Land Development & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

This is the regular... Are we ready?

Can I proceed?

Are we good? Okay.

All right. Very good. This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro land development transportation committee to hear cases is documented for the meeting today. The purpose of this committee is to review the technical aspects of a proposed development plan associated with the change in zoning. By consensus determine if it is ready for planning commission, public hearing and set the public hearing date. It is most helpful to this committee comments and requests are related to specific issues that are technical in nature, such as traffic. topographical features, drainage and stormwater, parking orientation or location of structures or other similar items. Public notice has been provided and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's meeting. Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the committee and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the committee must do so from the podium or virtually. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to speaker cards in the order that they are received and only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Proceeds procedures shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. the applicant or their representative will then have the opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony no new testimony shall be given during rebuttal if there are further questions by the opposition after rebuttal please fill out a form provided some cases will require a unanimous vote of the committee which constitutes final action however if the vote is not unanimous or if it is otherwise required or recommended The case will be placed on the regular agenda of the planning commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Thank you everyone for being here. I don't need to swear anyone in.

Uh, do we need to do a roll call vote? Stuber.

Here.

Steph?

Here.

Benitez?

Here.

Cheek? Here.

Very good. We have one case on the docket, 26 zone 0012, and we will hear from the case manager, Mark Pinto.

Good afternoon. Everyone mark Pinto office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2. Let's give Jay a moment. No rush. Thank you this is a 26 zone 0, 0, 1, 2 for point residential at 1600 curves way. The request is a change in zoning from our 4 single family residential to our 5, a multi family residential with a detailed district development plan and major preliminary subdivision plan with binding elements. So the subject property is in the neighborhood forum district. It's about 32 to 35 acres. It is. Proposed to be a mixed residential development consisting of some single family, detached homes and apartment buildings, totaling about 38 lots billable lots for single family homes and in a separate 2 story apartment buildings, totaling 160 units access. The only access proposed is from Don drive. It is in the exact same location as it was previously on the previously approved change in zoning under 24 zone 3. the site does contain environmental constraints consisting of steep slopes and unstable soils. The applicant did submit a new geotechnical report in March of this year by all comments have been addressed. They have no outstanding comments and all of the transportation comments related to access management have been addressed. There was a outstanding comment from public works and transportation regarding the geotechnical report. And it is similar to our offices outstanding comment on that geo technical report in the sense that we would just like some additional information from the geo technical engineers, perhaps a letter and or testimony given today that state that the development site can be constructed safely without adversely affecting the subject property or any adjacent properties that are existing. next slide so to continue with the technical review this is the section of the land development code that talks specifically about development on unstable soils and the need for a geotechnical report to be submitted and again they have conducted that full geotechnical report however the report does not explicitly say the text that is highlighted under a Which states that the report should conclude or shall conclude that the proposed disturbance and or construction can be carried out in a manner that will minimize impact on the slope and will not adversely impact foundation stability on the subject property and surrounding properties. The geotechnical report does have construction recommendations and techniques on how to develop on the site, how to develop on the slopes and on the unstable soils. However, we would like some official confirmation that the geotechnical report meets those standards of the land development code. Next slide. Here is the copy of the site plan on the left portion of that site plan where you see the railroad tracks and workers way comes out and dead ends there at the railroad is where they're proposing the multi family buildings. Those are those 10 separate 2 story apartment buildings and then to the right of those are the detached single family dwellings that are being proposed as part of the major subdivision. And here is a zoning map of the overall area. So there is a mix of residential zoning. Um, single family zoning is adjacent to this site and it is just east of Dixie highway and that commercial corridor. Here's an aerial showing the existing subject site, that large pond on the property with some mature tree canopy. And you can see where those the access row comes in off of Don drive. And here it's just the front of the subject property looking in from Don drive. This is where that central access point is proposed. Roughly. And here's as you're going up the hill on Don drive, looking at some of the existing single family homes up on the ridge. And this is from courage way, so the site has a courage way address, but again, access is proposed off of Don drive because railroad track separates the subject property and courage way. To the West. Here is some more adjacent property just across the street from that access on on Don drive. And here is Mary view drive, which is 1 of the streets to the east. and here is some adjacent property to the south along romania drive this is um some lg e property and this is where they are proposing to extend some pedestrian connection down it's in the applicant's presentation not in mind but the applicant has a good uh drawing of that proposed pedestrian connection like they were proposing last time on this proposal and here are just some basic elevations of the apartment buildings from the front and rear and the left and right Showing some doors and windows, so staff finds that following further technical discussion and technical after. More discussion has had about those technical concerns today regarding the geotechnical report that the committee shall determine whether request is ready for a public hearing before the planning commission. And therefore, your required actions today are to determine whether or not this request is ready for a public hearing before the full planning commission. If you all. Do not remember I will quickly refresh everyone's memory when this came before the planning commission for a request to waive the 2 year wait after the denial of the previous request on this property. It was determined by our office and by the Planning Commission and agreed upon by the applicant and the opposition that we would waive the requirement for the night hearing petition because it had been so recent since the neighbors went through and got that night hearing petition previously. So if this committee does determine it's ready, the Office of Planning, our director, will schedule that night hearing. And we are looking at the Southwest government center. So this will be a night hearing when the time comes. Are there any questions for staff?

