Land Development & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

we'll take it out later okay this is the regular meeting it's the regular meeting of louisville metro land development transportation committee to hear cases as docketed for the meeting today the purpose of this committee is to review the technical aspects of a proposed development plan associated with a change in zoning By consensus determine if it is ready for a planning commission, public hearing and set the public hearing date. It is most helpful to this committee if 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 message to the host. Today's proceedings will be 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. Priority will be given to the speaker cards in the order they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. 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 their proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or the representative will then have an opportunity for a rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are any further questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. Some cases will require unanimous vote of this 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 a regular agenda of the next planning commission for further discussion and action. The committee may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Roll call please.

Here.

Here. Okay, uh, the 1st item is, uh, minutes from, uh, 7, 926. uh, if everybody's read them, uh, we need a motion. Need a motion to approve the minutes.

I mean, I make a motion to approve the minutes from.

Okay, 2nd, anyone I'll 2nd 2nd. Okay. Um. No comments, um, roll call.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Uh, new business is the only thing on the agenda here today is. 26 zone 0012 Oak Park Residential. Mark?

Yes, Mark Pinto, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. 26 zone 0012 was continued from the previous LD&T meeting. For the applicant to provide this subsequent letter, which was to act as a additional piece of the geotechnical report to make an attempt to address some of the standards in the land development code regarding development on unstable soils. So, this is a request for a change in zoning. I'm going to go ahead and go through this. Presentation rather quickly again, because it has been quite some time since we originally gave it on June 25th at the 1st meeting. So, again, this 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. So, this subject site is in the neighborhood form district. It's roughly 32 acres. The proposal is for a mixed residential development consisting of 38 lots for a single family homes and 10, 2 story apartment buildings, totaling 160 units access. The singular vehicular access is proposed from Don drive. And the site does contain environmental constraints, such as areas of steep slopes and unstable soils, which is the primary reason for today. The applicant submitted a new geo technical report performed by on March 23rd, 2026. Um, that geotechnical report detailed the existing site conditions, the soil conditions, and also contained construction recommendations on how to carry out development on the site. All comments have been addressed and I believe that all of the transportation outstanding comments have also been addressed pertaining to the access of the site. so for the technical review this is the section of the land development code that details what is to be reviewed what the planning commission is to look at for development on steep slopes and what that geotech report should contain and the area highlighted states that the geotech should 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. That is the piece that we felt could be stated in a more stronger fashion from what was originally provided in the geotech report. And that's why we asked for the follow up letter. Next slide. And here is just a copy of the site plan that shows the single family lots with the proposed department buildings access off of Don drive. Here's just a zoning map of the overall area. The subject site is highlighted in red. It's adjacent to existing single family residential and a existing subdivision. It is just east of the Dixie Highway commercial corridor. And there is a variety of other residential zoning districts in the area. And here is just an aerial showing the existing site conditions. It's currently vacant. And we can quickly flip through these just some photos of the subject site and some surrounding properties. So this is from Don drive looking up that hill. This is from the bottom from courage way. There is no access that can be provided there because of the railroad. Here's just some adjacent property across the streets and existing single family home development adjacent property along Mary view drive. East of the subject site and down to the South offer many edge. This is where that proposed pedestrian connection. The applicant is proposing is supposed to be next slide. and here are just some elevations provided by the applicant of the apartment buildings. And following further discussion of technical concerns, the committee shall determine whether or not this request is ready for a public hearing before the full planning commission. And if the committee does determine that the request is ready for a public hearing, the Office of Planning will schedule a night hearing for the Southwest Government Center. The LDNT does not have to set that public hearing date. Our office will do that. So, are there any questions for staff? I know that the committee has received that letter and have likely reviewed it. So, any questions for staff or for the applicant on that?

Yeah, I got it.

Refresh at least my memory on this. We last had this the talked about this at detail this whole project and it was really focused on this geotech report. So. In your, what were you expecting this letter to say?

