Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

July 7, 2026.

We have several items on the agenda tonight, so we'll try to get through them. Before we start, if anybody doesn't intend to speak, would you please sign in so we have your correct name and spelling and all that, if you haven't already done so. All right, first order of business is the approval of June 2nd. Are there any recommendations, changes, comments from anybody about the minutes?

I had a comment. We put those together, getting all the names of all the folks that addressed the council, which was really great.

Yeah, that's keeping it all straight. That's why it helps to have signed in, because some people say their names very quickly and kind of slow it down. It helps to have it written down. So we'll have a motion to approve this on June 2nd. So moved. So moved to second?

Second.

Second. All in favor for June 2nd? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. All right. This talks about some items, which is item three on the agenda. And it's PLC 26-14. Right-Hunt Partnership Combined Promotions. Final Rule 202628. Presentation.

Good evening, Frank Wiss and Jamie Harspel. Remember me from last month, perhaps? We had a pretty good discussion at last month's meeting about the Hyundai dealership being proposed by Kenny Wright and his auto group. So I'm here tonight to present the update to that plan. Also, I've got a representative from Wright Auto Group here, Joe Domeno, in the audience, if we have any questions for him as well. To summarize, I think we and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we talked through those major issues the Planning Commission had in mind at the last meeting. I believe we've satisfactorily addressed those. We had quite a few, and you could fill me in, like I said, fill me in if we have not, so that we can deal with that. We have completed a significant update to the plans, submitted that to your engineer. Most of it was like this tiny little It'll stop all over the place, so we clean that all up, and it's been boiled down to what is your current engineer comment letter, which I'm going to take to share my opinion with you. All of these are really housekeeping things from us and the engineer that will not affect the overall plan at all. A lot of them having to do with some stormwater nitpicky things. Honestly, it's not going to change the plan, so we've got to get some clarification. One example would be the energy grade lines, hydroelectric grade lines. Finance. storm sewer flows, we've given the water surface elevations, braid lines of the energy are below that. So again, it's just the additional information doesn't change anything. There are some volume calculations where you get two different numbers because you have to prepare calculations two different ways. Some clarifications, again, that won't change anything. I don't want to belabor you tonight. I'm willing to go through all the comments if you want to. However, I do believe that they're all of an engineering housekeeping nature that would not affect the overall plan. Commissioner Kroc, I could see you might have some questions for me and maybe the other ones do as well. I'll be glad to answer those. I would like to kind of front load my presentation tonight with the hope that we could have a conditional approval on this plan subject to us satisfactorily addressing these comments with your engineering or planning staff. Obviously, that's the decision. I think we're in a good place that we ought to be able to do that. So if you have any specific questions or you want to take a look at the latest plans, I would be glad to talk you through any particular items.

Slip on the panel and we will start down the chair and messing anything.

No questions for you.

Mr Jones.

Sorry, I'm just looking at the engineer's letter now.

That's fine.

I didn't really get the impression that all the concerns had been answered.

So I'd be glad to talk through those. And if we haven't, we need to get that done through.

It's the engineer telling us that they've been resolved. So. Are you satisfied that the outstanding comments from the May 29th letter and any new ones from the submittal have been.

No, I think it's time. I reviewed the plan with Kelly in her absence and she's concerned about multiple things that are here on the plan. One of the big things is the applicant needs to provide a tree survey to indicate any trees that will be removed and require replacement for the township ordinance. There's minor landscaping and lighting comments that are outstanding. The request for a modification to the buffer yard width in two areas, going from a 15 foot wide buffer, which is required to a narrower, something on the road about six or seven feet. Slow matter, there's in previous areas, infiltration is not being met. For the facility, additional information must be provided by the geotechnical engineer to assess the impacts. There's a request to use a two-to-one interior basin slope for the stormwater facility where it requires a three-to-one slope. Slope should be revised over a separate waiver submitted for review, so there needs to be a waiver for that request. There's some technical items outstanding, but the design for the most part on stormwater would be good. Grading. Again, this ordinance requires a three to one, and that provides a two to one fill sub. We reviewed the geotech and found that to be accepted. But, you know, considering the items that are outstanding relative to the infiltration, the tree survey, and other items that are related to it, and the comments of the review letter, we have recommendations to table this till next month till these items are addressed.

There are also some traffic for- There's some traffic that's straightway.

Do you want to comment to any of that?

Only to the extent that if a planning submission is available tonight, that's fine, and we would agree to an extension of the timeline. I think we've already done that anyway, and we could revisit this next month. Again, I wanted to come in as hopeful and positive as possible. However, as I mentioned, I think these comments can be easily addressed. We'd be glad to do so between now and next month's meeting.

Well, candidly, it's a little difficult to just approve something that has one, two, three, four, five, six pages of comments.

That's fine. Yeah. And I don't and a lot of them are super technical in their nature.

Characterism is nitpicking earlier.

I wouldn't use that terminology, but I don't think I would call them a housekeeping either. Okay. Matter of opinion.

Did you ask on why so many storage spaces parking spaces?

Yes.

Could you elaborate, because last time you said it was what Hyundai wanted, and I asked if you could provide some documentation.

Yeah, I don't have documentation for you, but I can tell you that's what they need. They need as many as possible. And that's about as much clarification as I can give you. I don't know. I can ask, again, our owner's rep here tonight.

We can ask. I don't know if that necessarily, I mean, they were approved for a certain size.

They were approved to go to a higher percentage. Just because the zoning hearing board approved them to be able to go to it, do we have to if the site plan doesn't warrant it? approved to that level? That's the question I had.

So if they were approved at explanation of all coverage, I'm assuming? It was a square footage. Yeah, it's based on square footage, not on number of spaces. So I think it depends on the specificity. So variance approved. I would probably need to look at the variance.

So it was approved was a an adjustment to the square footage permitted for an outdoor sales lot, which is permitted in this district to be 10,000 square feet. They were permitted a 70,000 square foot addition. So there are 80,000 square feet of You know, outdoor storage lot area. Yeah.

And in that case, if the use is allowed to be for that, I would say that the storage of vehicles is that part of that outdoor storage lot use as long as they're within that 80,000 square feet.

What if the engineering doesn't support it?

So if they can't meet our store model, if they can't meet something else, then they'll need to ask for modifications. But as far as just how many cars we parked there, that's the zoning handbook approved. And that's beyond the purview of the Planning Commission.

Honestly, candidly, if I could fit more on here, I would. It would benefit our client. But I believe we've maximized the potential of this site for their usage. Again, if I could fit more, we would. We'd make the pond bigger. It would be to their benefit to have as much storage as possible. I believe we've maximized that in compliance with your ordinances, the variances achieved, and we've fitted that needle with this plan to satisfy what our client's demands are and meet with the mechanics on this requirements to the point of the number of storage spaces.

Thanks. Yes.

So, you know, again, with stormwater, you just, you know, see tremendous, you know, rain in the day, the last couple of days, all that trend is coming. So I'm a bit, I'll say alarmed. You know, one of the comments was different rainfall for competition.

We use the higher values. So when making these edits, you'll have lower values used and you'll see more conservative results.

And then the others were a couple of comments about the impacts on the down, actually it's a down slope, but adjacent property owner. And it was a comment about, you know, so I would hope if you would come back that that adjacent property owner has been made aware of what the plan is.

That's correct. And that's just a notification. There's nothing to follow up on that, but I recognize that that has not been accomplished yet. Yes.

I meant to be a good neighbor, right? That's right. So that's another concern that I've had. And the other, when we were asking for variations or deviations from our standard is a risk analysis. And the only risk I see is we have to get more parking spaces. Therefore, we're going to waive the slope. We're going to waive the height. We're looking for an exemption to waive or personal the heights.

You're speaking to the stability analysis with the slope.