I have a question and and maybe the applicant will address it. It's I feel like I've seen this. It's like groundhog day. We've seen it before. The geotech report that they have just done, that is brand new since previous discussion about the previous site plan. So it's a brand new geotech report done strictly related to the development that's proposed today.

Correct. They did a full new geotechnical report.

And that's a function of different products being built on the property.

Yes, it's required anytime you have development on steep slopes or unstable soils. I think Commissioner Stuber wants to chime in.

Well, the geotechnical report that was originally part of this was pretty dated, and then they did another limited one, but there was a push to get another full study because there'd been a lot of construction activities at the site. In between that one that was a long time ago, and then what we want it currently, plus we had some specific questions related to slope stability and soil stability in general.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners? Thank you. Thank you all.

We are going to take a two-minute break.

Thank you. We will now hear from the applicant.

Nick Pregliasco, Barton Ripper Talbot & Roberts, 1000 North Hurstburn Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I'm here with Jason Lang on behalf of the applicant as well as Kent Guti with Mindell Scott. And I'll go through a short presentation and really go through the changes from the last plan because like you said it is kind of like groundhog day we've been to this through this a number of times but i really do want to focus on what has changed in the scope of this development unlike before and then also talk about some technical aspects of the with the plan and then also the geotechnical analysis that, as indicated, this was a new geotechnical analysis was completed since the waiver of the two year rule for this case. Starting off the main thing is this is a requested zone change from R4 to R5A. Before it was a requested zone change to R6 and to PRD. So it is a limited scope as to the only half of the property or less than half the properties being proposed for rezoning. And the zoning district is less than before. If you go to the next slide that shows our plan from before this was the 1 that we were at the planning commission at that night hearing discussing. At 368 apartment units, those were the 3 story buildings. And then it shows here the 22 town homes and the single family lots. But this was a plan that had 406 total units that it was in discussion before 1 of the main things at that time. The at that hearing. The staff report was negative, but it was negative as respects the geotechnical aspect, not the land use. So, even as to the larger, bigger scope of 406 units, the land use was not an issue. And it even said that it was appropriate. But if you go next to the next slide, so we have reduced the total number of units for 406 to 198. Only the portion that's outlined there is the portion that is proposed to rezone. for 160 apartment units the rest of it which would be the right hand side here which is 20 acres would remain r4 and it would remain standard you know r4 we're not proposing a conservation subdivision or anything else with that so those would be standard r4 lots and then those would be proposed as two-story buildings If you go to the next slide, so the, as far as the main changes again, going from 406 to 198 units, and then the number 2 is the big 1. and that is the fact that we did do the full geotechnical analysis with new borings. That was all completed by, and that was. Completed in early March, and the report finished in the middle of March and then, as I mentioned, the zoning district changes. Obviously did change, but this is only 15 acres of the 35 acre site that we're proposing for the rezoning. If you go to the next slide, so this is just a side by side of what I was showing as far as the total area to be rezoned before being the entire parcel. And then now the, the portion is being proposed for rezoning. If you go to the next slide. This just kind of summarizes some of the things I mentioned. The 1 thing I haven't mentioned that is important was the. There was a, we have proposed 2 access points on dawn drive. The 1st access point coming from Dixie highways. The 1 that was the most contentious or the most discussed at that hearing. But we have removed that access point. So now there would be 1 access point. It would be on the flat area of dawn drive. You go to the next next slide. And then here is that current proposed plan just overlaid on an aerial as you may recall this does have a railroad tracks to the West there and then the entrance being to the North off Don drive. To go to the next next slide. So, this is that area of the previously proposed entrance, which would have been on that slope area, the steeper slope area and, uh. We had a binding element to address that last time, but that has been removed. So this is not this is no longer a proposed access point. If you go to the next next slide. So here is the, uh. That the curve and on drive and this is. Where we have a binding element to address this, but on the right hand side, you'd see where the site is and where the entrance would be. And the dawn drive does curve to the left there. And we had a binding element before, which we will continue to have and propose would be to. Add road improvements to increase the height of that Don drive to effectively help him and to create the site distance needed. I mean, really already satisfies the site requirements, but that would was the proposed mitigation before to address that. And we would continue to do that. And you can see the, the language is at the top of this as well. If you go to the next slide, these are just some details of the site distance analysis. And then if we go one more further, the slide shows where we would be proposing the improvements.

