, no, I'm not going to do that. Thank you. I think this was triggered by, and I want to commend Tony for bringing it to our attention. I mean, this has been approved and bulldozed, et cetera. It was a slight little TPA encroachment on that back corner, and he brought it to our attention. We've worked together through the whole process to come up with this resubmission. So, I'm fine with it. I don't think anything else has changed except for the amended TPA area and the addition of better plants. So, thank you, Tony, for bringing that to our attention, and I don't have any problems with it. Yeah, and I can come off this plan too. So, are you, oh, does that remove urban forester? I'm going to have to stay on as soon as I can sign off. I didn't expect that was a waiver of your sign-off. I'll have to sign off. Yeah. Addressing. Yeah, initially. Did anybody else? Before my, he came up before my plead. Six came off. Yes, 7-12, right. We took post office. Oh, thank you. Although, I will commend the post office has been responsive. All right. That's good. Just for my clarification then. So, building one and building two has already been permitted? Yes, all buildings are permitted and under control. And the parking lots have been previously approved, the layouts and everything? Yes. Fire can come off on the requirements on that then. Okay. Thank you. All right. Is that everything? Thank you. All right. So, the staff's recommendation is for approval. So, the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2636-Coventry-Belmont-Farm Lot 6 amended with the removal of conditional sign-offs of number 4, Addressing, number 6, Environmental Quality, number 7, Bike and Pedestrian, number 9, Division of Fire, and number 12, United States Postal Service. Eric, they do have a cap permit and it was approved in February of last year. Okay. So moved. Can we move him off? Eleven? That would really help. It's approved? Okay. All right. So, the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2636-Coventry-Belmont-Farm Lot 6 amended with the removal of number 4, Addressing, number 6, Environmental Quality, number 7, Bike and Pedestrian, number 9, Division of Fire, number 11, CAP Program, and number 12, United States Postal Service. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. Okay. Now we're moving on to zoning development plans. The first one is MJDP-2624, Mountain Laurel Lands Company, LLC property. This is located at 2137 Old Paris Road. The purpose of this plan is to depict the development of commercial buildings in support of the requested zone change from a single-family residential R1D zone to a wholesale warehouse business B4 zone. And Matt, just a reminder, Paula needs the affidavit and the photo of the sign today. Okay. Make sure you get them to me or Paula before you leave. Okay. Under requirements not met, number 1, denote all building paving signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls that are depicted, described, or required on this development plan shall require a separate review and building permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. Number 2, denote no building permit shall be issued unless until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Number 3, no grading, striping, excavation, filing, sorry, lost my train of thought, filing, or other disturbance to the natural ground coverage shall take place prior to the approval of an erosion control plan. Number 4, denote the location of fire hydrants, fire department, or fire service features shall be approved by the Division of Fire. Number 5, denote stormwater management, sanitary sewers, and public street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LFUCG engineering manuals. Number 6, denote landscaping shall conform with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance dated September 2024. Number 7, utilize standard site statistics table, and we can send you that. We have a file for that. Number 8, provide purpose of plan describing zone change and site development. Number 9, correct title block to match the staff report. Number 10, denote construction access. Number 11, correct section line on cross section AA. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me go back and go over the site just a little bit. So, this is North Limestone out here. We're just northeast of the interstate. This is where Old Paris comes around and connects into North Limestone, Paris Pike. Under the railroad overpass, this is the railroad right-of-way here. And then, I believe this is Strawberry Fields Road here, so this is across from the intersection there. This is the property just before you go under the railroad overpass at the intersection of Old Paris and New Paris. And then, the development plan depicts a commercial building with individual units facing on a parking lot. There is an entrance depicted here and an entrance depicted there. And then, I believe that's most of the pertinent information as far as the description of the site. Let's see. So, we're on 11, correct cross section line of cross section AA. It actually goes all the way across the parking lot and the buildings. It should just be for the roadway. Number 12, addition of sidewalk from the right-of-way to the internal sidewalk network, ensuring there are crossings of no greater than 24 feet. Number 13, depict bicycle parking and provide bicycle parking facilities that comply with Article 16-12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Number 14, depict width of perimeter landscape buffer along railroad that complies with Article 18-3A15. Number 15, depict landscape buffer adjoining Old Paris Pike that complies with Article 18-3A2D1. Number 16, list the VUA size in square feet, the vehicular use area. Required proposed interior landscaping square feet, 10% of the VUA and required proposed interior tree canopy, which is 30% of the VUA. Number 17, depict VUA perimeter buffer minimum average width at 18 feet along all VUA boundaries. That's from the Zoning Ordinance Article 18-3. Number 18, depict interior landscaping for VUA that conforms with Article 18-3B. Number 19, denote no retail sales on property without an approved conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment. And that's a zone requirement. Number 20, building to the west must have no opening except stationary windows and doors that are designed and intended solely for pedestrian access. And this is due to the proximity to the residential zone to the southwest. Number 21, denote owner certification that conforms with Article 21-6B5. Denote commission certification. Number 23, remove shading and the rights of way for clarity. Number 24, depict pedestrian entrances. Number 25, depict easements and remove utility lines. Number 26, remove any unnecessary line shapes or text. Number 27, group all general notes in one list and number consecutively. Number 28, correct owner information on plan face for subject property. I think it's showing the previous owner where it's got the owner for your property, so just update that. Number 29, amend driveway to match standard drawing 307-2 and 307-3. Number 30, dimension standard parking stall. Number 31, provide dumpster enclosure and concrete pad details that comply with the dumpster service guide. Number 32, resolve any easement conflicts prior to obtaining a building permit. Number 33, addition of cross section for North Broadway with railroad. Number 34, submit tree inventory map performed by a registered licensed architect or ISA certified arborist. Number 35, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number 36, dead end fire department access greater than 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved fire apparatus turnaround. Number 37, provide parking demand mitigation study per zoning ordinance article 16-14. Under design considerations, number one, address sanitary sewer capacity. Number two, depict or denote location of stormwater management on the development plan. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, see all Acela comments provided by the division of engineering. Number two, discuss hatched area labeled railroad overlap. It's up in this area right here. Number three, is the second narrow access point necessary? I believe that's referring to this one in this location. Number four, will there be an office on the property requiring water and sewer? Is a sanitary sewer tap available? Number five, what is the proposal for stormwater management? Number six, discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. Number seven, discuss potential sanitary sewer connection locations. Sanitary sewer analysis is needed to evaluate the additional flow on the existing system. Number eight, fire department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of a building measured by an approved route. The distance shall be extended to 450 feet if the building is protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. And then the question, will these buildings be sprinkled? Currently showing greater than 150 feet for the 11 site building. And then number nine, discuss place builder criteria. At this time, we are recommending postponement. The plan cannot be approved in its current state because numerous requirements of articles 16, 18, and 21 of the zoning ordinance have not been met, including a filing requirement for the parking demand mitigation study. And if approved, we have conditions first provided that the Urban County Council approves the zone change to B4. Otherwise, the commission action of approval is null and void. Number two, the sign-off for engineering and then sign-offs for traffic engineering, urban forest or open space, environmental quality, and then finally to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll turn it over to the committee. Does anybody have any questions for me? This may have been corrected, but the address on the title says 2121 Old Paris. I don't see 2121 to be a legitimate address. The parcel is 2137, but the title's got the wrong address on it. Unless there's a new one that's come out since I've – Are you saying on the plan? Yeah, on the plan. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, so just you'll want to make sure you correct your address. I don't think we have that as a note, but we can – You said number nine? Yeah, so we'll change number nine to say correct title block and address to match staff report. Chris, I don't have any comments for you, but I'm interested to hear what the plan is for providing sanitary sewer for the site and stormwater management as well. Anything else for me? Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me out today. I am Matt Minyard, and I represent the property owner. Do you have any questions for me? Do you have a proposal for providing sewer and stormwater management for the property? There is a sewer treatment plant pump station directly out the front of the property. There's also a regional detention basement right out there by Strawberry Fields as well. Right. The pond on Strawberry Fields is maintained by the HOA, so I don't think this commercial – well, this commercial development cannot drain to that unless there's an agreement in place that says they will take over or this property is going to take over maintenance of that pond. So I would expect you might need to do stormwater management on your site and then drain to that pond. Well, my plan is to just sheet floor it to the curb. You'll have to have an engineer do a stormwater analysis that meets the manuals. No problem. Ditto that, yeah. Make sure you have stormwater management on site per the manuals. Thank you. Okay. When I was looking at this, it looks like you're kind of calling out building dimensions. On that right-hand side, are those buildings intended that they're going to be sharing a wall? Because that's where I was doing my measurements was around all those structures or those lots around the right side and not in between them. Well, the design goal here is to provide individual units for commerce. So each unit will have its own address, its own water line, its own sewer line, and its own firewall in anticipation that somebody will condo those in the future. So the firewall will meet current fire codes between each unit. So what you really have here is a space, talking about a unit now, the size of a garage. And these are designed for specialty contractors, you know, jobbers, people who will come one time a day to the site. They're also going to be very high. These buildings are going to each unit