So, I was before, you know, again, that risk analysis, who's taking the risk when we're not following the codes that we have. I understand that the engineering is feasible, but we're adding risk. And I'd like to have you comment. who is assuming that risk.

Sure. You have in your packets at the township a report and investigation prepared by Pennsylvania Soil and Rock, where they did borings throughout the property at critical locations, prepared analysis of the existing soils on the site, and prepared what's called a stability analysis, which includes a factor of safety. And they prescribed the construction details, which we've incorporated into our plans, as to how those slopes will be constructed, again, achieving that factor of safety. If you don't have that geotech analysis and you go with the three to one, you don't have any assurance of anything. In this case, we actually know the soils that are on the site. They've been studied, analyzed in the lab, and the math has been prepared behind that to show that there in fact is a factor of safety in everything that's being constructed. So to that point, I believe the engineering analysis gives us a greater confidence than the absence of an engineering analysis. So therefore, again, it is, I believe the reason why your ordinance We have a slow restriction is in order to put the onus on the developer to provide a stability analysis to show that the plan that we're proposing has in fact been engineered. And we're not just shooting from the hip of the bulldozer out there, but in fact, it's been designed.

I look at the risk. Who's assuming the risk?

Again, so Pennsylvania Solar Rock, right? You have their report. They've certified that if it's built to their details, that this certain factor of safety would be achieved. So same thing, if I design a retaining wall and I do it improperly and it fails, my engineering license has assumed the risk of that. And so in the case as well for this one, where Pennsylvania and Solon Rock has certified this stability analysis, given these constructed conditions, you'll have your engineer on site, will be involved in the project, PA Solon Rock will be doing compaction testing, inspecting the benches and the toe keys, et cetera, providing those reports to the town. as the work is being done so that you'll have, to your point, a chain of confirmation and the liability of which you speak will be documented in paperwork as to both the engineer that designed it, the contractor that installed it. There will be insurances and performance bonding for all that in place as well. However, all that is a worst-case scenario. I think the actual answer is it's been properly designed. But I understand the speculative concerns. Well, I'm sorry, what's the question? Who's going to own the risk? When you're increasing the risk, when you change the slope.

Right. Right so who's going to who's going to take that risk on. They're going to be property owner downstream failure.

The property owner. The most direct answer to that question is the property owner. They will sign a developer's agreement with the town. I presume. That developer's agreement will include certain insurance provisions and performance bonding requirements. So in the event of a catastrophic unforeseen failure to protect the town and the public safety and its interests, that's what those documents are for. Now, that list will then be translated down probably to my company, also to the Seoul Engineering Company. But your first line of liability is, in fact, the developer, in my opinion, which is the property owner.

I'll even add that that's consistent with typical development.

parking spaces to maximize the space. What we're doing is we're getting variations to accommodate that.

Right. There's other alternatives that could be done to increase a slope steeper than 2 to 1 and still provide a stability analysis. You can do geo-reinforced slope where we could provide a similar calculation where you've got a constructed scenario where you've got a 1.5 to 1 or even a 1 to 1 slope and you can do it. There's means and methods to do that. They get more expensive. They provide the same stability. Again, speaking to risk, I think that risk is mitigated by the fact that we're doing very traditional construction. Two to one is a very common fill slope. steepness. And again, you've got the factor of safety that's in that actual design itself. So there's, there would be options that I could reasonably ask for. And again, just the part with engineering is a steeper slope. We don't need that. It doesn't give us a great benefit here. The Tito one does. And again, it's a very commonplace practice and traditional construction methods. Yes.

The lighting plan.

Yes.

You were asked to revise it to, to make sure that it met town standards. And that hasn't.

There will not be a problem at all. It's just adjustments to some fixtures. And yeah, there's one shrub that evidently landed right on the spot of one light bulb. So we've got to move that. The foot candles and their cutoffs at the property lines. Again, I got to talk to our lighting consultant and say, you got to tweak it a little bit. They'll reprint the numbers and you get that right back to you.

Did you document somewhere, and I missed it, in any type of a narrative on how the vehicles were going to be dropped off?

You described that last time. I have not submitted a narrative to that effect to the town.

My understanding is that... Is that something you could do, since it's a concern of other vehicle drop-offs on that road?

Right, right. No, that's...

Without an assurance, it wouldn't be out in the middle of Turning Lane. 100%. Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Just because there was a concern about the turning radii and whether or not the vehicles would be able to make it around in the documentation or in the design that you have. You mentioned that it would be smaller transports than the typical?

They're not going to have tractor trailers to this site. That is correct. That's what we've been told. They're not bringing tractor trailers into this property. And what I expressed last time is that there is room, a tractor trailer can enter the property and make a three-point turn in the lower lot. However, I don't want to present that as a standard because developers expressed to us they do not intend for tractor trailers to enter this property. I think that's how I tried to describe it at last month's meeting.

It's a description as part of a presentation. Sufficient to document just asking. Or do would we be better off having some sort of a document from the applicant saying this is our plan since it's a very real concern.

And if you want to shoot me an email, I'll respond to it in writing with this. So you've had that says that documentation will not be covered.

Thank you.

Yeah, and this is great. I really appreciate the discussion because I'd like to be even smoother than I hope for tonight at next month's meetings. These little things help me.

I don't want to speak for anyone else. Sorry. There was a discussion, though, about the modification that you were requesting on buffer area.

That was going to be my next question. So go ahead. You're asking for modifications, reducing the buffer areas by half, basically. That's correct. 15 to 7, 15 to 8 kind of thing. Yes. What would be planted to compensate for that? Yes. The idea of a buffer is to buffer. That's right. And if you've got half the space to do it, what do you do in your plantings to make it still an adequate and sufficient buffering area?

Matt, can we get a second? You want to flip to our landscaping plan? And again, for discussion, let's see if we're on the right track with what we've got in front of the town today. So if you zoom into... Either of those two areas, you will see the dense row of shrubs and hopefully we labeled that. There you go. So there's one spot where we've got a dense row of shrubs to the north and then to the south. Those are the two areas of which we speak. And there should be a table on that plan, Matt, that identifies the- Species. Yeah, the species and the spacing.

Sorry. Give me a hard time.

That's right. I'm not sure.

What I'd like to see is that the buffering is just as effective in only half of the space.

Very good.

Okay. That's what I'm trying to get to. But I only have half of the buffering just because we have half the space. Let me do this also.

I'd like to give you, between now and next month's meeting, like a zoom-up detail of that, just a little additional description so that it's more clear than just looking at all the engineering plans and details. Again, let's make sure we're accomplishing the intent.

Keep that plan to see what the legend says. I'm going to assume in those, and maybe, sorry, I'm going to ask in that upper in the front where you're looking at seven feet, that those will be some sort of evergreen or constant...

That's right. And I forget the name of them.

I just saw it's small in this plant. Let me zoom in. I can explain it. It looks like the symbols here that have the swirly, those are evergreens. And then the darker ones were smaller plantings.

And the specific species that... should be what's on there. We had in mind they're either called like a tall boy or a big boy or something like that. They grow up real tall. You plant them to make basically a screening fence out of evergreens. They'll grow up, I don't know,

Yeah, I have a show right here. That's kind of hard to see. It is within the plan set that you guys have in front of you, but those do show a tree planting detail, and it is labeled on this landscaping plan.

Last time I brought a whole hard copy of the drawings. I didn't bring them this time because of the screen.

And I hope it goes with that saying, but do you exist? Yes. If that's even possible.

I think the bush I'm thinking of, they are a specific deer resistant. You see them all over the place. They're beautiful. They make a fence. You can't even see through the dog.

There's a variety that is, in fact, deer resistant, most are not. Maybe that's what you're talking about.

I don't know.

You know exactly how tall the deer are in the neighborhood. That's right. Exactly.