And if you can go forward a slide.

So the area that is shaded on the right, that is where the essentially additional pavement would be added to raise the height to kind of ensure that site distance is provided there. Uh, we had talked about, and even our initial plan, the plan that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting we had. Proposed moving our entrance would be to the left on this or to the West. Just to provide a little bit more distance between our entrance and the curve. The idea was is by providing more distance, it would help improve that site distance, but. Working with Beth and transportation planning it really the entrance location we had before would be the best 1 because of the topography and, um. It really just that we thought we would be improving it by moving it further away from the curve, but it really the better locations where, where it was before. But the long story with this is this long story short is just that we're proposing the same binding element to the same medications before. If you go to the next slide. The included is just because the fire department last time, the only thing they noted was that 1 entrance that we have proposed to eliminate. So that they had approved it last time, but they've even addressed that more fully. Now, if you go to the next slide. Uh, so there are 2 different routes to arterial, um, both Dixie highway, but then there's also, you know, 1 and a half miles to St Andrews church row going the other direction. I note that just because, you know, there are 2 ways of getting to the property. And if you go to the following image. It has the traffic studies. I won't go through this because of limited time, but we did have a traffic study completed before. That was for 406 units. We have reduced the scope by more than half, so to 198 units. We haven't updated it, but if you go to the next image and then one more forward, the main thing with this one is that the levels of service show that even the larger number, the 406 units, Hardly affected anything with the levels of service. And in fact, some of the more problematic levels of service actually got better with the development than it would be otherwise. So the point being is, is that they were shown to be a minimal impact before and then now it. is even more so if you go to the next slide as mark had mentioned in his presentation we are proposing to have a pedestrian connection to dixie highway this is this the binding element language from before and where that would be run and that is down both romania and blanton to dixie highway and there is a torque stop there as well if you go to the next slide So then geotechnical, which is obviously one of the bigger items, as was mentioned by Beth at the beginning, we had a full geotech analysis, but it was dated 2005. This is the analysis that was done. And due to the cost, we had attempted to rely upon that last time, but that was one of the main issues. so if you go forward to the next slide we did have a more limited scope analysis done before the last one by vector engineers but you know as part of this we did committed have a brand new analysis done by ecs and that's if you go to the next slide that's the march geotechnical analysis that was completed one thing i do want to mention is we did In lieu of providing the geotechnical analysis last time, we did commit to quite a few geotechnical binding elements. And that was, you know, if we weren't providing a new geotechnical analysis, we had these binding elements. We're still keeping the binding elements. So I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Even though we have done the geotechnical analysis, we are still proposing the binding elements. And these are what are shown here. Number 14 is already in the staff report today. These other ones are just the ones that were negotiated to address these issues and to make sure there aren't problems during construction so the second one there really addresses the um the before building permits are issued what needs to occur and then the third one is prior to a certificate of occupancy what needs to occur and that really relates to the having engineer on on location and addressing those if you go to the next slide And then these were additional binding elements that were all there last time and that we are continuing again. I just the blanks are just for the dates that would be for the planning commission public hearing. Uh, but even some of the things that we had addressed last time regarding the concern over snow removal. Of Christie Avenue, we're again committing to that. So the main point of this is that we had a lot of binding elements addressing geo technical analysis and we still have those, uh. Today, if you go to the next next image. We do have a new report done by, and that was. Dated March 22nd of this year, this is that report and if you go to the following image. It shows the soil locations are so boring locations. We did work with staff before having them complete the work to make sure we knew exactly where would be the most appropriate for those locations and where it should be tested. And this is where they add and then if you go to the next image, it just shows the conclusions. The main thing with this is they have, you know, they do say that this property can be constructed in the manner proposed with these with these recommendations. And, um. You know, we have a binding element that we would commit to complying fully with those recommendations with that. As to the mentioned in the staff report and by Mark, we would have a letter that would address that the land development code 4.7.5 and that language and we can have that. We hope to have it today because the EECS is just not, wasn't able to attend today, but they can provide that and we can make it a condition to Any foreign notices being sent out that that. Letter being provided to the case manager as well as staff for review and approval with. With that before any notices go out, because the bottom line is, it's not a problem to do. So it's just. There's some technical details we need to address with that, but you go to the next image and then I'll come back to that letter as well. So it adds to the letter. What I was saying there is the, um, the. On our plan, as you see here, the. The multi family buildings, which we know are exactly where the location are. Those are on the. Western side, that is the flat area. That is the area where there's there isn't the steep slope. The entire rights part is the part that is not part of the zoning request, but it's the standard are for that's the part with the steeper slopes. So the, the, um. The language under, you know, says that you can complete your construction. Um, you know, without having a, uh. Impact well, that we don't the part where we definitely know where the buildings to be located all that are on the left side. That is the area where there is not there is not the steep slope. So the point being is, is we can, um, the letter won't be a problem and we can, um, you know, definitely get that. To you before we, um, before we have anything. Sent out or are documented in that regard. Well, that I take any questions that you have.