So the letter should address that initial standard standard a, which was highlighted, which is in the land development code. Chapter 4 and Jay can pull it back up so we can see it, but it's supposed to address development on the subject property and adjacent property and essentially state that the development can be carried out safely without any adverse impacts to the subject property or surrounding properties. And I think that the subsequent letter that they submitted does make an attempt at pointing out how construction can be carried out safely on the subject site. If those strong recommendations from the are followed, if they have a technical engineer on site at all times during construction, I believe that it does address that. However, the letter does not. Directly address adjacent properties. So. we can let the applicant kind of speak more to that. The very final piece of the geotech letter that was submitted does state that based on the conditions observed during our subsurface investigation, ECS, which is the geotechnical firm that did this report has not identified indications that would lead us to conclude that development on the subject site presents a greater than normal level of geotechnical risk relative to other sites of a similar nature. So that could be interpreted to mean that if these recommendations are followed that any construction on the site does not present a greater than normal level risk relative to other sites. But additional testimony could be given by the applicant if needed.

Thank you. Any questions for Mark?

So is this the letter you were looking for? Is this a vague letter?

This is what they submitted.

Okay, Nick, uh, Nick, partner for top and Roberts, 1000 North Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky, 40223. I'll go through a very short presentation here is to kind of really address this letter. And then, uh, the. Who is the geotechnical engineers are on. online as well and can help answer questions. I do want to start off with saying that this land development code section 4.7 is the one that addresses steep slopes. That's one that is applicable in every case that's a density transfer subdivision. It's in every case where there's any slopes over 20%. It occurs very often. And I say that it occurs, that code provision is applicable very often. In all the other density transfer cases, we don't have geotechnical reports done beforehand. In this case, we have had multiple geotechnical reports done beforehand and have additional binding elements to address all these issues. And then further, the request came to also have a letter. So the letter was this an additional belt and suspenders type item, which we have done. To the extent the language isn't exactly like what was requested, that's where UCS is online and can help answer those questions as well. But if you go to the next slide, I'll just again provide the global background for all this for the letter that was referenced. If you don't mind going to the next slide. And then again, this was a development plan that was insist the most recent, um. Sorry, I think we had the 1 we'd submit earlier didn't have these others on there. Um. There was 1 that was submitted earlier today, but the. Just to go back and to summarize what while we're pulling it up the point being is, is that in this case, we did have a full geotechnical analysis done and that was done before the public hearing that occurred a year ago. That report was that had all the slow borings and all those things that was done in 2005 and the concern was, is that well, it could it was old. It wasn't new. It wasn't, you know, it hadn't been done within a couple of years. So. We had the time we did a slope stability study before the public hearing before. So, we, once the planning commission agreed to allow us to refile, we then submitted a, we said just. Staff okay here, tell us exactly the scope you would like. To have done, and we did that, so we, we then had a new geo technical analysis with new borings and all that done and it was done in accordance with the scope that was requested. We have obtained that and then we did file that. That study, then the comment came was well, 1 way to address this section 4.7 is in addition to the study. Another way to address it is also to have a letter. So, we had worked with, and they have provided that letter, which is what was sent. And with that, you know, anytime a. Somebody gives an opinion later, they can only give it to to the extent that it addresses certain parts. So the point being is, is we have. We have submitted that letter and it does address the 1st point and that was. That this property could be developed in accordance with normal standard procedures. Uh, the 2nd part, which is what I think the staff had also wanted was for us to also provide that it would not negatively affect surrounding properties. That's the point that, um, you know, the, uh. What are the said is that just kind of goes without saying, but they can also they're online and can hear to answer questions. This is not a, this is a matter. The 4.7 of our land development code is a matter that's generally just. Only discussed at the public hearing. We are here today because staff recommended we agreed that we want to go to to address technical items. So that these aren't. Problems at the hearing, so I say that is, I don't make sure we're clear. We're not trying to say to. To your plank mission members here. That we believe this is fully satisfied. I think we were saying is we do believe that, but ultimately it really depends on what. Your concerns and your, your questions are, because that's why we are, you know, again, voluntarily coming here to to make sure that these are buttoned up. But we did receive a letter. The letter was submitted. And we believe that it really addresses the concerns that were were raised and then to the extent that there are. Requests or concerns that you would want the letter to say more than what was stated. Again, who are the geotechnical experts who are on site can else or online and can help address those or answer those questions as well.