I would even recommend that, you know, if you're going to showcase a little bit more regarding this buffer, maybe we want to just show what the pre-existing is and neighboring properties and what the buffer looks like. Just give an idea.

Yeah, this is a point that I haven't done well communicating because right now there's nothing. There's payment right up to the property line. And I'd like you to be able to see at least the level of improvement that this would bring to the table.

having driven by there, there's pretty much just pavement.

90% of the problem, it looks like a moonscape, right?

I agree. And we appreciate you taking into consideration trying to improve upon that because that benefits all of us. Yes.

So the only other thing you're still working with PennDOT on the access?

Yeah, so there's two third party permits hanging out there. The NPDES permit, obviously, with the Conservation District on erosion, stormwater, and the HOP. So we know PennDOT built the entrances to this property. However, when we talked to PennDOT, they said, yeah, we built them, but... So anyway, that application's been submitted. The process with PennDOT takes a little while too. Again, I know I asked you for conditional approval tonight, but in all honesty, it's going to take us a little while to get through PennDOT and Conservation District anyway. So we're tracking well. This discussion is good.

And there's the application to PennDOT. It includes a sidewalk that would meet the town specs or?

It would be PennDOT's specification.

That means it's how many feet wide?

I don't know that off the top of my head. I'm going to say it's five feet minimum.

I can't remember. It's four or five feet. I can't remember.

I would not do a public sidewalk less than five feet.

It's concrete.

It's not concrete. It's concrete.

It's there now.

It's concrete. That's right.

And they're required to be built to their standard on the right-of-ways.

Well, that isn't there now.

Well, for anything.

I know. Okay.

Anything else.

Other question was and I'm looking at the plan and I'm sure you've taken it into consideration is the site distance to turn left. Out of that driveway with vehicles parked on the adjoining lot. Which is something that you're able to address, but just commenting that it can be difficult. To cross two lanes, even though you have a buffer lane in the middle and just to going to make sure I'm sure the engineer is looking at the clear vision with the landscaping?

Right.

Okay.

Thank you. I believe that's under belt taken care of. It's good, but I'm making a note to verify.

I have trouble turning out.

Hey, just close your eyes and gun it. That's what you hear.

Everybody else does.

Okay. Anything else? Anything up there? So I think we're looking toward a tabling motion. Any other comments or questions? How about anything from the public? Any public comment? No? Doesn't sound like it. All right. Can we have a motion to table this matter until next month?

Sean?

So move second. Second.

Your table to next month.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, Joe. Thank you for progress you have made. All right, on to new business. P.C. 26-16. P.C. is an elementary school poem. We have a presentation. Pleasures. Nothing.

We're going to have pregs that just present all the items, so I don't have to mess with this computer. It would be coordinated a little bit for all the schools. Yeah, all the rest of the items are all, you know, any items. Okay.

You need to share.

Yeah, are you able to? If not, I might have to just make a host.

You can see it.

You in the bottom right above. Yours looks a little different than mine. I mean, I saw everything, you know, you need to pull stuff off. I can also we'll make it work. Yeah. Here.

Totally. Trust me.

And they're done. Right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

That's opening back up. I'm Craig Bishop with HRG. I know I was here several months ago for people's regarding the rezoning for that residential lot. So we're back now with our land development submission for preliminary and final land development. And we also had the lot consolidation plan where we're consolidating that lot that we rezoned. I do have with me as well, Brandon, again, with this North Allegheny School District, I have Josh from HRG. He's also familiar and he's working on this project. And then I have Thomas that's with Schroeder Group who's the architect on the project.

And Craig, if you want me, I can share the plan, Seth, if you want me to share the plan. So I guess not too big of a deal.

Maybe I'll just let you do that.

Do whatever you want, Seth. We'll try. All right.

I do some patient first.

Yeah, you want to do that? Which which are we the consolidation? Yeah.

The people's name.

For some people's 2616. That's what you're presenting first. What is that?

So, as I mentioned that last month, we were here for maybe a couple months ago now, but we're here for the rezoning where we're rezoned that parcel out front to SD, which was special district. So now we're back again. with our consolidation plan to consolidate that parcel that was out front next to the people's entrance drive and to consolidate it to make it one large parcel that would then allow the district to widen that entrance to make it safer for traffic and buses coming in and out. So we had submitted the rock consolidation plan and we had gotten some comments from Gateway on those. There are some plan edits, some minor notes and calculations and just some like adjacent property owner information that will get cleaned up and resubmit and address all of those comments.

But I guess it feels too separate.

So this is one application that is a rock consolidation and a land development. So we can't act on one. We're going to have to see one application for the people's item.

You're going to do what now?

The Peebles item we have is one submitted. The way that we broke out the agenda was that there was a consolidation in land development for Peebles, for Hozak, for Ingmar, and then for the rezoning and lot consolidation, those are each separated.

All right. So then if, I don't know if you have the plans.

I have both of them.

check it you my presentation as I had I always like that and it was going to be fantastic and that.

It's going to answer all of our questions.

So I'm going to hear that you have e-mail to me. I'll pull it up. Get all of it.

That's my plans.

And you'll just have to do the next slide, please.

Next slide.

Yeah, something else.

There we go.

All right. I got it up. You got it up? Yep.

There you go. Sorry about that.

Sorry. Yeah, so this slide here was what I was showing was the two parcels. So we had the larger parcel there that was the People's Elementary School and then I had the little darker blue parcel there up front, which was the parcel that they were looking to consolidate. Then if you go to the next slide, Matt. Yep, so this slide here is just showing that overall consolidation plan and what that whole entire track would look like. But this slide is our existing conditions. I'm sure all of you are familiar with Peoples Elementary School and what's out there, but I can just do a little bit of explanation here. They're so in the front, there's like, it's a 20 foot wide entrance. And then there's that existing house that that will be consolidated. And then as you go back and the buses come in and they stay. Go around that loop and drop off and then the parents continue. And then they take a left and then they will drop off, pick up their kids. And we'll get into more details on that later on as far as logistics and how we're looking to improve that pickup drop off with these improvements. And then there's also in the, sorry Matt, go back. There to the first slide, there's like, you can see something that's highlighted in green. So that is actually an existing detention basin that's on on site. And we did go out just to verify if there's any wetlands on the property. And that area was saturated with wet and did have cattails. So it was. flagged as a wetland, but it is actually a stormwater retention basin that's currently on site that is currently managing their stormwater. And then if you... You can leave it there, Matt, actually. Sorry. But there to the... on the existing conditions where that stormwater basin is, there were some existing trees in there and we did go out to pick up which ones in that area were greater than six inches, because you'll see later on in our proposed improvements, we'll be impacting some of those trees and we're looking to meet your guys' ordinance in trying to mitigate those trees on site. I guess Matt, you can just go to the next slide. So he already kind of, Presented this and you kind of revealed our site proposed site layout already here, but. There at the entrance is the main improvement that the district was really trying to to achieve just to improve. Like, I mentioned safety coming in and out of the site. So you can see on that plan. We have a, it's a 16 foot. Wide lane that's coming in there to the right. And then. going out, we've created, there'll be two lanes going out. So there'll be a left turn only lane and then a right turn only lane. And then we have there also additional parking off to the side. And then we have pedestrian sidewalks that would be collecting folks that may be parking in that parking space there in the front and can get to the entrance safely. Then we've also added sidewalk on the other side of the entrance where people will be coming in in case anybody in those residential houses would students. parents, whatever, would need it to walk to the school. It provides them a safer access to get their children to the school.

Can I ask a question about that?