I don't like the lesser density, Nick, but don't drive. How would it be when y'all get through with it?

But we would not be, we would not be widening dawn drive. Um, it would just be the what we would be committing to would be is to having a plow the snow snow removal, which they apparently don't have today. And then on the improvements to the curve, it would be to add height. So, be adding a asphalt to increase the height of the curve. Not not to per se widen it.

I know this is a dumb question, but. Is there any way to put a construction slash emergency exit where you had the other road?

That I'd be asking Kent to, because the... 1, I'll ask him to address that, but as to the 2nd entrance, the 1 that was on the steeper curve, that is a location where there was a. The guardrail added apparently by, I'm assuming public works at some point, but it was, you know, the concern was the just wasn't as. A location for an entrance for access. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I was just looking at standpoint. I know the fire department didn't address it, but it's. If you've got a fire in the last apartment, you've got to come all the way in, come around and go back. That's the only reason I was addressing something like that was a safety standpoint that I saw. Okay, thank you.

A couple of things. Kent, I saw you looking at the plan from memory that Dawn Drive is at least 18 feet between Dixie and where your entrance is.

Correct. Okay.

And Nick, we had asked several times for this letter. We met with the geotechnical firm. And you said they're still working out some technical issues to be able to provide this letter to us.

So they said they have no problem with the letter and that's the, we were hoping to have it today. And in fact, I called him a couple of times this morning and I asked if they were available online. So I thought they would would be there. Um, but yeah, they, the letter and the details of we met, we met with, you know, we had, Discuss the letter and they didn't have a problem with it. They confirmed that then we had sent them the language. What we didn't have at that meeting was the exact language and the exact language basically is. You know, we will comply with the requirements of land development code 4.7.5 with that. And we've had no objection or concern in that regard. So, I mean, the point is, we would, we understand that we cannot go to a public hearing without that letter. We would not. It was not. Not only can we not, but it would not make any sense for us to.

Yeah, and I'm not sure we can schedule, but I will. Talk with the other commissioners, but yeah, we can't move forward to the hearing until we have that.

And we wouldn't want to go forward to a hearing unless because the point with really what I'm going what I'm saying with all this is. Last time we had a staff report that said the land use was good land uses. There were no problems with that. The problem was these technical aspects as the geotech. So we're coming back and saying, we're going to fully address that geotechnical part. We don't want to go to a hearing and have the geotech still standing out there. So the, we would definitely have the letter and have it not only the letter, but also have it approved by. The staff before doing so.

Any other questions of the applicant. All right, we have other signed up to speak. Are these insist the only.

Yeah, they're all listed as applicant representative applicant representative.

Does anyone else want to speak with your team? We have.

They're here, I think it was Mason can't as well as Jason and they're here for questions. Really? Yes. And they could also speak potentially.