But I think the goal is the same for all of us and that is to.

make sure this is ready for a public hearing. And we, again, have no objection to a night hearing, uh, location and that would be set by staff. We don't have any concerns regarding that.

Okay. Any questions?

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Um, Steve, you're up. Yes, it is.

Yes, Steve Porter before you today, representing the opposition, just as we did in the first hearing of this case. I want to start out talking about the importance of tests.

Just need your name, your address as well. Address.

Oh, excuse me. 3109 West Tone Way, Louisville, Kentucky, 40241. Thank you. No longer on Tucker Station after 27 years. Anyway, the importance of tests, the importance of preparation ahead of time. Long time ago, and it was really a long time ago because I was a law clerk. I was in law school and I was running errands downtown from one place to another. And it just happened at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson. There was a crew, a construction crew. The lot was vacant. This is where the Citizens Plaza building is. Lot was vacant and there was a crew there with all kind of equipment. And they started, they had a big machine, a pile driver. And they were driving piles, they were going to drive pile down into the ground so that the foundation of that building was gonna be on these piles. And I just happened to be there. The very first one, bang, bang, bang, bang, whoop, gone. No more pile. So they moved around to another location, tried it again, bang, bang, bang, whoosh, gone. What had happened is those piles went down into the aquifer, the Ohio River that runs underneath a lot of downtown Louisville. Nobody had done the test to see if piles could be the foundation for that. So that building is now built on spread footers because the piles were impossible. To get a little more personal, back in May and June, I underwent a number of tests. Starting out with an EKG, came back abnormal. Then to a stress echo EKG, came back still abnormal. Then a catheterization where they ran a tube up into my chest cavity, took pictures and things and told me, you need a triple bypass open heart surgery. So I had that done three weeks ago today. and I'm a better person now and in better health now than I was three weeks, four weeks, five weeks ago because of those tests that were done. I'm sorry to get personal, but the important part here is doing the right tests ahead of time. Now in the staff report from April, And after review of the geotech reports submitted March 22, 2026, there is no new information provided. There were no rock cores taken deep foundations weren't addressed and stake. And stake durability testing was not performed on the rock samples. The letter from July 9th. Has none of those. none of those things that staff said should have been done and should have appeared in this July 9th letter. This July 9th letter bases itself on the March 22, 26 original study, but no additional work. And just basically says, if, if, if, if, If you have one of our people on site all the time, if you do things the way our guy says to do it, if you do it, if you do it, if you do it. Then maybe you can build on this property. I don't think that's good enough. I don't think it meets. The demand of the land development code. The tests the staff asked for in its staff report have not been done. We're not. done, at least they were certainly not put in their July 9th letter. I don't think they've measured up yet. Maybe they can and maybe they can't. You know, I've seen some developers would say you can build almost anything on any property. That's probably true. I've seen some really crazy stuff out in California on slopes that you wouldn't even want to climb on and they put a house on it. But we have a code that says you've got to have the right preparation. They haven't had the right preparation here. There are other issues. Just recently discovered water gushing out of sinkholes where the original report said there's no karst. MSD has now said, well, that's the third sinkhole that we've had, so we're gonna go out and inspect. Property is karst, it has sinkholes, got water coming out of them. And their report originally said, no, we don't have any karst, no sinkholes. It's just not ready. Maybe this property is not ready for the kind of development that they're doing. Some development on that property is probably possible. Probably some of the single family houses or whatever, but the intensity of this development should not be done without any more information than they have provided to you. So we object to this going to a full public hearing and wait for any further information. Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you. I was just going to ask, did you get something in writing from MSD that said it was cars?