Yeah. I know there's not currently sidewalks on Peebles, but the southern sidewalk, the one that stops at the parking lot, wouldn't it be better, since it's such a small extra segment, to just go ahead and connect that to Peebles so if people are approaching from the south, they could just, rather than having to cross the access road, and then use the sidewalk on the northern side, they could just... You're saying if there was people on people's road walking to the school? Yeah, exactly. Like that southern sidewalk that just stops at the parking spot, just go ahead and extending it all the way to people. So if anybody's walking to the school from the south, they could just go ahead and use that sidewalk rather than having to cross where people are turning in and out and then... Going up the sidewalk.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, we could assess and we could look at that. The reason why we didn't do that, because there was no sidewalk out there today and we didn't want to promote. Kids walking to the school and on people's road, which could be busy without and then without other sidewalks that are connect to. I just thought it would create a dangerous. scenario, but we could definitely look at it. We'll look at it. That's cool. That one.

It's a valid statement. If there is a concern about safety, that's a valid thing to consider. But then I would say, let's get rid of the. You have a little segment on the other end. Yeah, that would be my preference.

There's no parking on that side. So there wasn't anybody meeting. And you really don't. I'm trying to judge you. They're really. keep phrasing this wrong. Is there room in the frontage to put sidewalks on people's, which would be a typical development requirement?

There's a little bit on that. Pretty much it's all taken up with you. It is. It is correct. Yes. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yes.

Let me say something.

Branch Volo Director of Facilities, North Allegheny. The reason why we do have a sidewalk on the upper side is two neighbors, well, the neighbor up on the street side, her children are going to Peebles Elementary. Currently there's no sidewalk there and it's a safety concern. So that's why we requested to put at least sidewalk up to the garage and it just seemed kind of odd why we just stopped there. So I think that's why it's gone all the way up.

Can I just ask, because I'm not familiar, is people's a walking school or is it all bused? All bused. But these people walk?

No, they're the first house.

They're... Just asking, it's all bused. Well, all right, so let me ask, let me clarify that. Currently, so it's safe for them, we'd actually do it with bus picking them up. Even though it's in our driveway, they're picking them up because there's no safe way for them to get to the school district at this time.

But to answer your question, my kids went there, and I don't think any kids walk other than through some vehicle get into that school. That'd be my assessment based on what I saw.

That is correct. That still stands.

Maybe we could revisit, because I know there's another comment that we got from Gateway about sidewalks in the frontage. So maybe we could revisit that item here a little further in discussion here. Okay. But just continuing then around the front, we've actually reworked the entrance and added some impervious area to allow for more parking as well there in the front. So we're trying to I know parking is an issue on the facility, so we're really trying to provide as much parking as we can to meet the school's demand. And then there in the front, you'll also see kind of like an orangish color there is the proposed building additions. So they're looking to renovate and add on to the administrative office area there to the front. And then they'll also be adding an addition for an LGI room for a large group instruction room. And then in the courtyard area, there actually be adding space for additional classroom learning spaces. And then as we go around towards the back, we've also reworked the back of house there to, again, provide circulation so vehicles could get in and out and around easily, but then also increased parking back there as well. And then you can see in purple, we're still Working through that, but there will be playground modifications and revisions, new equipment. And so we're currently working with the playground manufacturer, but it'll keep generally the same footprint as they currently have.

When it says safer entrance there, is there any study or work being done on Peebles Road itself? because there's not much flight distance when you're coming out, looking to the left, down towards the Marathon Station. I don't think you can shift it anywhere, but is there any thought being put into, if cars aren't going, say, school zone speed, there's not a lot to see in order to try to turn left to go to the intersection there at the Marathon. When cars are coming up the hill, 1 side and up the hill at the other.

Yeah, so we did that people's road is a pin dot road. So we did actually submit our concept plan to. For them to do traffic impact assessment. And we just sent that to them and they came back. They didn't not have any current concerns. We didn't have to do a traffic study or any of that nature for this driveway. And they said that we could go ahead and proceed with our driveway entrance the way we had it. So we are currently working with them and getting that driveway permitted. Now, we haven't received any comments or anything yet, but That's a valid concern, and it will come up with PennDOT in their review if we're not meeting their sight distance requirements.

I think PennDOT thinks that intersection is okay. Down at the Pizza Place and Marathon Station, too.

There are a lot of people who don't, just so you know.

But to your point, I mean, that will be part of that assessment as we're working through with PennDOT. And we need to make sure, yeah, we're meeting their requirements for site distance.

So the additional percentage of lot coverage is with your additional driveway parking and buildings? Yes. Are you proposing and the engineers reviewing that the existing stormwater management facility will handle that and you're not proposing any further?

We are proposing some. Actually, that's a little further in the presentation. but I think it's going up in a couple of slides or two, then I'll hit on it. So this slide here, I just wanted to share with you all kind of what these additions were gonna look like. So they're really trying, the architect's trying to mimic the current look of the buildings and that way it looks like it's always been there. So you can see there, that is the administrative office addition there in that rendering. And then Matt, if you go to the next one. So then there to the, that's a little hard to point out, but there in the back, it's a little darker. That is the LGI area, the addition. And you can see how that is clanging off of the existing materials and things of the building. So it'll blend in nicely and match the current heights and roof of the existing building. And then this here's our proposed grading and drainage plan. So here I kind of talked a little bit about the stormwater to hopefully answer your question. So yes, there is an existing basin down that's highlighted on the slide on the plan north there to the left. With the additional impervious area, we do need to do additional stormwater. And there's also reduction rates and things like that that McCandless has in the stormwater ordinance. So even if... We didn't do any of that. We would still need to do some sort of stormwater management just to make sure we're reducing the runoff rates to meet your ordinance. But we do have above that existing basin will be a... at an infiltration, like a small infiltration basin, now that we'll be treating all of our water quality and volume requirements. And then you can see in red in the parking lot in the front, we have a little bit of underground detention that's helping to also help with the rate reduction to meet the ordinance requirements for McCandless.

So it's fairly, not fairly, it's a substantially Tree block.

Yes.

That looks like they'll be quite a bit that will have to be removed for that stormwater?

Yes. We'll get that done. Okay. I'm just looking at the... Nope, you're spot on with your assessment of all this. Yep, so this here is our landscaping plan. So we are providing some landscape buffers and things that are the requirements of the ordinance for screening and things for the parking, the landscape buffers. I know that there were some comments from Gateway. I think we need to do a little bit of cleanup and maybe a little bit of additional buffering in some areas. But to your point, Ann, we are removing a lot of existing trees that are over six inches in diameter. And the exact number, I believe, yeah, 74. So we are doing our best to replant them on site. It's a little difficult because of the how tight the site is and with their current ball field and their playground and trying to keep good sight lines. We're not able to mitigate all of those trees that we're cutting down for this development on the property. So we were doing our best. We're well short. So I guess that was one of the comments that we did get from Gateway. And we kind of we did want to have a discussion with you all on how to move forward with that. So I know in talking with the district, they would prefer if we could do a payment in lieu for any of the trees that we can't fit on site. And we'll do our best to fit as many as we can. But as you can see, there's 74 trees. So that's like 100.

Is it possible to do plantings on other school district properties?

So we have talked about that. But currently, we're looking at doing renovations on those projects as well. So... that may need to have a further conversation because I know also we're in the concept phases of those and we are removing trees on those sites as well. So we're also going to have to mitigate those ones on site. So if we're taking all these trees from these sites to those sites, we're then probably going to run out of room as well.

I mean, the note that I have here is there's an additional 107 trees need to be replaced. Yes, that is correct.

Yeah, I mean, I can, I can just kind of comment on, you know, the information that I know regarding this item. I know that talking with Gateway and with, you know, town staff, other than myself, you know, there's, there's a consideration that the town has had regarding this tree planting requirement as the town has looked at you know some of the projects that the town wants to do in the future and it's a pretty significant uh for planting requirement especially and it is very very costly for for developers for the school district of the town um so this is something that the town has considered in the future if they look at the saldo update um revisiting this item the reason i bring that up is just because you know obviously like there's not an avenue for this as it's presented or any, basically any type of development that would improve what they're trying to develop with this school to meet this requirement. And this is kind of one of the first major land developments that has, I think at least this planning commission has come across in the last few years with this specific item. So I just wanted to kind of provide that context for the planning commission, just so you understand the kind of like the previous conversations that we've had with HRG, our pre-application meeting and with town staff, whether or not that means anything is just provided for context.