is going to be, you know, 14 feet in front. So the door comes up. You can put a box van in it. And the rear will also be 16 feet high. And once you build these buildings, what you really have is a sound wall similar to what's being built up there on the interstate, which is something some of the neighbors have expressed a concern about, is the sound of the railroad. You know, you've got six trains a day coming through there. Gotcha. So I was correcting my assumption. So when I did the measurement around those, the only way is actually going on the far right-hand side or left side of those structures to the right because they do share a wall. And that's why I was just giving you a heads up like, hey, right now you're showing that you're more than 150 feet. And that would trigger, when you get to that building part, whatever sprinklers for those units. I haven't thought about that yet. Probably need to work one-on-one with you on that. I don't want to do sprinklers. Gotcha. Of course, we have the transmission line that the fire department can access. And then we have the space in the middle that the fire department can access. These buildings are intended to have a metal roof, a concrete structure, and aluminum studs. They're not traditional stick-built units. There's not going to be a whole lot to catch on fire. So that's something that I'd like to work with you later on, determining how to best address that. Okay. Because the design challenge here is the social obsolescence of the railroad and the transmission lines and the bottleneck of traffic during peak flow from 4 to 6. So whatever's put here, it's got to be user-friendly. And then you start bringing in the fire department. Then you start dealing with drainage. And then you start dealing with sanitary sewer. This building is designed to meet all those needs. All right. Anybody have any other questions? Applicant? I got one. The parcel is 2137 Old Paris, so don't reuse that address for one of your unit numbers right now. Well, you are doing that, so skip that number and keep that number for PVA to tax the property. You don't want that same number on a business number, follow me? PVA is going to look at your parcel. So your numbers that you have put on your plan, just shift that one number up, start your first number at 2139 or something, but reserve your 2137 or what's going to happen is PVA information and tax information is going to start going to go to that business that you have assigned 2137 to, so keep that number as the mother number and then shift all your other numbers up by one number. So you're suggesting the first unit be 2139? 2139, and you just move everything up one, two, and the last one would be 2179. But that would keep PVA and tax information from getting kind of, I've seen that happen over the years. That's a good idea. So you don't want, because people will call me up and say I'm getting tax information and it's not mine, and then we're trying, PVA is trying to find the owner and whatever, so we've reserved that 2137 as the mother and then everything else gets something different. Well that's a great idea, I'll certainly incorporate that. Quick question from Chris Dunn who had to step out, are the buildings requiring sanitary sewer? The design of these buildings and the purpose of them is to provide a flexible space to where each unit will have or fit up four. Okay. Well if that's the case, make sure you go ahead and maybe in the next month or two when you start to get this a little bit more developed, submit your cap application also for sanitary sewer checks. Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Okay. Any other technical committee items? Yes sir. I'm Scott Burton, Division of Waste Management. Yes sir. I see the dumpster location, that's just for a single dumpster, is that correct? Yes sir. But the amount of buildings out there, will a single dumpster be able to accommodate them? I would think so given the end users are going to be specialty contractors. I certainly would consider, you know, we have 12 foot there, I'd certainly consider another dumpster or a larger dumpster. I don't know, without looking I don't know what it's on currently, if it's, I mean, but if it needs to have an enclosure, each dumpster requires a 12 foot clearance unless they're sitting there side-by-side. The first dumpster is 12 foot, each additional dumpster is 10 foot. So you're either looking at a 24 foot or a 22 foot enclosure if you need multiple dumpsters. I don't think I'll need multiple dumpsters there, you know, that, certainly I'll take into consideration a 22 foot space. I don't see the need for that in this particular project because there's not going to be that much activity. You know, these are going to be for, well you see, you know, the HVAC guy, this is going to be for the plumber. They're going to come to their commerce pad, get what they need that day, and go. They're not going to be putting a lot of things in the dumpster. I'll certainly look at trying to meet that 22 foot, but that's going to put me into the transmission line down here, which is Kentucky Utilities based on our survey records, and the ones they provided, they're on the edge of their easement. Their poles are not in the middle of the easement. Another challenging problem with this track is the shaded area that you see down there by the railroad bridge is an overlap in the deeds going back to 1903. I'm not going to challenge the railroad even though I could and could possibly win. I am going to stand back from the railroad 100 feet from the bridge like their deed calls for. This track has suffered for years with obsolescence and just a whole series of problems. I'm here to solve most of those for at least the next 50 years. So... All right. That's great, Mr. Maynard. Thank you. Does anybody have any other technical items for this? Mr. Maynard, do you have any other technical issues or anything to address here? No, no. I just got this like yesterday. I really need to put more time into it than I have, and I want to thank you for making time for me today. And I'll address your concerns about the Homeowners Association in that retention, detention situation. I don't see the sewer as a problem. I'll investigate where the water runs into the storm sewers, but it almost certainly goes into the retention basin of the HOA across the street. Right. But because you're going to be increasing the impervious area, that pond's probably not sized for this development as far as commercial development being completely hard surface and having that much runoff going to it. And if you look in the manuals and the ordinances, we try to keep commercial development stormwater separate from residential because they're just different. And that's the regulation. So just look that up, and you'll have to have an engineer evaluate the stormwater for your site. I'll do that. All right. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's see. So the staff recommends postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PON MJDP 2624, Mount Laurel Lands Company property with the correct note, is that number nine? Correct title block and address to match staff report. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. Moving down to the next zone change. This is MJDP 2625. Tom Collins Farm, McGee property. This property is located off of Takes Creek Road. This is Saron Drive. They're showing an access point off of Saron Drive to come into this property. They also have another access off of Forest Lake onto Collinswood, which will bring you in. And this is a public street, and they're proposing to have a hammerhead as the terminus for this public street. This is a zone change from agricultural urban, R1D zone, to medium-density residential. They're proposing five townhome buildings, or five apartment buildings, and six townhome units down here at the bottom off of Saron Drive. With this, we have requirements not met to note all buildings, pavings, signs, fences, walls, retaining walls that are depicted and described. This is a building inspection note. To note, areas of alluvial soils will be developed in accordance with Article 6-11 of the land sub-regs. To note, this development contains a portion of the West Hickman Conservation Greenway Corridor, as shown on the 2002 Greenway Master Plan. Label Greenway, delineate, and label the centerline of the blue line stream. Adjust the required and proposed VUA interior tree canopy at 30% in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Provide a minimum eight-foot landscape buffer between all adjacent R1C, R1D properties in accordance with the zoning ordinance 18-3. Amend note number 10 to reference zoning ordinance Article 6-10. Upland open space exhibit to a cell and include open space requirements in the site statistics. Addition of record plant information to mention driveways, walkways, and points of ingress and egress, and ensure driveways match the engineering standard drawings. Depict construction access. Addition of tree inventory map. Addition of correct site statistics box, missing information, and remove the old site statistics boxes. Addition of building line setback. Delete note number 14. Addition of typical building for apartments and townhomes with dimensions. Dimension at least one standard parking stall and handicap stall. Addition of stop bars within the parking lot at conflict points. Denote that the existing entrance from Takes Creek Road shall be removed. Depict and label intermittent stream. Depict vegetative buffer. Remove property lines for the six townhomes to comply with the group residential project requirements. At this time, there's no waivers listed. Design considerations. See all the SELA comments provided by the Division of Engineering. Confirm that all five complexes will be using compactors and no other dumpsters will be on site. Structures shall, excuse me, structures will have Collinswood driveway address numbers. Fire department access shall provide 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the building measured by the approved route. The distance shall be to 450 if the building is protected by an approved sprinkler system. Planned questions and concerns. Discuss location of common area to be centralized. Discuss location of the parking lot at Takes Creek Road. Discuss the terminus of a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac. Discuss tree protection of significant trees. Discuss maintenance and access easement on the townhome properties. Address sanitary sewer capacity. Discuss stormwater management proposal. Discuss the place builder criteria. At this current time, the staff has recommended postponement regarding the loss of significant trees, the terminus of the street, and compliance with the group residential project. If this was approved, we have the Urban County Council approve the zone change, Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineering, Urban Forester, Open Space, Department of Environmental Quality, and then correct all note deficiencies as requirements not met hereon. I will ask to see if anyone can be removed from this list or if they have any other comments or questions. This property has intermittent streams that flow through it, and this drainage area has a significant outflow from the properties that drain to it. The pipe under Saron Drive is 96 inches, which is huge. There's a culvert in the back of the neighborhood at the bottom of the hill, in a little corner. Yes. So I think because those are intermittent streams, there needs to be some significant stormwater modeling of those streams to figure out what the 100-year storm event elevation ends up being with this increased development flow to it. And the outflow for that will need to be addressed. And yeah, to pair with that same discussion point, I've met with owners off Saron Drive at the corner of where all this water drains. And I've got some photos here to share if anyone wants to see them. It's essentially an unmapped floodplain down there prior to any of this development. So yeah, here at Water Quality, we do get a lot of flooding questions after everything is built, of course. So yeah, we're very concerned with what this development will do to an already high water situation that happens two or three times a year per the owners. I've got multiple photos that they sent me. So we would want to see something on site. The two existing ponds on the corner of this property, we don't believe are really doing anything for stormwater management. So yeah, stormwater is a major concern of ours at DWQ for this development. Okay. Anybody else? I've got a question. That hammerhead up on the top part of the site there, are they connecting to Collinswood? Or are they trying to? Yes. They have to have a terminus because of the substrate into the property, and they chose to show a hammerhead at Collinswood, yeah, at the end of it. So it will not be connecting to Collins? It will. It is. It'll be the end of Collinswood. Gotcha, gotcha. All right. Thank you. Okay. Applicant? I was thinking that we had some concerns about the townhouse area and the access easement through there, and who would own and maintain it, considering it's basically a driveway into the apartments. Just questions that we'll have to consider. And I think that was covered under our comments about group residential projects. So group residential projects have to have more than two access points if they're above the 100 dwelling units. And from our perspective, utilizing the private access easement does not meet that requirement. Okay. Hello. My name's John Hill. I'm with Eagle Engineering. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Okay. I think that if you have anything you want to address based on the comments that were under requirements not met and or design considerations, this would be time for you to get clarification or maybe offer some explanation, something of that nature, if you so choose. I discovered that there's intermittent streams coming up through the property, and there's a 75-foot offset from the center line for that. So basically, we're going to have to remove the townhouse from the building. And so we'll just have an access road to Sarand Drive for that. As far as discussion items about the common area and the location of the parking lot adjacent to Taste Creek Road, I tried to place my buildings where it had the best gradient location. And I'd like the parking lot along Taste Creek Road that has a lot of cross slope. So that's the reason that's there. I put the common area in the corner because I wanted to have the office and the clubhouse in the center of the job with the pool by that. I'm not sure what the problem is with the hammerhead or the cul-de-sac. We're proposing a hammerhead at the end of the street. Okay. Whatever the question is. The fire department was just clarifying that that was actually connecting. Yes, it's connecting. I think the other thing we discussed is because of the location next to that one building, it's possible that people will park there, see that as parking spaces, and pull in there. Which would mean that then you couldn't use that as a turnaround if people were parked there. So it probably would need to be signed, no parking, at the very least. Gotcha. Yeah, and I'll double up on that, too. That's one issue fire tends to see when we have hammerheads as part of our access turnarounds is people tend to try to use that as parking spots. So making sure that is noted for the public that they cannot park in that hammerhead. Thank you. Have you considered how you'll manage your stormwater on-site? This was developed, this was the old home place left over from a subdivision, Woodfield subdivision that was developed in 1988. They have a detention area shown in there with that outlet structure, he was talking about the photos and stuff. What I thought about doing is just trying to create extra storage upstream of that to try to lower the water surface. So I don't know exactly what the existing condition is now. Are you aware of the flooding on-site? I've got photos. No, I'm not aware of that, no. From the downstream looking up at all that watershed, it's a lot of water that comes through here. Most of this watershed is unchecked. It just flows. Well, we've got nine acres, and I think there's 450 acres coming to us. It's a huge watershed. Yes, it is, yeah. I mean, that's what we're going to attempt to do. Is it actually getting into houses, or just... It's about a foot away from the owner I spoke with based on these photos. So he's extremely concerned about flooding, and that was not even close to the 100-year event. Exactly, yeah. All I can do is model it and see where we are and see if we can try to solve that issue and try to lower the elevation. If I had a fixed elevation from then, I guess all the upstream development has occurred and that's changed. There's a lot more water coming through there. And do we absolutely have to save all the significant trees, or what's... I never have been clearly understood what we're supposed to do with significant trees. Ideally, yes. Especially when you're talking 200-year-old trees, those are very important, not only for the flooding that's already occurring, but for the future of the area and our city to have those types of trees remain. Some of the issues we have is the end of Collinswood Lane is four foot lower than the property. And then as we go out to Surin Drive, there's a huge valley there that we have to have covered. So we're going to have to do some grading on the site to make that work. And we're trying to save as many as we can, but I don't... That's been something I haven't been understood fully, is do you absolutely have to save them? Or is there some leeway? Can we plant extra trees or something different? There is a mitigation option, but I would prefer to see some attempt made to put a design in there that saves trees and accommodates the other concerns that the technical committee has. Let's see. We're going to get rid of the townhomes. So I guess we won't have access season. We'll just have whatever you want to call that. Maybe just a site parking lot for apartments. So that's an issue. We haven't done a sewer cap application yet. We're still in the zone change phase. And I don't really know anything about the place builder criteria. We'll have to get our lawyer to cover that. So anything else, I can kind of help you out. Anybody have anything else? Technical committee, applicant, anything else? Are you good? I'm good. OK. All right. So the motion. Oh, staff recommends postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PLN MJDP 2625 Tom Collins Farm McGee property with no changes. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. OK. Moving along, our next zoning development plan, MJDP 2629 J. Forbing and Sons at Hayman subdivision, the standard at Lexington. This is located at 6633 South Broadway, 441 Hayman Lane, 653 Lower Street and 416 through 442 even only and 451 of Chair Avenue. The purpose of this plan is to depict the development of multifamily residential and associated parking in support of the requested zone change from a wide industrial I-1 zone to a corridor node C-N zone. So what we've got, this is Oliver Lewis Way and then the intersection with Oliver Lewis and South Broadway is here. And this is South Broadway. This is Lower Street and Hayman Avenue. This is Chair Avenue that comes through here. And this is Scott Street, which I believe now terminates at the intersection. And then there's a proposed extension, which will be elevated, kind of explaining what the conflict is down here. What they're showing is two multifamily structures. One here, let's see, is that, I'm trying to remember, Emeline. So between Emeline and Scott and Chair and Oliver Lewis and then another multifamily structure here between Chair and I can't remember what that is. And then surface parking in this area. And then there's another surface parking here that's on a separate parcel. So under requirements not met, number one, remove. And then the other thing of note here is they're showing a pedestrian bridge, and I believe it's at the fifth level, between this structure and this structure. And then also between the parking structure and the middle building. So under requirements not met, number one, remove color and or shading from the plan face. Number two, correct the title block to match the staff report. Number three, clarify lot lines and propose rights of way. Number four, depict all pedestrian and vehicular entrances and access points. Number five, ensure that the driveway apron matches engineering standard drawing 307-2 or 307-3 as applicable. Number six, add cross section for raised crosswalk on the plan face. Number seven, modify interior landscaping and interior tree canopy for lot four to meet zoning ordinance article 18. Number eight, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number nine, provide dimensions for drives and walkways. Number 10, commercial driveway entrance shall comply with standard drawing 307-2. Number 11, depict termination of Hayman Street and Lower Street per the land subregs. And this is when the extension is built, these streets will end and it's not depicting a termination of either of those rights of way at this time. And then number 12, label street cross sections existing or proposed as appropriate. Under waivers, number one, for an alternate cross section. And then under design considerations, number one, alter Hayman Avenue to ride in, ride out and propose median controls. Number two, coordination with the design team for the Cox Street extension project is imperative. Number three, phased construction for the relocation of the town branch culvert is required. And then under plan questions and concerns, number one, clarify the purpose of hatching along the north side of Lower Street. Number two, discuss incorporating transit facilities. Number three, discuss lack of direct vehicle access to building on lot one. It doesn't appear that there's any vehicle access beyond the right of way for deliveries or drop offs or anything like that. So we're just kind of curious how that's going to be handled. Number four, discuss lack of bicycle parking immediately adjacent to residential structures. Number five, will the parking area on the corner of Chair Avenue and Broadway be removed as part of this plan? Number six, are right of way improvements proposed for Emmeline Lane, Chair Avenue or South Broadway? Number seven, discuss stormwater management plan capacity and ownership and maintenance. Number eight, discuss proximity of new building to Scott Street retaining wall. Number nine, discuss right of way dedication for Scott Street. Number 10, discuss open space along South Broadway. And then it should be number 11, discuss place builder criteria. At this time, we do recommend approval with sign offs. The first one being the Urban County Council approves the zone change to CN. And then sign offs for engineering, traffic engineering, open forest or open space. Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. And then finally, to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I'll turn it over to the committee. Chris, you can delete my comment that was number 10 because it's a duplicate of traffic's comment number five. And requirements not met about the apron, entrance apron. Oh, okay. So remove 10 under requirements not met. And then in design considerations number two, I don't know what I was thinking. Scott Street instead of Scott Street. That's near there. I thought so. You can take off environmental quality as a sign off. So number six. Anything else? I do have a comment about the box culvert going through there that's going to be relocated. Our GIS maps show it as a 96 by 144. Though we do understand it changes sizes somewhere along the route. But we don't know where. Just I would advise checking the Asbill drawings to make sure you get that size right before it changes. Because I think you're showing it as an 8 by 8. So we don't know exactly where it changes to a 96 by 144. But we would hate to get out there and find out that it's a 96 by 144 and not an 8 by 8. So I would recommend checking the Asbill for that to know where it changes size. Thanks. And Chris isn't here, but I can't remember if he had a comment in here about doing the analysis for the sanitary. All these apartments are bringing in a lot more requirements for usage on the sanitary sewer system demand. So we're having to watch that more closely. So they will need to do a sanitary sewer analysis? So do we need to add that? Probably for the final. It's just something to look at down the road. Okay. All right. Applicant. This is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. For requirement not met, I believe item 1 to number 7, self-explanatory, we'll address them and resubmit. Item number 8, regarding the open space, I believe we are within half a mile of Davis Park, which is on Freedom Lane and the road, which will address the common space. And then the other