No, that was a telephone conversation, and I think and possibly somebody who's here today can. I'm not sure who Susan. I don't have anything. Okay.

Yeah, because that doesn't agree with the public.

I just learned about that last couple of days. Yeah. And it doesn't really be a lot of my work. Sorry.

Yeah. It doesn't agree with the public that sure. on karst and the mapping done by the Kentucky Geological Survey. So I was just wondering how they determined that.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's good to be here. Okay, Susan Brown.

Susan Brown, 1524 Dawn Drive, Louisville, Kentucky, 40216. Just for the record, I'd like to express my concerns about the safety of the entrance and the actual ability to see oncoming traffic. The developer continues to downplay the dangers there. That's just for the record. Okay. Today, sinkholes and letters are the main things I'd like to discuss. It was a neighbor of ours that saw the big sinkhole several years ago from what she said. Her property backs up to the developments, the proposed development site, and apparently she has called MSD at least three times about this. Most recently was March. They came out and filled the sinkhole. Then in June, it was open again. They came out and put a caution tape up around it and said they need an engineer out there to look at it. So far, no one else has come. I just found out about this this week, so I've not been able to contact MSD to get any specific information from them. There's a man who lives on Romania, which is a neighboring or an adjacent street to the backside of the proposed development. In most of these meetings that he comes to, he mentioned sinkholes on his property. Well, nobody's paid any attention to him because it, you know, seems just like somebody ranting. But then based on what I on the hill and saw, this sinkhole is at least 10 to 15 feet wide. Water was gushing out of it one day. I don't know how deep it is because I wasn't going any closer to see. So I guess my question is, are we sure that there aren't other sinkholes there? The neighbors have said they've seen some other depressions. And if there does turn out to be karst formations there, what will be done about it once they've started? So I'm concerned about that. Is there any way they can address that issue, the sinkholes that are appearing, and how that will be dealt with? Oh, and, okay, last minute, the letter. Is that letter standard verbiage for an approval letter? We know that the GO report only did five borings in the whole area. And in even those five borings, there were concerns about soil fill, underlying rocks. The project was completed in March. Why has it taken them so long to get this letter? As you know, as we all know, this has been delayed at least twice because the letter that had been promised weeks ago did not show up. Does that indicate that the engineers really have reservations about about being ready to develop the appropriate actions for this. Okay. And the last paragraph in the letter, there's so many different qualifiers and letters like Steve said, if the same as in the construction report, and the letter ends with their comment about It's relative to other sites of similar nature. So they're saying this is not a bad site because compared to other sites just like it, it is just like them. So what does that say? Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll address a couple of things. And if you don't mind, I may ask both Jason Lang, who's on behalf of the applicant to address a little bit of it as well as the geotechnical experts are online. And I think really is best to hear from from them. But 1 of the things that was mentioned Steve mentioned was. There's a lot of if this, if that in the letter saying, you know, that there's a geotechnical person on site that they would do all these things. And the important point is that we have moralized those with binding elements. We have 5 proposed binding elements. Same ones we had last time. And we would have those as a proposed conditions here to ensure that those ifs do occur and that is that those items that were raised and mentioned that they do occur with us. And then, as far as the, some of the questions regarding these new items, that's singles. That's why this. Committee is very important and it's helpful is to. So, we will, we now can address these by the public hearing. This is the 1st, we've heard of these sinkholes issues, but the point being is, that's why a technical review before setting a public hearing is very helpful in that regard is in order to be able to address those things as well. But again, I just wanted to, and there was, there's been some, some criticism of the letter and I just want to be clear and respect that. You know, I've been doing this work for 16 years. I've never seen a request for a letter. This is the very 1st time ever. We've had 1, but it's also. 1, that we're doing as a belt and suspenders, we not only did the, we had geotechnical reports before the last hearing, but this time before starting the geotechnical report. We said, tell us exact scope office of planning, tell us exact scope of what you would like studied. It took a while to get that scope. We did then give that scope to ECS and they did perform that report and that study exactly as requested. So this letter is kind of an additional item with it in order to make sure that everybody's satisfied with it. And if you don't mind, I can now let, well, first I'll let Jason talk and then I would like to let ECS as well address some of these issues and more particularly answer questions that you may have as well. Nick, they didn't indicate which name they're under.