Any other questions of the applicants team? Commissioners. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, well, so we have two people signed. Oh, okay. Who's first? All right. We've got three people signed up to speak in opposition, and I'm going to call Steve Porter first. Then I'm going to call. She was next. Susan Brown, and then George Demick will be last. All right, Mr. Porter.

Thank you. Steve Porter, 3109 West Stoneway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40241. I represent a large number of neighbors. I'd like to start out by thanking the Commission and the Committee for allowing us to have a night hearing without a new petition. This neighborhood is not one that can easily get a lot of signatures and is not one that can easily get a lot of help from professionals and expertise and geo tech and traffic and everything else. So we are relying on staff to analyze the geo tech. analyze the traffic study and to analyze this access point on a narrow, highly used residential street that this is on. We don't think this is ready for a public hearing because we don't think those issues have been adequately addressed by the applicant or by staff at this point. We still believe that this access point on this 18 foot narrow street is not a good place for 198 units to be coming in and out. The traffic study maybe show the numbers are not that bad, but the site distance is still as bad as it was in the previous hearing. The geotech talks about there's a lot of fill their steep slopes in the geotech report. It says. If the applicant will do this very carefully, and this very carefully, whatever that yes, you can then probably build on this, but it is so. dependent on things going just the way, just perfectly, I guess you might say. So we just don't think this is ready for, until the geotech and the access point have been further studied. And we implore staff, because again, my clients are just not able to go out and hire a geotech people. Traffic consultant, again, they've already spent money on that before. And I just don't think they're going to be able to, you know, maybe we can, and maybe we'll come up with it, but I have my doubts. So we are really relying on staff expertise and engineers and traffic people. If this is going to go to. A full public hearing at any time, whether it's soon or later, we really relying on staff and expertise that you have to give us help on this 1, not only to protect the neighborhood, the existing neighborhood, but to protect the people who are going to possibly move into this development. If the development were actually built. You've got a lot of units, a lot of people on fill ground, steep slopes, bad entrance. Those people need protection as much as the people in the neighborhood. So with that, we would say that this is not ready. We don't think that there's been time to analyze geotech and the site distance on the study, traffic study. for the access point, and we ask that you postpone this for further study by staff. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now hear from Susan Brown.

Susan Brown, 1524 Dawn Drive, Louisville, Kentucky, 40216. I was going to address two main issues, one being the safety and one being the geotech report. The pictures that they presented of the entrance to Dawn Drive were relatively misleading in several respects. I drive that road daily. Dawn is a curvy, windy, hilly road. where they have the proposed exit entrance now. To your left is the crest of the hill. That didn't show up in any of these pictures. When you're getting ready to pull out, you cannot see the cars to your left coming up the crest of the hill until they crest to that hill. And since they are coming up a hill, they're accelerating anyway. So not only can you not see them, but they are coming up fast because they're trying to make it up the hill. So, to me, that's a major, major concern. Also, as right across from the entrance exit, there is a concrete wall that white concrete wall that you saw. the side of in one picture is directly across from the entrance. So if you misjudge your time and the speeding car coming up the crest of the hill, you've got nowhere to go. There's just, you're there, you're stuck. So, okay. So I agree with Mr. Porter about the site distance, even though it may be legal, whatever the distance is, it's not the way it appears in those pictures. Okay. No sidewalks, they say they're going to address those the sidewalks that they're putting in at the far corner of the subdivision. Who do you think is going to really walk back there? But anyway, okay. And the traffic for them to say that there is less. Problem with the traffic now than there when they did 1 of the studies, we have a lot of traffic issues with the intersection of. Myers Lane and Dixie Highway. Also, there is a railroad track that has to be crossed by the residents of the proposed development to get down to Dixie anyway. So if there's a train there, there'll be a big backup. Then when they get to Dixie, there's another big backup because that's a pretty bad intersection up there.

So traffic will be a major issue.

And it looked to me like in one of the diagrams where they were showing a traffic study that they had traffic going out Kerr's Lane. Well, KERS is not even an open lane, as they pointed out. The name that they're using of KERS Lane dead ends at the railroad track, so there's no access there. So if the fire engines are coming down KERS Lane to look for a fire, speaking of fire engines, they won't be able to get there because there's a railroad track. So those were my main things about the safety, the train track, the entrance, and the name as much as anything else. Geotech report. Lots of questions about it. And as Mr. Porter said, it brings up more questions about if we do this exactly, exactly, exactly right. And I'm running out of time, but let me give you one of my favorite quotes. Let me see if I can find this. Where is it? Okay, here we go. Existing film may be left in place below floor slabs. and pavements provided the owner is willing to accept the associated risks described. So if the owner is willing to accept the described risks, they can buy the house. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We will now hear from Mr. George Demick.