requirement, we can provide an exhibit to address these. Number 9, we can dimension it as required. Number 11, which is termination of Hayman Street and Lower Street. So my understanding from talking to engineering and multiple conversations that most probably that project will be complete prior to the completion of Scott Street. So at that time, we are not ending any street. We are showing Scott Street extension as an illustration, including the retaining wall. So I guess when the project is complete, Hayman Avenue and Lower Street will stay in operation until the extension of Scott Street is complete. So do you have a plan for those two roads, or are you saying whatever the government decides? Yes, ma'am. So if we close the road completely? No, what I'm trying to say is that this project will be complete prior to the extension of Scott Street, according to the schedule we discussed with engineering. So at that time, the termination of this street will be part of the extension of Scott Street. And at that time, it will be addressed when these two streets get impacted with the extension of Scott Street. But what we are showing here, we are reserving the area for the extension of Scott Street, and also we place the parking garage 10 feet from the retaining wall that's going to be built as part of Scott Street. So we had multiple conversations with engineering, and this plan reflects what the current design stage of Scott Street and where the retaining wall is going to be. And we place that parking garage so that there is 10 feet of separation from the future retaining wall that's going to be part of Scott Street. I don't think we specifically talked about the termination for those two streets. I mean, obviously, I guess when the government projects for the extension of Scott Street, it's probably not addressing a hammerhead or a termination that meets the sub-regs, because that's not the path that the capital projects follow. So this is going to be a new, it's going to have plots and, you know, improvements to the infrastructure. And I think the proper termination of those two streets that will be eventually dead end because it's on this property should be terminated appropriately. Well, I mean, the timing of the project is going to be the significant part. What I'm trying to say is that Scott Street, we understand, is still in the design stage right now. So it's going to be still funding has to be allocated for. And then our project is supposed to be complete in the fall of 2029. So it looks, it appears that this project is going to be materialized before the extension of Scott Street. And then when this project is complete, we are not impacting in either Hayman or Lower Street. So I don't see a reason why should we come up with any termination for something we are not closing it. Are they substandard streets? I'm guessing they probably don't meet the current subdivision regulations. So I think we have to at least think about if Lower Street is coming down and then people, is this chair that goes out that way? Chair is the one, this is the chair that's going to run in the middle between both upper building and lower building. This is Lower Street. So someone would be able to drive down Lower and then turn left and go down Hayman, right? But that doesn't access South Broadway. You have to kind of circle back up or does it access directly? It does. Hayman is connected to it. So the government may say, hey, we're going to tear up all the pavement to the plan west of your parking garage. And all the pavement plan south of your parking garage because you all don't really need that. You can access Hayman. You're going to be okay with whatever the government decides to do? Yeah, we have a connection. Just checking. Yes, we have a connection to Lower Street at that location. Right, so if we tear up all that pavement because we don't want anybody circulating along the backside here or trying to get under the underpass or the overpass of Scott Street. I mean, as a government, we don't really need that portion of Lower Street. You have frontage up here, so you'll be all right. Are you saying south of the entrance to the parking garage? No, the whole thing. Again, I think we need to discuss what your plans are. And if someone is coming to that parking garage for your development, are they able, say someone gets down there and goes, oh, wait a second. I guess I can't get through. I have to turn around. How do they turn around? They pull in the parking garage and back out and go back the other way. So we have to think those things through. And also the Meese Tile, if they have access from Lower or whatever the street is that comes down, they have large trucks. They're an industrial user, making sure that they can get to their facilities, too. So we have to think that through, but we want to make sure that you all are at least part of the conversation. And so engineering is asking, do you have plans or the ability to provide room for a turnaround? Because if those streets don't connect anymore, right now they connect. Now they're connecting, and if they don't connect in the future, it's not because of this project. It's going to get not connected before the extension of Scott Street. Due to elevation, Scott Street is going to start getting higher elevation from that point all the way to kind of get above the Broadway. And then in order to kind of reach that elevation here. But if you don't participate in the solution, the result might be, okay, instead of that wall and you being 10 feet off, we're going to need you to be 40 feet off so that we can continue a road around, which then affects your property. So I think we need to figure out how to work that out. I hear what you're saying. And think beyond your construction to beyond Scott Street and how that area is going to operate. At the end of the day, of course, in the process, of course, the city, state, you're not going to take any more than you need. Because that's what happens in a condemnation process. Right. To your point, this is something we all need to work together on, which is why Jihad and his team and Nick Lev, Nick's with the developer, got Stantec's latest design to set this up. And obviously, clearly we want to. It benefits us. This project's going to benefit the development, right? So we want to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, I just want us to think beyond your project timeline of how it's going to operate after the construction leaves and, you know, people are living there. I was just trying to say I think it warrants some additional conversations between the two design teams to come up with a solution that's definitely not going to work. Yeah, that's just not going to be. Yeah, we understand that. And we want to keep the conversation. Just join it. Yeah. If you recall, when we met the first time, we were showing some townhouses in that location. And we have a building, large building in that location. And because of the Scott Street, we made significant amount of changes. We eliminated the townhouses. We brought the parking garage from that location to that location. And we kind of split the building in two buildings. Yes. So that's due to the meeting with engineering. And we tried to kind of reserve the right of way, the future right of way for the extension of Scott Street. So, I mean, we'll be glad to kind of continue this conversation to help everybody feel comfortable to move forward. And do you want to add anything else? I think that's a question, too, could be is does that remain a public street if it, you know, because something you all can discuss is like if it's just accessing your property and your parking garage and chair, does the public street end at chair street and that piece become your access to the parking garage? I think that's what we're getting at is like what does it look like when it goes away? How does it impact you? Do we need to terminate the street or does it connect to chair? So it's just saying what does the roadway network look like post your construction, post Scott Street construction, and how does it function so that the general public and the other properties can access what they need and you all have what you need and the government maintains what they maintain, you maintain what they maintain, and so we're following the regulations like if it's in a terminus, we have to terminate the public street according to our regulations. So that's I think that's the… I like how you're dealing with that one in Hagerman. Absolutely, right. So just making sure that that's kind of understood and, you know, knowing that there's a solution between engineering and the different design teams that's appropriate. Yeah, I agree with that. That's a great point. All this has been envisioned to improve the expansion or extension of Scott Street, the redevelopment of this area from industrial to what we're doing. So, you know, we just have to work together and make it all. Yes. So on traffic, I have a question, David, on alternate cross section. I'm not sure if I understood the point. So you're doing a half street improvement, I think, to chair, but it looks like it's all monolithic. Is that right or did I miss that? Yeah, you're right. Okay, so that's not in a standard cross section. So you'd either need a waiver. Yes, I follow. Or add a landscape area to comply with an existing cross section. Yes, and we'd like also to meet with you on the design consideration to kind of… Hagerman right now is a full entrance, but your point about right in, right out only was a median. Okay. And number two for design consideration for, yes, we'll keep that. We'll follow up on the conversation. We will keep coordination with engineering in regard to the extension of Scott Street and the termination of these two streets. And the project will be phased. Definitely the phase one is going to be the demolition of all the existing structure and then the construction of the box culvert that kind of connected that direction and the extension of the 18-inch sanitary sewers to kind of get into that location. And to answer your question, sir, about the box culvert, so we went inside it, and this is that location. This is where the transition goes from 12 by 12 to 8 by 8. So as you can see, this is where the transition went from 12 by 12 to 8 by 8, and this was part of the extension, the early project of the route. And so this is done in 2015 or 2016. And the purpose of the hatching over here, so we are showing that the way it is right now, the lower street is part of all this kind of property along Chair Avenue. We are showing that area to be dedicated right away. So if it ends up being private streets and it's going to be at that time private streets or private access, whatever, we end up in that location. So there's two locations where the road can encroach into the property here in the shape of a triangular, and then here is more like that area, total areas. Basically, the lower street is part of the Chair Avenue property. So discuss the incorporation of transit facilities. So we're going to be in conversation with LaxTran about where they would like to place a bus stop or something like that, so that's something we'll follow up on it. So the lack of access to Building 1, so from parking, so this is going to be a regional parking and there is two bridges or pedestrian crossings. There is one pedestrian crossing in that location above, and this will be a fourth floor, and then there is another crossing over here. So that will connect all the vehicular parking into that building, Lot 1. And then also we're still in the process of determining how basically any delivery truck and things like that is going to be. This is something we'll provide additional information, but it's going to be for vehicular use into this building going to be determined. The bicycle is going to be located along the entrances. There's one comment about where the pedestrian entrances, whenever we have, we will locate them with a bike showing the bike rack where it's going to be along the entrances. And my understanding is that we have to provide 10% of parking spaces to be bike rack? On the multifamily, 50% of that has to be covered. Sometimes you do that in your parking garages, but there's also a requirement that that be located a certain distance from the buildings, and so that's where this gets a little different. Normally parking is less concentrated and not as far away. It's like in the building adjacent to you, so that creates a little bit, but we can