Well, the other question is, I don't believe the town has a payment in lieu program set up for trees.

I don't believe so.

Is it possible, like doing a transfer of development rights to transfer the planting of whatever percentage of these trees is determined?

Yeah, I don't think we even have a program for that, like shifting to a different site. So I think we would kind of be looking at a... Maybe yeah, adding terms to a development agreement, looking for, it would have to be within a modification, including that development lands school this.

I mean, not looking at it, but. Transferring it to, I think that's a good idea.

I just think it's something that we would have to agree upon separate from, like, this out of that. Like, it might be in addition to granting a modification from the landscaping requirements, agreeing to some kind of. Payment in lieu of trees somewhere else, whether it be on town property, other public property. That's when the school would have to work out as part of the developer's agreement.

There is a significant concern and expressed in the town's comp plan to not deforest the town. So just looking at a way to address that.

I get it. I live in McCandless and I love my trees. I get it.

Is there a better way to design stormwater so as not to clear cut this big area right here. I can speak to that.

If you don't, can y'all hear me or not? Okay.

Rest your foot.

Thank you. Thank you.

Josh, do you mind? Can we do that? Because it is like recorded recording. Sure.

One of the things I did want to touch on, because obviously that is where the bulk of the trees that are being removed are in place of where that above ground basin is over the hillside. One of the things that we're stipulated with with Swim Water Design is we also require an NPDES permit as part of that process with Conservation District. They stress the importance of infiltration capabilities for this site specifically. That was one of the areas that we did look at for infiltration possibility on site. That was the best location that we had that produced great positive infiltration results. So that's obviously something to the stormwater comment that was made earlier in this meeting about, you know, adjacent property owners and making sure that we are addressing those concerns as well. It is kind of a double-edged sword in this case, because obviously it cuts down trees, but it does provide ultimately the best stormwater solution in terms of a location on site that's readily available that does have good infiltration results to ultimately benefit those that are downstream to give the best possible solution to stormwater management.

So I think the question was not whether or not the site was a really good one. Are there other technologies like trenches that can go infiltration, trenches that can go in and around trees to not need to take that many out?

So considering the amount of impervious that's new that we're proposing, the amount of volume of water quality that we need to hit to meet our MPDS, you need a significant amount of storage volume. So if we're doing gravel, I mean, it's a great suggestion, but it just doesn't give us the volume that we need.

Isn't there something counterintuitive to at a school where Going to be taking down trees in order to. Assist with stormwater, like, aren't trees like the best at. At dealing with stormwater, and we're going to take them down to. Deal with stormwater, like, there's just something entirely counterintuitive to.

That I understand your concern project. How do we manage stormwater? We don't want to cut down the trees. We would rather do something different. But as Josh mentioned... We're disturbing urban acres, so we have to get an MPDS permit. So DEP has been enforcing new regulations and things, and they're really pushing everybody towards doing infiltration if it's available. We did other tests on the site. That was the only site that got infiltration.

Well, I mean, pretty much anywhere else you went, you were going to be cutting down a bunch of trees.

And that as well.

So there's now a snake you could do, just so it's not like a clear-cut area sitting right there.

Matt, if you flip back to our grading plan. Oh, yeah. Because we've actually wedged it in there as tight as we can. There is a steep slope we're up against. We wired... Again, that's something else I want to touch on because as the other gentleman was here requesting a waiver from your... this slope requirement. We do have that on this project. So we are proposing a two to one fill slope. And again, we're trying to minimize the amount of trees that we're impacting by doing that. So if we did a three to one fill slip on that, that would go out a lot further and then the basin then would be, would push out further and then it would cut out more trees. So, We've really assessed everything on this site and trying to meet all the requirements of the different agencies and your guys' ordinance and taking that all into account. We felt like this was the best solution.

Can I just ask a practical question on the parking? Who's going to park in those spaces in the front? Are you that short on parking that I'm just...

Yes, we are. Okay. So any given school day, especially during the afternoon a. M. and kindergarten changes. Do we have 1520 cars parking on the grass now? And then just with how reason why we're doing some of these additions, like the 2 in the courtyard. There's so much more. outpatient therapy needs, counseling needs, special ed requirements. We're going to only put nine kids in a room. It's tied up more classroom spaces. So we're not adding any amount of staff. We're not adding any amount of students to this building. This is trying to accommodate what we currently have in a more efficient manner and being able to have music in an actual traditional music room, not a classroom.

Somebody from kindergarten is going to be parking there.

Up front, no. We're hoping like staff's going to park up there. And so that way the parking in front of the building is open for visitors.

Okay.

And that's something you can control. Okay. Thank you.

Is there anything else before I have Matt move on to the other slide?

How much of an acre are you for the service?

I had to check on that. Well, even before most of these elementary schools were in the ballpark of two to five acres. So it were at least double the threshold. Yeah, we'd say a minimum of what necessitates an MPDS park. I have to point that out more.

That's a good question as well. We could somehow.

You mentioned about other methods of grass. We looked at that. Like pervious pavement. Rather than impervious pavement. Difficult for plowing. Maintenance. Did you evaluate it? I mean,

you look at enlarging the underground storage unit to to help offset so we didn't before that underground was in the front because we had thought about that as well but we don't have uh the infiltration that we need so we're relying on that as that uh above ground basin sure so yes but then no because then we can't meet mpds requirements so is this basin gonna

handle all of the existing?

No.

So the other one is still going to be operational?

Correct. So what we're actually doing, so the other one's still going to be operational. There are zones for the new development that is going to be connected into the old basins. But what we're doing is we're connecting, you're swapping exactly. So we're swapping some of the existing impervious and taking it into the new systems to making sure we're meeting all the rate reductions and water quality volume requirements. So this, I apologize if we didn't submit a sign or anything. And I know we didn't submit elevations with our land development package. So I did want to make sure, like I presented the building elevation and make sure we presented those to you all so you understood kind of what the buildings will look like. But I also wanted to then present to you the monument sign that they're looking to add out at the entrance. It gets scanned, it's going to play off of the existing materials of the building, so it's going to match nicely. It's going to mimic, I don't know how familiar everyone is with the Franklin Elementary School monument sign, but it looks pretty similar to this. The district is trying to look at standardizing all their signage. How tall is it? There's a dimension on that.

I can't read it. Where is it going to go in the front entrance?

It's actually in that little grass island space. That might not be the exact location, but it's a general location. We'll make sure it's outside of any side triangles or anything like that. Okay. So I just wanted to touch on, as I mentioned earlier, circulation. That's an issue at all these elementary schools. So we're really trying to, with these improvements, try and figure out ways to address that. So here on this slide, you can see in red, that's currently what the buses do. So they'll enter in a swing around the front, drop the students off and then swing back out at the entrance. And then that dashed yellow line is currently the parent drop off pickup. So they, there's a little bit of a congestion there, kind of where they kind of overlaps. So, but these improvements we've, Matt, if you want to flip to the next slide, we've tried to, as tight as it is, it's probably still isn't the best, but we're trying to do the best we can to improve this. But you can see the red and red, that's still going to remain as the bus looping off and dropping the kids around the front. But then in yellow, With some of this added parking, we are adding some extra linear feet there for parents to queue. So they'll still be queuing the same way that they are today, but they'll have a little bit more queue length. But then also where that congestion is, where the buses and the parents, kind of the red and the yellow may mingle together. We are widening that throat, which I did not mention previously. That was on our proposed improvements. So we are widening that to allow space of a a car is there, like a bus can make like a turn and get out. And then with the improvements to the entrance with all the added, what, turn lane only and the right turn lane only, just traffic is just going to flow better exiting the site that it should move quickly and better than what it currently does.