George Demick, 5108 Princewood Place, Louisville, Kentucky, 40216. I moved to Louisville in 1966. Lived on that house, on that hill since that time, except for a brief period while I was in college. I played at Kerr's Lake. Most people don't even know that Kerr's was a lake that was a, earthen dam. As an earthen dam, I've seen it give away more than once. So that's a small concern. Number two, nobody seems to have addressed the issue that on Dixie Highway, when the light is red at Kroger, it's a quarter mile from that light to Myers Lane. And if you need to come into our subdivision in the rush hour five o'clock six o'clock 6 30. guess what you can't get through because traffic is already backed up beyond that you have to wait for the light your light to turn red and let's say and have three lanes of traffic allow you through before you can turn in during rush hour i don't know how you can put in 160 units and say it won't impact traffic on dixie highway The third thing that is of concern to me is that we have the second tallest hill in Jefferson County.

The highest, of course, is the hill off Palatka. When it snows,

It's oftentimes difficult for people to get up the first hill. Sometimes we have to park our cars and walk up that hill. The second thing that is of concern is that if the entrance is 200 feet higher than the lowest portion of this development, what would happen in a snowstorm or an ice storm when there's a fire in the last unit. And there's one entrance to the entire development. If we can't get up the hill in a snowstorm, what guarantee is there that the equipment promised by the developer is going to be A, functional, or B, have been used in time? So those are my main concerns. Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone online signed up to speak? All right. Thank you very much. We will now hear. Oh, yes. Thank you very much. Any questions of the rebuttal? Okay. Are there any, any questions? All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Now we'll hear rebuttal from the applicant.

So, just a couple of the things that were just mentioned as to the, the curve on dawn drive and the site distance that was. Uh, the same as before at the last time, and just like, before, uh, transportation planning and public works had signed off on that. So, uh, we have the, um, the point is, is we're not changing anything with that. Uh, this is a technical review to go to the planning commission, but it was deemed sufficient and last time to go to the planning commission. And we again request to do. So, uh, you know, today, uh, with that, uh, and I think the, uh. If you go back to watch the hearing last time, most of the entrance related issues related to the 2nd entrance, the 1 that we've removed and the concerns there. So, if anything, as to the access long drive, we have made that better by limiting it to the 1 access point. The 1 that is the flat location there. As to the mention of sidewalks working with staff, the preferred location is the 1 we're proposing that is rather than having residents have to walk up the hill to the dawn drive to walk then down dawn drive to Dixie highway, which would. those sidewalks would not be ADA compliant anyway because of the slope, et cetera. The location we have proposed is one that would be a straighter shot and also be a lower one. So it was the preferred location for a sidewalk to provide the pedestrian access over there. And as to the question of the geotech, and just so we're clear, today we did discuss a letter, and we're fine providing that letter and having a requirement, We did not have to come to LD&T. I say that because, you know, when we met with Mark and then he said, you know, we no longer have LD&T on a regular basis. You can't have certain cases go and he said they thought this would be a good case to go and we agreed. So we asked to come here. The point was, it's not a situation like we have had sometimes in the past where you have to be at LD&T to schedule the public hearing. So what we would say is to the extent that, for example, if you're ready to set the public hearing tonight, today, we'd like to do that. If you would rather wait until the staff receives and reviews the ECS letter and are fully satisfied with that and then let The office schedule that hearing like they do in every other case. We're fine with that as well. So we don't have to man this be set today. I just don't know that it would make sense for us to come back to. To talk about a letter, because at the end of the day, that letter wouldn't have to be sufficient that. You know, Mark as well as Beth, everyone's satisfied with it. Um, and we have now had that language. We sent it to the, the engineer. They don't have any problem, but, uh. So, it's extent that you would want to do that and just not take action today, but then schedule the public hearing as soon as that letter is received and reviewed and and approved. We're fine with that as well. We have no problem with the requirement for the letter. And with that, I could take any questions if there's anything that I didn't mention. The only other thing, the snow, the one thing I can tell you with that is that it'll be a better condition future than it is today because we have a binding element that said we would provide the snow removal that is not being done today. So the applicant would be providing the snow removal on Dawn Drive in the future. So if anything, that's an improvement over what it is today. Without taking any questions you may have.

Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? Thank you.

We're now going to go into deliberations if there are no other questions of the applicant. Commissioners, they have done an updated study. What say ye about this letter?

I've got some thoughts.

Okay.

For one thing, I know we talked about, Nick was suggesting that we don't hold LD&T again and let Mark and I decide if the letter is adequate. kind of think that there's too much responsibility on me to decide whether or not this is going to go forward by myself um we met with them mark i don't know if you can remember but it's a good six weeks ago so we asked for the letter and we asked for the letter because we did not get the geotechnical report that we asked for we had asked for raw cores and some a specific test um to prove the durability of the rock And they weren't performed, they weren't given in the report. So. In place of doing that, we wanted the technical engineer to take on more responsibility. And provide us with this letter, and now we still don't have it. We have no idea if it's going to be adequate or not when they do provide it. So.

Have you had a chance to review the geotech report, though, that they did in March? Okay.

And it's fairly typical. Nothing. I mean, there's not a deal breaker in that report. There are a lot of CYA statements. Right. Very typical of a geotech because you can't tell everything that's under the ground. You're taking a sampling.

But we still don't, I mean, well, so what if what if they submit the letter to you and mark for review and. In the event you are not satisfied with the letter, we bring it back to. Does that, you know, or would that work?

Well, another option would be to continue it. And if they do provide the letter and staff is satisfied, then we could, okay. Or you could just have a really quick meeting at that point. But I think if you're concerned about the adequacy of the letter, you know, and Beth has concerns about it being left to staff, it either makes more sense to continue it. And if they're satisfied to cancel it, or to just continue it, and if they get the letter and they're satisfied, everybody can say it on the record and everybody who so thought that we could continue it to a date and give them enough time to provide the letter and then. Not that it would be a much shorter meeting. It would be all about the letter. They provided the letter staff could say what they say. Nick could say what he said. The opposition could say what they say, but it'll be focused on the letter.

And that would be just a 2nd, here, right? All right. Because you really don't want that decision on the adequacy of the letter to be just you'd rather come to.

Yeah, I don't think yeah, because that would be I would be in the role of staff. Right? And Mark would be in the roles staff making that call instead of the. Planning commission, so, yes.

Commissioners, any other thoughts?

I mean, I feel like they've done and I totally get where you're coming from. I mean, I kind of feel like they've done what we've asked them to do. It probably is ready for a full planning commission hearing, but we have to make sure we have the letter. And let me ask you this question. If you have a letter that says whatever, if it's fluff, then we say no, you know, and don't put them on the docket. But if it's got some, you know, I have never seen 1, so I don't know what they come out and looking like, but if it's all just fluff and roses, then no, you need something more specific before you get on the docket. And that, you know. I mean, do you have to, do you and Mark have to actually say this is, or leave it up to the planning commission to say this letter is good enough?

Well, I'm trying to think about this. I think though, I think if we had a letter and say it comes in and it's very specific and very good, then I would feel okay with moving forward to the planning commission because we're not approving the development. We're just approving this technical piece. And if, the other commissioners feel like the staff can make the decision maybe on that technical piece. But then we also run the risk of getting there or we get the letter in and it's not what we're looking for. Then we'll have to come back to LD&T.

Could we have a path that if it's acceptable and on the complete surface that staff is satisfied with it, but if not, we circle back to LD&T for further discussion on it?

i believe we can do that i mean any case that comes in now we determine if it's ready for planning commission and if we feel that it's not we call for ld t to review it so i don't know why we wouldn't do the same if they gave us something that we absolutely found to our satisfaction we could probably go ahead and schedule the public hearing

And I think Mark's staff report was pretty clear that they were looking for this specific language that's in the LDC that, you know, it can be carried out, you know, so you have some guidance as to what that language, a more objective standard as to what that language should look like.

And the letter is either going to meet that criteria or not. So it either meets it and can go forward or it doesn't meet it and it comes back here to LD&T for further discussion.

I mean, like I said, I think yes, sir, just a quick thought. I had Mark Pinto officer playing staff again. Um, if we don't set. The date to a date certain and let's say if. They submit a letter and we find it not to be. Of our satisfaction, we would have to re, notice for, whereas if we set a day for. Wouldn't have to be re, not just a thought that I didn't hear that was brought up yet.