figure out what that looks like. Potentially we could do a bike room. You could do something like that. I mean, like I said, it's really up to you all, but we want to make sure it fits within the intent of that zoning ordinance. So, yeah, I don't think that's a difficult one. Okay. In regard to the parking over here, it will be totally eliminated, and this area will be part of the green space, kind of open space for the project, and we'll provide it as an exhibit. So there's not going to be any improvement on Emmeline Lane. The only improvement, as we discussed, is going to be, like, say, for example, some three boxes and kind of pedestrian sidewalk of eight feet wide and things like that. That's the only thing along the chair, whereas no improvement will be on the right of way of South Broadway, and if we decided to go with the right in, right out on Hayman, if any improvement will be required at that time, we'll be part of it. The stormwater management. So we are finalizing a drainage study for the box culvert, and it's going to be submitted to engineering by Monday, which is address also the stormwater management and also the box culvert capacity and things like that for the relocated box culvert. So discuss the proximity of the new building to Scott Street. So the retaining wall, as of now, we are showing 10 feet separation between the retaining wall and Scott Street. So discuss the right-of-way dedication. At this drawing here, we are showing the right-of-way to be reserved, and also with additional conversation, if it need to be larger area, we can incorporate it. So discuss the open space. As mentioned earlier, in that area, it's going to be kind of open spaces for the project. And if there's any other question for me, I'll be glad to answer it. Yes, sir. I apologize. I thought I asked this question. Location of dumpsters or compactors? Yes, sir. It's going to be a compactor inside that building to kind of serve this project over here, and the dumpster for that building here most probably is going to be as part of that lot over here, which is we will add it as part of the resubmitter. Okay. Just add them on, the details on here. Yes, sir. All right. We sure do. And then on fire, we already had a conversation before, not with you, with Mr. Boat. Emery. But most probably it's going to be a fire vault over here to kind of serve that building, and another fire vault to serve the parking garage. And then this area over here is going to have a fire vault we can locate at a later date with your assistant to kind of protect the large building. You mentioned a 10-foot dimension between your building and the proposed retaining wall. Correct. Think about what construction easements either property would need, because it's 10 feet enough to build the wall. Have you seen their design? I saw the sections that Thomas has emailed to me, which is, if my memory is correct, that wall on that location is close to 12 to 14 feet, if my memory is correct. You might need to look at just make sure there's not any conflicts with the foundations and everything related to building those structures. And I don't know if you have to run any utilities through there, storm or sanitary as well. Yes. We have no intention to relocate to get any utility. All the sanitary sewers that is going to be connected to the 27-inch sewer lines that run along Chair Avenue, and we did the capacity analysis. There's enough capacity for the project. And then there's another 18-inch line that's going to be rerouted here. But my point is that I want to discuss, bring it up. There is a storm line that can run to the box culvert here. That storm line we are asking to reduce the easement to 15 feet. So if we can reduce it a little bit larger, if we can reduce it more than 15 feet, it will give us a little bit more room to kind of slide the parking garage in that direction. And this is something we can talk to you about. If there's a possibility to kind of make it 10 feet since it's a small line, then it will give us additional footage here for the building to be shifted to give the parking garage more room between a retaining wall and the parking garage. So you said you did submit the cap application, or is that still pending? Still pending. We are still in terms of review. And then we will submit it as soon by this week, I guess, we can have this application. Thank you. Thank you. There's a whole process for easement, encroachments, and so we'd have to look at that more closely. Structures would not be allowed, but I don't know what that size of that pipe is. And if you were making a proposal for amending the drainage, possibly rerouting it somewhere other way, that might help your case. I'm just not sure what's happening right there. I believe if my memory, I need to double check on the line of this size. Hopefully it's not 36 inches, but I will confirm it. Anybody else? Thank you. That's good. All right. So the staff recommends approval. So the motion is for approval of PLN MJDP 2629J, Forbing & Sons, and Hayman subdivisions, the standard at Lexington, with the removal of note number 10 under requirements not met, and the edit of note number 2 under design considerations from Cox Street to Scott Street. So moved. All in favor? Did we remove environmental quality? And to remove environmental quality from conditional sign-offs. Do I need to restate that? Everybody got that? Okay, we're good. So moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right. I mean, it's formalities, but is it, you know, I mean, right. Okay, moving along. The next plan, MJDP 2632, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way, Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 9. This is Sir Barton Way Apartments. This is also a zone change. The purpose of this plan is to depict a multifamily residential development in support of the requested zone change from a professional office P1 zone to a medium-density residential R4 zone. So this property, this is Sir Barton Way here. I'm going to go ahead and bump to the, well, let's see. So there, wait, no, I'm sorry, no, no, that's I-75. This is Sir Barton Way through here. So there are an existing developments with an access drive between, and this parcel is currently undeveloped in the rear, and it backs up to the greenway. So I'm going to zoom in. So this is Sir Barton Way here. And these are the two existing developments with the drive aisle down the common property boundary, so it's an access easement. And then this is the subject property here. They're depicting what looks like five residential structures and a clubhouse with a pool in the center. Under requirements not met, number one, denote all buildings paving signs, fences, walls, or retaining walls shall have a separate review and building permit from division building inspection prior to construction. Number two, all development in areas of alluvial soils will comply with Article 6-11 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Number three, denote no land disturbance, construction, clearing of native vegetation or mowing shall occur in the vegetative buffer zone. Number four, use standard site statistics table and consolidate all site data. Number five, correct title block to match staff report. Number six, denote zone change request in purpose of plan note. Number seven, dimension all driveways and walkways. Number eight, denote construction access. Number nine, denote building entrances. Number 10, remove VUA between principal structures and the street per zoning ordinance Article 16-5C1 and 2. Number 11, depict VUA interior landscape areas that conform with Article 18-3B4A of the zoning ordinance. Number 12, clarify the 25-foot setback. I think we're just having trouble seeing which lines indicated what. Number 13, depict bicycle parking. Number 14, verify correct commission certification. Number 15, connect sidewalk and access easement from Sir Barton Way to the internal pedestrian network and connect internal pedestrian network between buildings. Number 16, alter parking lot layout to show cross access. Currently, there's no cross access shown. Number 17, alter access to driveway apron at the end of the access easement. Number 18, commercial entrances shall be located a minimum of three feet from the property line or move to allow the corresponding apron flare to remain inside the projected property line and be in compliance with standard drawings 307-2 or 307-3. And number 19, denote all pavement markings aside from standard parking stalls shall be thermoplastic. Number 20, reverse flow of building numbers to clockwise. Number 21, address of the complex must be clearly visible from Sir Barton Way or create a name for the access road. Number 2, depict vegetative buffer. Number 23, depict the regulatory flood protection elevation and or flood protection elevation. Number 24, 50% or greater of the required bicycle parking for multifamily development shall be covered and either located directly adjacent to the structure or in a location internal to the structure. Bicycle parking shall be allocated proportionately between the residential structures on a development based on the number of residential units in each structure. Number 25, label the center line of the blue line stream. Number 26, change note number 6 to read screening and landscaping shall conform with zoning ordinance article 18, land subdivision regulations 6-10, and the tree protection ordinance. Number 27, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. No waiver is requested at this time. Under design considerations, see all Acela comments provided by the division of engineering. Number 2, fire department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of a building or extended to 450 feet of the building as protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Under plan questions and concerns, number 1, address sanitary sewer capacity. Number 2, what is the proposal for stormwater management? Number 3, discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. Number 4, discuss maintenance of access easement. Number 5, discuss place builder criteria. The sign-offs, first is the, provided the urban county council approves the zone change to R4. Number 2, sorry, sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, urban forest or open space, environmental quality, and then finally to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. At this time we are recommending postponement because there are questions regarding cross parcel access and second access for 100 units or more. And with that I'll open it up to the committee. Quick question, or just a quick comment from water quality. We did notice that lot A does have a storm pipe that drains towards this development, upper right corner of this development, you can kind of see the little easement there. We just want to make sure that that's not mistaken or not forgotten about. You're going to have to kind of figure out some way to handle that storm flow. Anything else? Applicant? Of course I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of the applicant. Kevin Rich is with me from Rich Design, our landscape architect. We'll be doing the engineering as well. I may just go through some of the things we just have a question about for you. The big one is the cross access. Before we went into this we checked with Officer Beatty who told us that between one to 100 units we need one access point. Above 100 we'd need two. So we have 100 on here, which we checked in advance on that. So our understanding is we need only one access point for this development. You may have seen an earlier plan where we had 120 units. We've reduced it down to 100 on this for that reason. I'll get with you all later on that so we can clarify that. The access point on the, or this point, there we go. I think you're talking about this one right there. The property owner over here has put a utility plan with transformers in that exact location. Yeah, right there. Well, that's where the utility pad is, right there where the arrow is. But we'll get with you on that one. But before we filed we checked on this and understood that we needed one access point. On requirements not net number four, site statistics table, you're not asking us to merge all those little, they've got it lot by lot. Of course, we don't have anything to do with the other lots. You just want all the little tables in one box or that, yeah. It should all be consolidated in one table. But we don't have to go like for the whole thing there's so many square