Do you have a percentage on generally students picked up versus bused?

We have six to seven buses that come up.

Sorry.

Six to seven buses every day. And then car riders, I think it's like, I think it's around 80 cars. It's a lot. I've been there and I've seen them at the corner of the building where the red and yellow meet. They're lined up there trying to go all the way around the back, come up to drop their kid off.

Assuming you have some sort of security in place where you have to go to the door and be authorized to pick up your student, they don't just walk out of the building?

This is for a dismissal time?

Yes.

So the kids are walking out of the building, but we have teachers that are out there monitoring things, and we have school police officers in each building, and they're out there as well.

We used to have to go to the door and get the child, so.

During the school day? Yes.

Yes.

No, this is after school. After school? Yeah, that normal dismissal time, it's... Everyone comes out at certain times. Kids go by class and they're out there and they're directing them which way to go. Parents have a placard in their car to identify who they are and stuff like that.

Thank you.

Yeah, so just some quick permitting updates. Like I mentioned, we have submitted for our MPDS permit. We did get incompleteness comments already, and we've addressed those and have resubmitted that back to the Conservation District. And I mentioned that we are coordinating with PennDOT on our new driveway entrance, and then... I did just want to mention, since we're not increasing student count, we're not increasing sewage flows, so we don't need to do a sewage mailer or planning module. And then I don't want to go through all the comments, but I will happily answer anything that anybody has with any of these comments. But there were just some of those items that I did want to discuss. And we did highlight some of them already, but I just want to make sure that we did discuss them just so as we're making our revisions and things, I want to make sure we're all in agreement of the direction that we're going. So the one The one item, I guess, I saw it was on page four of eight. So it was that sidewalk comment. And I know we kind of had talked about that earlier. There's only a little section there in the front and the comment was about adding a sidewalk up along Peebles. As I mentioned, there is no connection to any existing sidewalks. So we were considering asking for a waiver for that and wanted to, I guess, understand or get any feedback from you all if that is something you guys would consider. and we can revisit that piece in the front. If we were to pull it back, we initially had, to be honest with you, we initially had did it because we had talked with Matt and Kelly during our concept plan review, and they had mentioned about, McCandless was looking at maybe doing some sort of crosswalk there. And we had told Matt that, well, okay, we could extend the sidewalk out and coordinate with McCandless if McCandless ever wanted to put a crosswalk or something in there. So that is actually why we extended that out. Otherwise, we probably would have left it short like we did on the other side. So that was one waiver request for this project that we would likely, or that we'll be asking if, I don't know how to phrase the question, because we... Go ahead.

Yeah, and I can add to that. You know, the town desk is actively pursuing some type of crosswalk here, some type of pedestrian movement in front of people. So that was part of the conversation and part of the pre-application meeting.

Should there be, on this plan, hatches for a crosswalk across the entrance?

No, because it's not part of their development. It's something that the town is doing separately. In the pin pendants right over there.

Well, I would say going back to the conversation earlier, to me, there's two options that make sense in my mind. One is there is a future where we're going to be doing some sort of sidewalks along Peebles, in which case I think you want to extend both sidewalks to Peebles to not promote people from the south crossing the road when people are turning in and out. That's not really feasible. That's not likely going to happen anytime soon, in which case I don't think we want to have a sidewalk going all the way to Peebles on the north side promoting people to not safely walk to the site.

So you address the maintenance issue of having a bus stop at the entrance to pick up the...

So where does the bus stop for that neighbor that's right there?

It's in front of the garage. It's actually up at that curb cut.

Yes, right there.

So creating that sidewalk there, they'll actually walk down the sidewalk and around the building.

So the sidewalk doesn't need to go beyond that. Correct.

So we shortened both sidewalks.

Yeah. How much linear footage on Peebles Road is there? given the location of both of these sidewalks and assuming that the Southern sidewalk just keeps going straight to like four feet. The Northern part was pretty close to that property boundary where that little driveway is, I'm assuming. Yeah, that's staying there, right? That's not very much.

I mean, it's probably like 30 feet there, right? Yeah.

He's asking how far set back the sidewalk. No, no, no, on Peebles. Assuming that southern one goes up to Peebles. Oh, there's not very much along people's sidewalk. Yeah. Yeah.

That's probably 30. It would probably be 30 feet. Yes. Because I mean, that parking parking space is like, what? 2018. Yeah.

And then adjacent to people's, I mean, you're talking like, you're like, you said, like, a couple of feet that would be in the right away for. That was what, you know, gateway had commented on. Is the requirement for sidewalks to be adjacent to roads. I think the question here is just like how much are we actually talking about in terms of linear footage of sidewalk that's adjacent to people's not going to the site. Yeah, like four feet. Yeah.

That PennDOT would have to approve.

Yes, if it's in the right way.

I guess I have a question that's tied into this, which is the comment about the screening buffer to the northern parcel. So I understand if the sidewalk is there, it's going to stay. And with not wanting to create more site impediments, people turning out there. You wouldn't necessarily want a big buffer right there. But are you going to apply for a modification for that? Or is there something that can be done to meet the common but not require a modification.

I wasn't going to talk about that tonight because I did want to get a little bit of clarification from Gateway and Matt on exactly what the intent of that comment was because I didn't know if it was referring to that parking spaces that are close to that property and if that was referring to screening the corner of that parking and if that was the intent of the comment, then it would not be really going along the entrance to really impede

uh visibility sure um but i did i just well i did want to get some clarification on that and i know kelly's yeah i i mean i i believe um just like off the top of my head going back to the like filtering and softening buffers requirements um i believe i mean there's requirement for any adjacent property to have some type of filtering buffer or screening buffer I think that comment would have been, is there a formal request to not have a modification that's adjacent to these two residential properties where that silo would be? Because technically the code says that you have to have a buffer requirement to any portion of your development that you're extending from what my understanding of the code is.

Yeah, so I guess if that was the intent of the comment, then yes, I think for a safety standpoint and visibility, if people are walking on the sidewalk to the entrance, that yeah, we would be asking for a modification. Sure.

I have no objections to the modification. I just was wanting to clarify whether or not it's going to be needed or not.

Yeah, that's a good question, because I didn't know if it did apply to both lots, because the comment, I think, was just for the one by the parking lot.

That's why I was a little Yeah, I wasn't certain of how the gateway apply that in the review. And so I definitely want to check with gateway before we gave like a formal answer to that. But that's something that we could, you know, we could discuss.

But I have a concern about not having any buffer along that parking because two thirds of the school year you're coming in in the dark.

And you've got houses. Do you want to maybe comment on what's existing there? Because that might give them a better idea.

There's two houses. With that part of the little parking that's jets out above the basin there? They're asking about on the other side. On the other side. We do have landscaping, a landscaping buffer on that side on the angled parking against for that property owner that's meeting the parking screening requirement. Yes. Yeah.

And for that sidewalk, I'm not concerned about safety because of kind of where that's off the driveway.

Do you know what side I was in?

Keep going. Yeah, so I think that comment was just on the opposing side from that parking, was whether or not there should be buffer requirement, or the code says there should or shouldn't be, and then whether or not you're requesting to have a waiver or not.

In the ordinance, it does say that sidewalk can be within that buffer, so by the time you add the sidewalk and kind of where we're at, there's not much space anyhow.

So we're looking at trade-off. potential.

Yes. All right.

So that was one of the debate. So that was that was the presentation for PLC 2616 people's elementary school plan combined preliminary and final land development and lot consolidation.

So that's the public comment that we haven't already heard. I'd say no. Okay. So take a question on this one particular thing.

I understand it.