Do you know they're not under that company or Dennis. We'll bring them over to the panel.

Just while you're getting Luke on there, Jason Lang, Prodigy Construction, 11106 Decimal Drive, Louisville, Kentucky, 40299. Um, I'm representing on behalf of the owner, but I also am a. Licensed architect, the state of Kentucky and few other states. Um, we routinely work with on various projects to the geotech report that. This version, the previous versions are typical of almost all reports that we get. The General Technical Report is the first phase of that overall design. They give us the recommendations on what we expect to encounter below grade level as we design the building. And then through that process, there's a back and forth between architects, structural engineers, civil engineers to work out the grading, drainage, foundation designs, building placement. And all of that is done in coordination with the various agencies that impact where we place buildings and utilities and anything that can impact this. It is typical for any geotechnical to have those recommendations that during construction to kind of verify what their assumptions that they interpreted through their subsurface investigation, kind of what we're finding as we do those foundations. Everything that's kind of been presented in these letters is pretty typical and also speaking on behalf of the owners. I am the contact for our group. It's my license that's tied to that property. I have had no communication with about any. Not saying there's anything there. I was on property this morning. I did not see a sinkhole and I haven't had any communications or letters or anything with saying they were coming on the property to address anything. So, and if. whatever questions you might have for Nick.

Thank you.

And then with that, I can maybe just ask ECS to, is it Luke or Dennis? One of the two, I think. I think Luke is on. Let me ask Luke to just, if you could, Luke, just kind of affirm or discuss what we have stated already and confirm that you're understanding as well. I think it shows you as muted, so you may be muted if that's the case.

Luke, if you can hear me, we can't unmute you, so you need to unmute yourself down towards the bottom of your screen. There's a mute, unmute option. It should be unlocked for you.

Can you hear me now? Yes.

Yes, go ahead.

Okay, yes. My name is Luke Van Nebel. I am the geotechnical manager for ECS here in Louisville, Kentucky. I guess the first thing I'll just address since it's being discussed right now is the sinkholes. While I do know that KGS has it mapped, the karst intensity rating for the site is non-kars, meaning sinkholes are not developed in

those geologic members.

So I'm not sure, but, you know, sinkholes and karst are two separate things. You can have solution cavities sinkholes or utility sinkholes where, you know, you've had a pipe break and that's caused the erosion of the surrounding subgrade and it looks like a cover collapse situation, which is unrelated to Geology, but, um, yes, so I'm not sure. Uh, what would be going on on the site, but I would. I think it would probably not be actual cars to activity from what we saw.

But then again, that's all from what we observed and encountered and our boring.

And Luke, could you provide your address for the record?

1762 water central. Any questions for Luke? Nope. Okay, thanks.

At this point, I think you can close it to testimony and then deliberate amongst yourselves whether you think this is ready to set for a public hearing or not.

And just for quick before you do close, if you don't mind again, this is for the purpose of setting a public hearing. So I think the main point is, is we're saying is we're not asking you to set it if you think we haven't satisfied the requirements. So, if you think that we need to do something else. We just need to know that because we had determined the exact scope of the new geo technical and had to perform. We do this letter now letter. It may not be exactly what is requested, but we do have that as an additional belt spender, but we just want to make sure that you are. Satisfied that we have addressed the issues as to the geo technical analysis before setting the public hearing.

Well. I mean, yeah, we got the letter, but now this MSD's popped up. Is there any way we can confirm this, that they've had a call out there for sinkholes since it's been stated that they have been called? I mean, I'm not trying to stop your project. I'd hate to see you start building all of a sudden a bunch of sinkholes stop popping.