We kind of talked about that at the beginning as that was an option was to continue it the next and see what happens between now and then right set the date.

And then if we need. You know, we can come back and just have a quick meeting if the letter is to our satisfaction.

I'm understanding if the letters to your satisfaction, we would cancel and it would just go to the planning commission. If it's not to your satisfaction, we've got the set date.

Mr just to be clear, we have no problem coming back to. I was just when I mentioned the ability to go forward without it. I was more thinking of just. Not having to have a meeting where this is potentially the only thing on the agenda. That's all the same. We have no problem continuing it to it. Date certain about the idea that we would have a letter between now and then and then hopefully that would be the only thing discussed at that meeting would be the letter, you know. And if to extent you think you could schedule it just without having LD&T, we're fine with that as well. The point being is, we did meet six weeks ago, or more, I think, probably, and we talked about having a letter. And at the time, what we were talking about was that this could be built, this development could be built without having problems. It was very vague, but the language was vague. With the staff report and what we've had for the last week, seven days, is the actual exact language. And that is different. Not different, but we now have The precise language that precise language did come out of the land development code. And that's what we would understand. That's what we would need to get.

And you're anticipating from your earlier testimony, the receipt of this letter.

Because there was no at the meeting, they did not have any concern regarding it.

So the consultant didn't have any concerns about providing a letter as such. All right.

But just to be clear, we want to make sure and that's 1 of the reasons we agreed to come to. We want to make sure before we go to the public hearing that we don't have a technical issue. So we're all in the same. The same team on that, so the extent that we want to just continue it, we're happy to do that as well.

Thank you.

Do we need a motion? Yeah, I think you want to continue.

We need a motion either to you think it's ready for a public hearing then you could just say that. But otherwise, if you're going to continue it, we need a motion to continue.

And I believe the next dates are the 9th. The 9th of July, yeah, the 9th of July and the 23rd of July. So.

Those would be your options. So, wouldn't the letter that were hung up.

It would be part of the plan, et cetera, et cetera. Right. And, I mean, I, I, I think that.

And maybe I'm maybe think of it like that meeting more information for a traffic study. Like, we run into that all the time.

Well, what I'm getting at, I mean, I think it's ready to go to the to the planning commission, but we need to add the letter before they get on the docket and maybe I'm just stepping over something and missing a step in regards to I don't know. But, I mean, I think. I mean, we can continue it, and I guess the letter's fine, move on. That's fine. I don't have a problem doing that. But I also think that it's ready to go because it sounds like they've done everything they've asked them to do.

And they've done that more thorough, updated, in detail, full-blown, you know, geotech.

Well, I mean, I think Commissioner Stuber's comment was she had some concerns about the geotech, and the letter was to kind of mitigate that.

Specifically, when the review comments came out for the site plan, I said, please provide X and Y, and that was not provided in the geotechnical studies. Include this in your scope. It was not in part of that report. That's fine. And then, so now we're asking, yeah, give us a letter to update to provide that information.

I just don't want to see it go up like we did on one before that didn't have everything right and turn around and come back.

I'm hearing Lula Howard in my head as well. Yes.

No, there was one in the South Point Commons that we sent up without the MSD stamp. And then once we got the Planning Commission, somebody made a comment, why did it get here? Why did LD&T send this? Let's be right before we send it up.

I need a motion. I make a motion that we continue this.

To the next available date, so that the applicant has time to get us the letter.

So, we're going to put it on July 9th, or we have a properly made confidence that they'll have that ready by July 9th. I don't know if you want to ask the applicant that because otherwise that will likely be the only item on the agenda because we don't have anything on the horizon. or we can just go with the 23rd if that's a more realistic date.

And if they get the letter to us tomorrow and it's good, then this is canceled, right? Yeah. Is that what we're saying? We're fine with July 9th.

Okay. I think it's cleaner to just have a short meeting.

I think we'll have just a meeting so we can make sure everybody's satisfied with the contents of the letter. Okay.

Okay. And if it's right, it doesn't come back. Yeah.

So July 9th? All right.

Definitely. Okay. Do we need to vote?

Yes, motion and 2nd, we probably made motion correct? No.

Yes, you did make probably and you and you said, yeah. All right.

Do we need to vote? Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Make a motion with your ocean to adjourn.