Okay. So we shouldn't to take this as I understand what our plan is to do.

That's what my resolution. Should we give you a discussion on your retention area? We're cutting the trees down. Do you have any other. We asked for alternatives or other that we're probably going to see that.

Just other assessments of looking at planting them on other properties.

The trees are going to have to go. I mean, based on all the requirements in front of them.

Yeah, I mean, I honestly, I mean, I feel like we've really assessed the site. There may be a squeeze in some more, but I didn't want to keep adding a bunch of trees in areas because I know the school has, the district has a concern with safety. So there was no way that we were going to meet those. You're not going to find them. No. I wanted to have those. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

you know, like this might just be solved through a conversation between the school district and the town to see what avenues there are for options if this would be accepted by town council. Obviously there is an avenue, like a fee in lieu for sidewalks that's established within the code, but you know, that could be something that would be negotiated between the school and the town and then would be included within a developer agreement if accepted by the planning commission and the town council.

And there is something in the ordinance that does say if you can't plant them, the trees on site, that there's other alternate avenues. And a fee in lieu of is one of them. And planting offsite is also another option.

If that's something that you want to have a discussion about what your options are and what you feel is best to present to the Planning Commission in the next meeting, I'm happy to set time to do that.

That's what I was going to ask if we could do that.

Good to know how they don't fit on the other school property stuff. So if it needs to go off somewhere, then we're looking at that plan. But if it, I mean, I'm looking at the school district plans, it's all one parcel in terms of usually trees around. So.

Okay. Understood.

I don't know if you want to... Totally understand the concern of trying to keep trees. Um, we want to try and keep what we can as well and I'm not. I agree with the comments on the solar retention ponds and having to cut more down for trees. It was kind of a shock to me without me. We need to replace. Um, maybe in the facility director, I know I'm always concerned about safety for the kids. So that's where we're trying to find that happy middle ground. Um, so, um. That we work with you as well as we can to, um. I have to ask for a waiver. That was the way we can meet it. Um. But then you'll see. Not to beat this up with the next 3 other buildings, but it's gonna be the same in all 3 of them. Um, so that's where you'll probably answer your question. It's where you'll see. We're struggling with that, but with your comment with, you see, the district is an entirety. So, are you saying, like, if we did something at Marshall middle school and, you know, it's going to be limited to township.

And just for like a point of order, each of these items will have its own developer agreement, each of these items, but all of that would have to be negotiated before final.

But that would be something we're talking about being open to.

Wonderful. Thank you. Appreciate it.

If that retention is going to be, you know, they're going to have an offset, they're going to have a fence for security, those kind of details, or it's just going to be an open basin? Sorry, I didn't know what to add, but I mean, that's a...

No, that's a good question. I mean, we do get that a lot at these meetings, but if we're able to go specifically to people's, I mean, that's a steep slope.

So there are considerations for a fence just at the top of the perimeter of that parking lot area to provide protect the safety of the children that are walking in and around or pedestrians that are parking their vehicles and then walking around that bus loop as well. So whether it's a guide rail or fencing or something, there is definitely consideration that would be added in to just the steep nature of that slope adjacent to the parking lot area. So hopefully that answers your question as well. Yeah. I won't see it.

It's going to take a little more, right? To put those features in there. Yeah. Anything else?

Yeah.

Can I get a motion to table this matter for now? So moved. Can I have a second?

I'll second it.

I'll have a second. All in favor of tabling the motion? Aye. Opposed? We don't. So we're on to the next item. PLC 2617. Pozak Elementary School Plan Combined Preliminary and Final Elimination. on that one as we're going to hit around the same items we've already discussed but um oh we're changing all right um all right next slide yep

So similar to the people's, we are, we did submit for a lock consolidation plan as well for this elementary school. So the district actually owns an adjacent parcel. It was the old Nike site. So we're, as part of this landed on submission for the preliminary final for the Hozak Elementary School, we're looking to consolidate those lots. so that sorry yeah that was i'm just rambling here um but the uh the upper dark parcel there is the old nike site that the district owns and then the one there to the that's a little lighter is the current hozak but you know nike site Yeah, so they and Nike missiles from Cold War area era. So that was actually a, that wasn't the actual, missiles weren't on this site. I believe it was an actual control, yes, control center. Yeah, I think the missile site was somewhere in North Park somewhere, close over by the Some police facility for, but anyway, another topic. My husband, but if you still want to go to slide. So, this slide was just showing those lots being consolidated and what that overall track boundary would look like.

That makes sense.

Again, this is, as we talked about at People's Day, this is an existing condition, so I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with this facility as well. So maybe I won't go into a lot of more detail like I did on the other one, but I did just want to highlight Plan North. You can see there in blue, we did delineate a stream. That was on site and then and green there in the upper left is a wetland that is on site as well. Go to the next slide. So this here is our site improvement plan. Similar to people's, we were assessing parking and trying to maximize the need for parking for the district and traffic flow as well. And then they're also adding, similar to two peoples, they're adding onto the administrative office area there to the front, and then they're adding on an LGI addition as well. And then as part of this project, they'll also be redoing the playgrounds and getting new equipment and revamping that whole area at the back. You can go to the next slide. So this here, again, similar to people's, this is just the elevations of showing these additions, just showing that the materials and things that architect is really doing a really good job of matching the materials to have it blend in to make it look like it was always there. If you go to the next slide, that is the LGI room with the bump out. So they added some great windows there to add some natural light and things in, and then playing off of, again, the materials of that building to help it blend in. Then this is our grading and stormwater plan. So we're capturing that parking lot there that were proposing plans north left and it's it's all throwing into a this one we did not get infiltration we tested it did several testing locations it all came back zero so we actually have a managed release concept that we're Taking all the new impervious and we're putting into this MRC and it's meeting all the water quality requirements for our NPDES permit because we're disturbing over an acre on this site as well. And then similar to Peebles, we are doing a little bit of swapping around with some of the existing impervious and making sure that we're not increasing rates and we're not overloading or adding new impervious to there's an existing stormwater basin out front and an underground detention system. So we're just making sure we're not adding new impervious to those stormwater systems and to mitigating rate control and water quality and volume with our MRC that's being proposed there in red. Next slide. Gansome, the people's, this is another tight site and it's rooted. So where we're proposing to put the parking lot, there is a lot of trees as well that are over six inches of diameter that we'll be removing this project as well. But then we are also then providing the trees per parking lot requirements of the canvas to meet the ordinance requirements. So I don't know if you can see, I think this one's actually even more than . 208 replacement trees are required, only 32 are shown. Correct, yes.

So I think there are some pockets and things that we can add some more to this.

But as we were talking earlier, other sites that look to point, these were really limited on space and more. We're impacting more trees with this project as well.

That was the go ahead. What about the old base area? There's some buildings over there. I think there's a. There is only cold work asphalt over there. Yes. Is there an opportunity to do something with trees there? So, I can answer I can let you answer, but.

On the corner, so there's there's still 2 existing buildings there. We're looking at demoing those out and that would add to some green space, but there's also talk about possibly looking at developing something there. So, I hate to say that. Hey, we can put some trees there, but then we're coming to you in 5 to 10 years saying, we're taking them down. So, I just want to be transparent with that. Um, the additional parking that we're showing there, it's 2 full 1. it's for additional parking. 2, it's for the car rider traffic. It goes around the building that way. And right now it does back out on the people's road. So, providing this additional parking gives us more. Cars we can fill in the lot for pick up in this vessel. So, a lot of the site is would it now the 1 asphalt space up in the top left corner there where you see some buses. That's what we use that existing to store some of our buses. Some of them are. junk ones that we do auction off throughout the year, but then we also take parts from them to use on our good buses.

Don't tell us you have a junkyard on site, please.