Right and again, that is, that's kind of the reason I stood up here was to just say that and that is, we're trying to make sure that we have addressed all the items issues.

It's like, we have Tony Kelly online.

I mean, I'll let Tony.

Answer because are you there? Yes, sir. This is Tony Kelly, Louisville, M. S. D. 1,600 West Hill street 40210. That's the 1st time for that. So generally speaking, MSD is not the specialist when it comes to kind of the geology side of sinkholes. It was mentioned earlier, if we had a pipe collapse or something that caused a surface sinkhole situation that was utility driven, that would be something that we would have been potentially out there for to make a repair. But that wouldn't have anything to do with like the geotech report. Generally speaking, mitigating geology sinkholes is covered by the geotech report. I can do some homework. I'm obviously unaware of whether our maintenance folks have been involved in fixing any pipe collapses or something like that out there. I can do the homework on that, but I'm unaware right now. If they had a contact information for who they spoke with out in the field, I assume they talked to somebody in the field, I'd be happy to chase that down. But that's about all I have. I can try to field any direct questions if you have any.

Well, I think we need to know that if this goes to the Planning Commission, it would be nice to have that then.

If the applicant could gather... or the opposition could gather who they spoke with. Obviously, if it was a pipe collapse or something, I can hunt that up on my own. But generally speaking, we wouldn't be mitigating a sinkhole unless it is something that affects an MSD-related system. In that case, more than likely would be from a piper utility failure. So... If you guys could provide, if the opposition could provide some information, otherwise I can do the homework on that and provide that to the case manager if we have indeed had any pipe defects out there recently.

Okay. Steve, do you have anything to provide? Do you have any help?

No, I'm sorry I don't. I just learned about this in the last couple days. Frankly, I don't think the site probably has any MSD pipes on it, an undeveloped site. So it might have sinkholes that are gushing water with all the rain we had and everything last week, but it might not be related to any MSD issue. Okay. But a neighbor, of course, would, their first reaction is, oh, call MSD. Probably, and very likely, MSD might come out there and say, not our problem. You got a sinkhole, but it's not our problem. But I'm sorry, I haven't been able to do anything on it. Wish I had more.

Okay. I've got a question for Nick that might help.

Yeah. Well, Nick, you probably ought to be prepared to address this. Yes. We will. We can look into that thoroughly.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. It's my understanding that site was under development at 1.1520 years ago and that. Storm sewer pipe and or. Sanitary sewer pipe was laid in that site and abandoned. I know when I 1st visited that site, you could still it was like 10 years ago. You could still see the marks of that. You could still see pipe laying out there. If there are pipes into those ground that were not bedded properly, not put in properly, just sat in there, yeah, that could very easily explain the St. Coles. So is that, do you know anything about the history there?

And I really may ask Jason to address that because you probably know a little better. I know generally what you're talking about as far as the history of the original approval and that, but do you want to? Talk because he's probably better equipped to answer that.

There were from the original development, say, 20 years ago, or whenever that was, there were primarily around the lake more on the, the uphill side of the lake. There are a few catch patients that were installed. There is a little bit of storm piping that was put in. Um. None of that is connected to what was proposed when it was a conservation subdivision. It was all going to get removed. Some of it was removed when we were doing some earthwork a few years ago. But none of that, to my knowledge, is down near where any of the erosion may be taking place. Erosion of the sinkholes. I was there this morning and walked a decent portion of the property just looking for people that may be on there that aren't supposed to be on there. I did not see evidence of a sinkhole. There is some erosion and some are some rules coming on some of the hills, but no, I did not see a sinkhole forming.

Okay.

Beth, this is Tony again. So we often have projects that are in this scenario where either the developer changes or they go bankrupt or whatever the case might be. And some of the infrastructure's in, but we haven't accepted it yet. So like that would be this scenario. And in any of the systems that they want to used in the ground today, they would have to inspect it and tele-inspect it just to make sure that there hasn't been any sags, you know, and the pipe joints are all together. So that's something that we would inspect with the construction plan review side of it. But I think what... I think they're demoing 95% of it. If my memory serves me right, the first section of sanitary sewer is probably the only section that they're intending on keeping, but I could be wrong.