feet of buildings and so many parking spaces. You don't want that for the universal thing. You just want it lot by lot, right? We have a sample of what's expected. Okay. And it lists each lot and then a total. Okay, okay. Number 10, VUA between principal structures and street. There's no street here on this property at all, no public street. So we'll get with you on that one. We'll get back to you guys on that. 12, we'll clarify, you just want 25-foot floodplain setback? You just want the lines to be clarified? I think maybe just some line work. I think it was really hard to tell down there on that southern area. There's just so many lines it's hard to tell where the setback is. Yeah, and make sure it's not hitting the building because it looked like the one line was right. Just make sure you're free from that 25-foot line. Thank you. And we'll show you the bicycle parking. That's fine. I do want to note that the trail by others, we'll need to see, like, it needs to be buildable. It needs to be buildable? The area that you're showing it in, I'm not sure where that alignment came from. So what we need is just to show it where it would be actually buildable. So it can be in the floodway, but it can be in the floodplain. And then we'll need to show an easement for that. We don't require that you build it, but we do require that we have an easement to build it for future access. Is there a plan for that? Yeah, absolutely. It's in the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. And that's part of a larger trail network through there, and that's where those other properties are. We actually require people to try to connect to that location. So I don't know if that aligns. You just drew that as straight connecting those two other pieces. But there's clearly some type of a contour there that looks like it's showing either floodway or floodplain and just pushing that into a buildable location and then making sure that there's an easement so that it can be built when the time comes. So if I could comment. Our plan is really building off the previously approved plan, MJDP 21-7. That depicted all of this information on it with an easement. So we just carry that in. We just need to double-check that because that was a while back, and some things have changed since then. So we just want to make sure that we're where we need to be with that. Yeah, so if you have something that has a different alignment, we can incorporate it. We can incorporate that and see what it shows. And on 15, we'll show you the connections. You just need to maybe show more crosswalks and that sort of thing to connect the curbside walk. Yeah, so all the buildings have to have sidewalk connections out to the public right-of-way. And so your sidewalks will have to connect throughout the development in a logical fashion so that there's crossings and all that, and there's just disconnect in there. So just keep that in mind. If someone's walking there, they need to be able to walk on a sidewalk and get to each building from the existing sidewalk on the street access. There's one sidewalk that comes in, I believe. Yeah, we show the existing connection from the existing sidewalk with a crosswalk. Part of the issue was we had, my fault, we had prepared this as an amendment to the original and then prepared a second plan that had more detailed information on it. So I'll edit it and just carry a lot of that information over. Yeah, we'll get that, and we can always look at it and see where it's missing. Yeah, it's okay. There's a one-lot version on Acela, I believe. We've got it on Acela that shows you this just for our lot, shows you a whole lot more detail on that. But we understand we need to use this one for the preliminary because it's what we have. We have to do it. But on Acela there is one lot depicted that shows you it's a lot more readable, basically. On 17 and 18, the driveway, apron, and entrances, again, we'll get to the staff since we're stubbing off an access easement here. We'll clarify, Chris, with you on getting that taken care of. And the addresses. It looks like our option is to have bigger numbers on the building that you can see farther away or rename the access easement. A long time ago when they came through with a building, and it was going to be a doctor's office, I think actually an eye doctor, they actually submitted a plan, and they wanted to name that access road, and they called it Retina Way, which got approved. But you don't have to do that. That's an option, but that changes to it. I really don't want to do that because that actually will change the address of the parcel, and I don't want to do that. So the option and the way the order reads, you can have the number on the building, but we still have to have the number. You're too far off the street for that to count. You still have to figure out some way to get an address out there at Sir Barton, which means that you're going to have to put an address marker somehow on get permission from one of those property owners to put that out there. So you're so far off the street, the ordinance kicks in, that you still have to have something at Sir Barton. We can use the Sir Barton address, or you can rename it, but then we're going to have to change the PVA parcel too, and that gets in a lot more. So we've got a couple of options there. But you said it's not Retina Way officially right now? It got approved as Retina, and I think it actually showed up on some DP a long time ago, but we did actually pass that, but they never used it. So it never actually went into play. It's reserved out there to use it, but to do that would be changing the parcel from 25, whatever it is, Sir Barton, to that Retina Way address. Then the complex gets that Retina Way address. We put the street sign up. It becomes a private access road. The city puts a street sign up. You could come up with another name, but that goes through the Addressing Committee and gets it approved. So there's a couple of options here, but that's a little further past the zoning thing. Let's get past zoning, and then we can figure that out. Yeah, we'll figure that out. We need to note that on the final plan. To the bicycle park, and I think we'll get with fire on that design consideration too. They were on there with 150 feet of all portions of the exterior. I think we meet that, but we'll check with you on that. We'll get with you engineering on stormwater management here. Do you have anything more? No. I don't see any of these as an issue. We just got to transform from the one plan to this, really. Thank you all. Anybody have anything else? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify the density requirement. So Article 9, and I'm not sure what you were told by the fire department, but Article 9 of the zoning ordinance has information about density of use, and it says for projects that include 100 or more dwelling units, so you have 100, a minimum of two commercial access points shall be provided. So there may be a one unit disconnect there. Now, we did have Firefighter Embry review this, AD review this zoning ordinance change from a year ago, so I'm not sure why there's a disconnect there, or if there was a change in the fire code or what, but the zoning ordinance requires you to have two. So the correspondence with fire, we have an email that says 100 is fine with one. We're saying that doesn't matter. I'm saying the zoning ordinance requires two. I'm not sure what communication you have, and if it's about the fire code, that's completely different. Our zoning ordinance requires two if you have 100 dwelling units. If you want to change your number of dwelling units, we can talk about that too. I'll talk about that. Is it possible to waive that for the one unit too? I don't know. We'll talk that over. It's just one unit. Okay. Anybody else? Any other technical issues? Nope. There were no changes, right? I didn't hear any. Okay. All right. Just checking before I start rambling. Okay. Staff recommends postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PON MJDP 2632, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way, Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 9, Sir Barton Way, Apartments amended. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We're moving down the agenda. We're down to MJDP 2633, Rosemill Subdivision Unit 2, Paiva Property. Okay. This property is located off of Southland Drive and Mitchell Avenue. We have Rosemont Garden up in this area here. The main shopping area is on this side. So we have an existing building, which used to be a bank building, zone P1, and now they're asking for it to be rezoned to a B1, B for boy for zone change. This is a little bit closer up. They have an access point off of Southland Drive. They have their parking here in the front, and then they have an access point over here to Mitchell. They have the whole front yard shown as black top. Right now, requirements not met. Correct plan title to match staff report. Depict adjacent property boundaries with dashed lines. Correct plat reference and site statistics box. Denote construction access location. Dimension building and canopy heights. Addition of building line. Denote approval of all waivers and variances. Addition of sidewalk from right away to the front building entrance. Depict all existing and proposed easements. Depict an accessible route to the vegetated usable open space area in the backside of the coffee shop in the open space exhibit. They're showing a patio here on the front, and then they're showing back here in the rear. This is the lawn picnic area. This used to be right here was the drive-through for the bank to get out onto Mitchell. Currently, they're asking for several waivers and variances. Variance to increase the maximum front yard from 20 feet to 50 feet. Variance to reduce the vehicular use area in a perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet. Variance to reduce the interior landscaping for vehicular use area from 10% to 0%. Variance to reduce the interior vehicle use canopy, tree canopy from 30% to 0%. And they're also asking for a waiver to allow for vehicular use area in the front yard per Article 16.6, which is new in the zoning ordinance that we don't allow pavement on the front yard of a building. Design considerations address sanitary sewer capacity. Plan questions and concerns. Are there plans for a drive-through? Discuss place builder criteria. Are sign-offs provided that the Urban County Council approves the plan to the B1 zone change? Engineering, traffic, urban forester, open space, environmental quality provided the Planning Commission approves the variances in waiver for the maximum front yard, the VUA at perimeter buffer, interior landscaping, interior tree canopy, and interior front yard. And then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met hereon. This time the staff had recommended approval, so asking the committee if there's any comments or questions or anyone that can be removed. Environmental quality can be removed. Thank you, ma'am. Removing number six. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Applicant? Good morning. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. On behalf of Hawk South LLC, the applicant and the owner. Vinnie Paiva was here earlier, as was the tenant. That's for the coffee shop that they had to leave. So I'm sorry they weren't here to enjoy this. So I'm just going through the list. This is a zone change. This is an existing building, existing parking area. It's a building I've passed probably 100 times and really never paid any attention to it. It's pretty small. It's a cool little building, though. Probably a 50s architecture, stone, flat roof. I didn't know it was a bank. A doctor's office was the last use. It was for security. I don't know how they functioned with the drive-thru. It was very tight. We do not anticipate or we are not proposing a drive-thru and don't plan to have a drive-thru. The intent for the use as a coffee shop is more just a local gathering place, kind of old-style coffee shop where people come. The retail component is envisioned more of a record store so that you listen to music and drink coffee and headphone-centric, maybe, as I understand it. So kind of a cool vibe, and that's the intent of the lawn area and the picnic area is people come there, gather, listen to music, drink coffee, and meet each other. And I've also filed this as a final development plan since there's minimal to no improvements proposed, although it is a zoning development plan. Correct plant title, fine. Dash lines, fine. Plant reference, fine. I'll show construction access, but there is no planned construction, site construction. I expect there will be a lot of fit-up inside, but nothing. Canopy height, it's a low building. I expect the canopy height is somewhere around 16 feet. It's not really a canopy, it's just the eave of the building. Sidewalk access to the front, we'll work on that, Scott, and get that depicted on there. There are no proposed easements, and I think I do show that there really aren't any existing easements on site. To that effect, real quick. We thought, I should have printed that off, but our GIS maps show a storm line coming through this property, so that may need checked and show that as an easement if there is one. When I get back to the office, I'm going to double check that. Send me what you've got. The survey didn't pick up that, so I'm not saying it's not there. I'll check that when I get back to you. That would be helpful. Accessible route, we anticipate that the ends of the building we can project a crosswalk from that sidewalk out, and then from that walkway out. We would anticipate that to happen. Scott, I'll have to work with you on how we get from here to here. There's a ditch. Oh, looky, I like that one. There's a ditch there, so maybe we just come out here. I don't know how we'll address that, but it's an open culvert. Then we've asked for a lot of variances to accommodate the existing conditions. If we met all the conditions, I don't know that the building becomes. We either flip the parking with the lawn and kind of ruin the vibe, or we keep it the way it is, and I think it's a nice buffer around the building and creates a very nice space. That's not necessarily this group's decision at this point. Sewer capacity fine, we'll have to deal with that. There are no plans for a drive-through. Other than that, I think what you see out there is what we're proposing, so it's more of an adaptive reuse of the existing building. Any questions for me? Anybody have anything? I was just going to say, since you're saying that this is a final development plan, typically there are several other sign-offs that we request at time of final, so I'm going to open it to the committee to see, such as landscaping, open space, bike and ped, waste management and fire. Those are typically some other sign-offs that we usually use. Yeah, I should be on there. And me as well. Who is me as well? Me. We were going to talk anyways, but it just makes it. Open space? Open space is already on there. Okay, I'm sorry. And so landscape examiner, right? Waste management. Tony, they're not planning on a dumpster here, are they? They don't have one now, and they were hoping just to use roll carts. I mean, I know currently they have roll carts there, but is this going to produce that much? It's a restaurant though, right? Coffee shop. It's a restaurant. Okay. I mean, I don't know how that gets classified. They don't anticipate a need for a dumpster, even though they are a coffee shop. Yeah, I mean, the one I looked at, I don't know if there's going to be room for a dumpster on there or not. I mean, the only other option would be to go with something with casters on it where it can be moved around. But that's going to have to be done on a private service if it comes to that. Right. Yeah. Okay. Well, you and I, I'm the owner, can address that. Yeah. All right, thank you. All right. All right, so landscape, waste, solid waste, bicycle, pedestrian. Does that get everybody? Is that right? Do you need cap assurance? Capacity assurance? Is cap already on here? No. Okay. Right. I don't know. Yeah, Chris commented the cap app will have to go through changing use, so yeah. Might not be able to get that. What's that? Oh. Okay. All right. Is that everything? Tony, are you good? I'm good, yeah. Okay. So staff recommends approval. So the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2633, Rosemills Subdivision, Unit 2, Pavia property, maybe? That's how you say that? Piva. Piva property, with the removal of the Department of Environmental Quality's approval of sensitive areas and the addition of landscape examiners, conditional sign-off, waste management, bicycle, pedestrian, and capacity assurance program. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Okay. This is a reapproval, MJDP-253, Secure Justice Unit 6, Polo Club Center, Lot 2. This plan was on the counter to be signed, and we realized that they had missed their expiration date. So it's basically just been resubmitted for reapproval so they can certify it. There's no changes to this. Everybody had already signed off on it. But basically we just need to reapprove it so they can get it signed and move on. All right. Everybody good with that? Just this morning we got an image. We'll just need to get with them to correct. Go to the larger. Yep. Basically, I guess there's the turn arrows. Well, there's like a stop. It's a stop condition, but it shouldn't be. And then they also have a yield sign. So there's just some confusion over what's out, the signs and markings that are out there. So we're just going to get that. Somebody sent an image today. We'll just need to get it. Like there's a sign assembly that says yield, but then there's stop on the pavement. But then I don't think either of them need to be there. So we'll just need to get it. It's kind of minor. I think the whole sign assembly can just be removed and maybe some other markings. That's what's already on the ground, right? Correct, yeah. Okay. I'm here for Josh Cecil couldn't come, and I've been sort of involved. So I got the message. It's pretty minor, but we got, yeah, we got like three different emails with a picture of it. So it was like, oh, yeah. Like I said, it says yield on the sign and stop on the pavement. So it was like, yeah, they need to agree. The thing I have with that is they did the improvements, modified the right-of-way. We needed the final record plat, and a surety would have probably been in place if it had been recorded when they did the work. But there are also street trees that there were some issues with that Eric had looked at because they redid the median, took out some trees, replanted, and I can't remember all the details of it. So there's some details related to a final record plat that need to be addressed before engineering. So, I mean, isn't the right-of-way already dedicated, the entire width of Polo Club? So I'm not sure. Okay. But they changed the cross section, so I don't know if that needs to be done. Not typically. Once it's a dedicated right-of-way and there's changes, whether a developer makes a change or the city does, those don't trigger an amended plat. Okay. Well, if they're not doing a plat, not providing a surety, then the signage is probably something that needs to be addressed, part of the sign-off maybe or as a condition, and then the tree plantings that are incorrectly done need to be addressed as part of the process. So do we need to add those as sign-offs? Well, are those so the development plan usually gives permission to build what's on the site, and once it's signed, then they would have to go get building permits. So is that something that you would use as a condition? This plan required the turnaround before it could be certified, and so these things are addressed with the turn lane. Yes. Okay. So it is tied to this DP. Yeah. So we do need to get those corrected. ASAB. So does that change? Is that just a logistical on our end in Acela? Yeah. Okay. So we could still recommend reapproval, but they'll just be conditional sign-offs for engineering and traffic. So we need urban foresters. It sounds like we'd reopen those three sign-offs. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. I think I got it. Okay. So the motion is for reapproval of PLN-MJDP-25-3, Sakura Justice Unit 6, Polo Club Center, Lot 2, with the conditional sign-offs of the urban forester, traffic engineering, and the division of engineering. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? The motion passes. Okay. Just for the record, the next item, 7B on our agenda, interstate park development, was withdrawn. Is that correct? They had asked for a continued discussion. They were going to add a 1,500-square-foot patio on the rear. They've decided not to do that, and then just move forward with their certification. So no action on it? Yeah. They were ready to get certified and then decided to add something and have since decided not to. Okay. So the next two, we had two that were postponed for the Belmont Farm Citation Center. The first is the final record plat, 26-7, Coventry-Belmont Center Lots 1 through 11. I'm going to just jump ahead real quick. So we've got the associated development plan and the final record plat. This was the one where there was the question about the wetland. So they were working with the Army Corps of Engineers and had to make some changes reflecting that process. So those were postponed until and to come back to tech now. So these are both before us at this time. I'll do the final record plat. I guess we should just do them individually, but there will be two of them. The address is 2450 Georgetown Road, 2313 Remington Way and 2441 Huntley Place. Let me back up here. So we've got Citation, Georgetown, and this is Huntley Place along the rear. Then they're reserving a parcel for a future right-of-way here. They're not dedicating it at this time. Let's see. So the purpose of the plan is to subdivide one parcel into 10 lots and reserve a parcel for a future public right-of-way and create easements and building setbacks. The applicant submitted revised plans on April 23rd, and based on that, submittal staff can offer the following revised requirements. So under requirements not met, number one, denote drainage and other easement maintenance responsibilities. Number two, denote street addresses for all lots. Number three, denote the waiver approval. Number four, depict all existing and proposed easements. And then there was a waiver approved by the Planning Commission on April 9th. And then under design considerations, see all ASELA comments provided by the Division of Engineering. And then number one, discuss timing and status of MJDP 2576, which is what we're going to be talking about after this. The associated development plan. And we have conditions for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, addition of utility and street light easements, U.S. Postal Service, and then finally to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open up the final record plat to the committee If anybody has any questions or discussion. Okay. The only discussion item we really have is about the development plan, so we can go ahead. So this is for the final record plat? Yep. Okay. And the stash recommendation is approval for this? Okay. Yep. Approval of PLN FRP 26-7 Coventry-Belmont Farm-Belmont Center Lots 1-11 amended. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right. Motion passes. Okay. So on to the development plan, MJDP 2576-Belmont Farm Citation Center. So the purpose of the plan is to revise building footprints and site layout for the entire development. The applicant submitted a revised plan on March 31, and based on that submittal staff can offer the following revised recommendations. Let's see. Number one, denote no building permits shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the planning commission. Number two, 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 three, dimension driveways and radius radii. Number four, update the dumpster enclosure detail to match the current dumpster service guide. Number five, what are the proposed pipe sizes for the streams? Number six, verify compliance with stormwater manual. Use open channels for flows greater than 100 CFS for the 100-year storm. Number seven, label the intermittent stream and depict vegetative buffers. Number eight, add vegetative buffer note from the stormwater manual. Number nine, add KYTC to note 11. Number 10, explain note 21 revised from the previous plan and note 23 on the previous plan. And that was MJDP 2324. Number 11, denote stormwater management onsite or offsite and provide the address. Number 12, depict direct pedestrian connection from all lots to all adjacent rights of way. Number 13, denote all addresses for all buildings and lots. Number 14, provide lighting plan that meets zoning ordinance article 30. Number 15, drive aisle behind lot nine must be 20 feet wide. Is that, I can't remember if that was one that went away when you changed the layout. So that one, yeah, I think originally they had shown drive aisles along citation behind the buildings, but they've reconfigured that lot and removed those. So that 15, I think I just, I think I just missed that. Number 16, submit a tree inventory map and tree preservation plan. Number 17, submit open space exhibits and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number 18, adjust lot layouts for all corner lots. No waivers necessary at this time. And under design considerations, review LFECG ordinances, regulations, manuals, and standards in their entirety. Number two, see previous comments in this area, including MJDP 2364, as well as comments returned via emails. Number three, provide the status of the updated environmental study, note 20. And that's what I was talking about with the wetland and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We'll see number four, discuss proposed mitigation of stream wetland and buffers. Number five, discuss proposed pipe sizes for the streams. Number six, verify existing sanitary sewer systems can support the proposed new development as needed. Number seven, discuss ownership and maintenance of the stormwater management area. Number eight, CSL for all standard procedure notes provided by the division of engineering. Number nine, note streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands require vegetative buffers. Let's see. Number 10, redesign lot layouts to comply with article 16.6A1 and 2. And that may also be related to the waiver and the corner lots. I can't remember off the top of my head now. Plan question and concerns. Number one, add specific notes related to permitting requirements and proposed mitigation. Number two, discuss Royal Spring Water Supply Protection Committee comments. Please explain note number 18. Number three, additional comments may develop as the plan is discussed in more detail in the meeting. Number four, address utility easement conflicts with building footprints prior to DP certification. Number five, clarify discrepancy between tree inventory lists and note number three. And then we do recommend approval with sign-offs from engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing urban forester, environmental quality, bike pit, open space, fire, waste management, water qualities approval, the cap requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements on that. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee. Are you able to zoom in or show a zoomed in area of where the wetlands area is? Because I'm not sure if we saw the final result of that. That one. Yeah. Okay. It's this area here. So, I mean, do we have a buffer for that or not? Well, what's the, we walked the site with the core of engineers and they've provided an environmental study and yeah, I'm looking at the requirements not met and they probably could be amended, but on the fly, I'm not, I don't want to do that right here and now, because unless you still want the stream and vegetative buffers and all those things related to it shown on here, I think their mitigation plan is going to be amending that somewhat, but I guess leave them right here, right. Good for now, but before planning commission, we might want to look at that, you know, because sometimes you'll bring staff reports that have reduced numbers because there's been updates and corrections. And so that might be something we look into. I do want to hear well, and just about their environmental study and their mitigation plan, because I just need want to hear it. Okay. Again, this is Jihad Halani with vision engineering just to where we at on the environmental study. As you, as you know, guys, we met the core on site, January 16, I believe. And we went back and we agree with their assessment so we can concede to their assessment. And then the project right now is going to be mitigation. And that mitigation is going to be close to 500,000, 400, eight, three, some thousand dollars of impact as a wetland and intimate stream. And it is in advertising right now for 30 days. So I can provide you with a date where it's going to be terminated. And then when, when we, we might expect the permit from, from the core, but as, as for, for it is the core agree with our delineation of the wetlands. And based on that, the fee is going to be approximately 400, 80, some thousand dollars of mitigation fee, which is include the internet stream and, and the wetland. I guess, Tracy, did you have comments on, on that process that you wanted to go over? I'm trying to remember it. Does it will require floodplain appeals committee or no, I guess we'll have to discuss that internally. It's not mapped. It's an intermittent stream. So I don't know. And a wetland and you're putting it in a pipe. So I'm not sure we should discuss it. That requires something above just stormwater manual review. Yeah. I was going to say that the planning commission won't, won't review this if it meets all of the requirements. I mean, part of the stormwater manual referred to approval from the core and division of water. And the process was the core. It will include not only the core is going to be include the core U.S. sufficient wildlife, Kentucky division of water is going to include also U.S. CPAs. There's many, many agencies are going to be commenting within that timeframe, 30 days. And based on this comment, the core will review all the comments. And based on that, there will either issue an approval or issue a denial. And that approval is going to be based on mitigation, or we have to purchase credit for that wetland that is going to be impacted. And that's the process we are following right now, which is outlined also by the manual. Wasn't there a CFS limit also to what you can pipe? I forget what the number is. Yes, sir. It's 100 CFS. Yeah, 100 CFS. Yes. It's a range study. And actually it's the project just a little bit. The project has been phased to multiple phases. Phase one is basically all nine acres. And part of that to get the grading permit, land disturbance permit, we submitted range study that showed that no detention is required on site. And it's part of the regional detention basin. We recently submit the second phase, phase two, which is Josh is still reviewing it. It shows that also that portion of the site is part of the regional detention basin, and the proposed impervious area is less than what has been incorporated in the original study. And then the two pipes, there's two main crossing along Georgetown Road. One is 42 inches toward more farther north, and then that 42 inches will continue as 42 inches. The Q100 is less than 100 CFS, and there's one with innovative drive. It's 54-inch pipes. 54-inch will continue all the way to Huntly. And then also the 100 here is less than 100 CFS. And both of these are less than 100 CFS, which is basically there's a pond on innovative drive. It helped us. It hurt us. Because it can reduce the peak flow to less than 100, but it hurt us. Because it kept flowing the water, which is make the wetland as jurisdictional wetlands. Just don't flood your neighbors. That's all I can say. I agree. Yes, the stormwater on item requirement not met. We discussed number five, which is basically the pipes. Compliance with the stormwater for open channel. That's basically what we talked about also. On number seven, we will show the intermittent stream the way it is right now. You said, Von, you're going to review these items. I will wait on your revision, and then we'll address them accordingly. Number 11, denote the stormwater management. So it's going to be off-site on the regional detention basin that has been built. We can add item number 12. We'll add pedestrian connectivities. And then 13, we'll work with address for every lot. And we will revise the lighting plan accordingly and submit tree inventory map. I believe there's no trees, but if we need to meet on site, if you can identify a tree, we'll be glad to kind of show it and protect it. Yeah, well, there's a discrepancy because there is a cluster up there, and then you say there's no trees, but then you identify trees. That was the other additional note. So we just need to clarify. Yes, what I meant, no significant trees or trees larger than 12 inches. But I will be glad to meet you on site. We can walk it, and if there's anything need to be identified, we'll be glad to. Thank you, sir. Open space exhibit, yes, we submitted and we will submit it. I mean, layout for the corner lot, which is I understand what we need to do, we'll revise accordingly. Design consideration, I believe we addressed number one. Number two for, and then number three about the environmental study, we discussed it. We talked about the mitigation. We discussed the pipe sizes. It's going to be existing sanitary sewers. We already had a letter from, which is now provided to us, letter from Division of Water Quality about sewer capacity. The ownership and the maintenance of the stormwater management plan is, like we talked, is going to be a regional detention basin that has been dedicated for that property. Number eight, we will address the comments accordingly. I guess this will be part of the revision of your note, note number nine on the design consideration and redesign lot layout. I believe there's lot number two and three need to be addressed accordingly. So the permitting is a requirement, so we're going to have the core and Division of Water permit as part of the project. And the discuss for Royal Spring, it has been in front of them before, and I guess do we have to go back? Again, Tracy was a different layout, I'm assuming. Okay. We will follow up with them. Yeah, I would focus, when we send this on to them, on the lots that are changing. Okay. Right, so we don't want them to re-review the gas station and have comments on that if those have been approved and are being built, just this kind of. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Which is from lot one to lot seven. Yeah, the section next to Georgetown Road. Yes, ma'am. Additional comment, yes, I'll work with you guys about the comment, what kind of comment need to be added to the plan. Utility easement conflict with footprint, so we already submitted to Debbie Barnett on the release of the easement. It's in the process. We get some comments, we address it, and then still under review. I'm hoping we can get it resolved as soon as possible. So is this going to be done before the certification or before building permit? Because, I mean, this utility can be relocated and things like that, so is it possible to kind of change it to building permit instead of DP certification? I'm guessing building inspection asked for that since it says building next to it, and they prefer that it happen before DP certification, but if it's something that you'd be doing during construction on the site and your site work, it seems like that would come after your DP is certified, but before building permits. Yes, ma'am, and that's what we'd like, because if you want to do any utility relocation or there's a lot of work that can be done on site from mass grading utility be placed before we kind of get into a building permit. And what lot was that on? It would impact lot 5, 6, 7, and I believe it applied to a lot already being certified, which is lot number 9 and number 10. Okay, so we just need to make sure that the note says. Who put a note on the plan that says prior to? A note on the plan prior to building permit. Building permit, yes, sir. And we discussed about the discrepancy about the trees, and I will follow up with you, Eric, about the date works for you. And if there's any other question for me, I'll be glad to answer it. Anybody? All right. Thank you. So the staff's recommendation is for approval, and do I need to speak to the change to plans, questions, or concerns in note number 4, or is that just? Okay. Yeah, instead of DP certification. Denote lots. Okay. Okay. All right, so the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2576 Belmont Farm Citation Center amended with the removal of note 15 under conditions not met and the revision of note number 4 to denote utility easement conflict with building footprints prior to the issuance of a building permit for lots 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. So moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. All right, is there any other plans or business for this committee? All right, then we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.