But half-built piping that's been sitting abandoned for 20 years could have failures in it that would cause sinkholes at the surface.

It potentially could.

Is there anybody else who wanted to speak? Otherwise we'll close the public portion of this. Anybody have any particular comments?

So, in my opinion, and, you know, what the opinions are, um. I, if we're. Deciding today, if it's ready to go to the planning commission, and a lot of the communication, a lot of the stuff that's been talked about, or some of the stuff that talked about today. And some of the stuff that's been put in the record with emails and stuff that that is part of the, in my opinion, the, the public hearing part of the planning commission. And if our excuse me job today is to find out, hey, have they done what they needed to do to get to the planning commission? Then I say, yes, and they probably have done more. Maybe I don't know then they then what was needed, but I mean, I totally understand. Um. The, the thought of there's new things out there with the sink goes potentially, et cetera, et cetera, but with. Everything that needs to happen in coordination, it needs to happen to do any construction out there. I think that will be addressed and I think that they've done what they needed to do to get it to planning commission.

Okay.

Uh, I can't, I mean, I've got no problem sending us the planning commission as long as when it gets to us. There's an explanation what the MSD calls are. Find out what they were. There has to be something on record. Are these holes lining up with old construction that's in the ground? Got to be an explanation for it. Now that you're saying that there was development in there 20 years ago, is this abandoned developments what's causing these holes? Need to find out. Like I said, I hate to build something over top of it, all of a sudden we've got sinkholes, then the developer's going to have more problems. But if we can get some explanation by the Planning Commission meeting, and that would probably, I don't know, I doubt it would be next week, but whenever. Just some letter. Like I said, if MSD has went out there and addressed the problem, then they have a record somewhere. If Tony can find out that record or Nick or your team find out what those calls were and have an explanation, then we'll go from there. If you can guarantee us we'll have an explanation on MSD on the holes, then I've got no problem sending it off. Anything?

Oh, yes. I think it's ready to go on. I think they have answered everything. I Can feel guaranteed that is not cost terrain. It is something else that's happening with the old question. Um, well. I think they have provided a fairly good geotechnical report in the sense that they have covered the site sites are going to change over the years. The old data from. 15 years ago is still fairly accurate. The borings that they took to follow up to double check that mirrored close enough that I was comfortable that we had a good coverage on the site. I had asked for the slate durability test and some rock coring because I wanted it to. I guess I wanted to be able to tell that I could strongly say, hey, they've provided me the data that shows that this will not be an issue that was not done. Therefore, we got to this letter. And, you know, having practiced as a geotechnical engineer myself, I think this is as strong, about as strong as we're going to get with the language that they've put in here. So I'm comfortable moving this forward.

Okay. Because I got at least one comment here. Again, I don't think this letter does anything at all. But with that said, I don't think there's anything they really can say at this point. I think in normal development, this is stuff that would occur farther down the pipeline on this stuff so there really isn't much that they could really say but with that said i this is one of the most difficult sites i've seen in my career i mean i know of at least two developers that take a run at this that bailed and i don't know why but i would think the geotech thing might be a thing this could be a problem going forward but I don't think we have any choice, but to let this work out and Nick, there's gonna be a lot of questions at the playing commission. So. You know, I'm, I'm for moving it on. Addressing it then. Okay, anything else.

So, it sounds like we have a consensus that it's ready and then, um, I guess staff will work with the applicant and the opposition to get a. The night hearing.

and the Southwest government center. So we'll have to kind of put all that together, but we'll do that after today's meeting.

Okay. So do we have a date?

No, they'll work to set a date because there's three moving parts. There's when's this, when is the, the Southwest government center available? When is the applicant available? When is the opposition available? So it's a kind of a, they'll have to work with them.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Yes, we're adjourned.

We'll be in touch and I'll, I'll let, you know.