No, we don't. There's also buses that we do keep there and we need them for the spring season athletic runs because they start the athletic runs need to leave so early. We don't have enough buses on our lot at Cumberland to accommodate, keep parked there. So we keep them parked over here.

This is previous experience with these former Nike sites. If you've done the ground survey for hazardous material, can you disturb the ground?

No, we have not done that yet. I know the district is looking at demoing those buildings, so I think that was probably something that's going to come up when we come to McCandless to demo those.

Yeah, I know all the soldiers there were very careful about all their petroleum and and we ended up couldn't touch it. Maybe we could remediate it.

Yeah.

So you are doing that investigation?

Well, if they move forward with the improvements and things on there and they are, they do want to look at demoing those buildings. So I think as part of that, as a review and things with McCandless, I would think that's probably something that was going to be required.

What about the areas you're disturbing? So not talking about it's still part of that site, right? Things could have migrated. That was just a question. Yeah. You're doing soil testing.

Yeah.

We did.

We didn't do it. We did testing for infiltration and stuff. We did do a geotech.

We did it for the buildings.

It did not borings out in that area. We can... We can check the requirements and see if it's required. I'm trying to think of when that comes up when you need to do the phase ones as far as your development demo that comes when you're demoing the building.

Was there a phase one done when the parcel was acquired by the school district?

I would think that's one of the... Yeah, that's... I don't have the answer to that. I don't know when... I mean, I don't know if Brandon even knows when the district acquired that.

Depending on what the phase one says, you may have to go get someone else to do a phase two.

Yeah. The question is, is it worth it to go through this before you evaluate it?

I mean, that's your call, but. Yeah, I mean, it may just be a risk that the school district is undertaking.

Yeah.

Yeah, considering where our proposed improvements are, that is all wooded over there. I mean, there to the right is more where the facility was, and there's a stream in that area. So we're kind of at a different elevation that, I mean, I don't foresee that being an issue where currently our proposed improvements are. I think... Maybe that's something we do look at in the future if the district does look to do anything with that existing Nike site with with any of those buildings.

Not to beat a dead horse, but going back to the tree removal situation, your criteria is anything, so many trees over six inches. That's not very big. How big are some of those trees that you're taking down? I mean, I would say... 100 plus year old trees, I bet you.

No, they're actually smaller. There's, I don't know, what is it, like a 70%, 6% or 7% of them are probably like 8 to 12 inches. Really? There's only essentially a tree replacement table. There's a table on there. The largest is a 50-inch tree.

tree that there's only one of those to be removed but i would agree most are between six and twelve inches and i had bigger trees all right that was just my wrong assumption encouragement for one of the maintenance authentic trees before they hit six inches um all right then moving on

Again, just showing a monument sign of the proposed on this side out front. So it'll mimic the building materials similar to what was shown to people's. And we'll match the Franklin Elementary School monument sign. As Brandon talked about a little bit ago with the drop off. So one thing benefit with this plan and the location of the parking is we will greatly improve parking. queuing at this site. So this is the existing circulation. So the buses come in there in red and then in yellow is currently where they're backing up, which is out towards peoples. So if you there's a little bit of a congestion there with overlap with buses and cars and vehicles backing up on on people. So if you go to the next slide, Matt. So here the bus circulation will remain unchanged. But by adding that extra parking in the back, What you're seeing in yellow is actually the same length that was shown on the previous plan. And we're beyond that pinch point where buses and cars would come together. And if it becomes a problem, they could even add and loop through that existing parking lot to add even more queue length.

You can't go that direction in that parking lot, right? That the mouse is going?

No, you cannot. It's one way. You're correct. It is one way. So they would enter the driveway and then take immediate right and around. And if you want to go to the next slide, Matt. So again, just permitting updates. We've submitted for our MVDS permit. We actually have not received our incompleteness admin review yet for this one, but I would be expecting that any day, and then we'll make sure to address those and get those back in. Similar to people's, we're not increasing any student count on this facility, so there's no proposed sewage increase, so we don't need the mailer exemption or apply for the module. And then I mean, a lot of the comments are pretty similar on all these projects. So we had the tree thing that we already kind of talked about already. We did have the slope requirement, like we discussed a little bit at people's. We are going to assess that, and we're going to see what we can do to try and meet that. So we'll do our best to try and get slopes three to one or greater. But if not, that might be something that we come back and request in the steps on this site, if we did two to one are very minimal, but we would get a geotechnical report to justify that request. And then I think, sidewalks was another item. So it was the same thing on people's, there is no side of peoples and then connecting that sidewalk all the way out and to promote people to walk along people's just seem didn't seem um like a good safe idea so that was something that we would be asking as well the driveway that is shared with the adjoining property Yeah, so that is on the northern site. There is a separate driveway that goes to the Nike site that Brandon was mentioning where they had the buses and things. So there is an existing residential driveway off of that driveway. So we are going to be planning to use that during construction. So we're not impacting any of that entrance currently, and they can keep the school functioning during construction. So we will coordinate with that property owner just to make sure they're aware of any issues The construction activities that that may potentially impact them. So I think that comment was. Asking for an easement and agreements. So I've already talked to Brandon about that. They've already may have even already sent that to their solicitor to start maybe assessing to look at what that agreement will look like and. I know at People's we didn't talk about that, but I know they're planning to and have already reached out to the neighbors. They're going to be talking to them about these improvements, and they'll be doing the same with that neighbor to address that comment.

That property has frontage tables.

It does, but the driveway comes off of their...

That other access. Yeah, we've talked, often we discussed about internally. Like, you know, there needs to be some kind of an easement agreement. Yeah. And so maybe something put on the plan, on the plan, the notes that.

That there's an easement.

Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know if there currently is an easement, but if we do that, make sure to get something.

Yeah. How much footage?

Uh, Jason and parallel to people's is there on this one for potential sidewalk?

I don't know that that number off the top of my head, but I would, I don't know, just looking at that, that's maybe on the upper, upper right, maybe, I don't know, a hundred, a hundred and twenty. And maybe down towards the bottom, like 60 to 80. I mean, maybe looking like 200, 220. I don't know. Just an abrupt estimate.

Any other comments? Any comments regarding this matter? And I think what we need, same item or same issue here for the PSC 26-17 Hozak Elementary School Plan, a motion to table. Can I have such a motion? So moved. Second?

Second.

We have a second. All in favor of tabling? Aye. Opposed? We have a table. All right. Next item on the agenda, which is PSC 2618. And now, elementary school plan combining preliminary and final land development. 943M309. Maybe it'll be similar. It will be. Thank you.

separate on block consolidation on this one. So it's a little bit, so there's a difference. Matt, if you want to go ahead and go to the first slide. So this is the existing parcel. So you can see there in that aerial, this site is very tight as well. All the existing features that it currently has. You go to the next one. Um, well, I will highlight a few things storm water wise on this. Um. So, when we're doing investigation, walking around, just trying to see. Trying to understand how the storm water was flowing in and being conveyed on the site. We came across that there's underground detention currently at this facility. That is. Out front and the. I'll say bus drop off area there up around West Ingham are right in the middle and then it connects down and it actually has an outlet structure with weird plates and offices in there that controls. Last stormwater before then it connects into another underground detention system that is in that existing parking lot currently. So, when we were looking at stormwater, we were trying to take that into account and not. Trying to. add new impervious to those underground detentions. So we're doing similar things that we're doing on the other two projects and swapping impervious areas. And I can get into that later as far as where our proposed stormwater facility is. But I did just want to bring that up while we were on the existing conditions plan. So Matt, if you want to go to the next one. So this here is our site improvements plan. So again, we're trying to maximize parking. So you can see there to the north plan north there to the right is the additional parking spaces that we're proposing with this project, which is currently over the existing playground area. So as part of this plan, parking over the existing playground, then we needed to provide a new playground area. So you can see there to the left, we're providing that. They currently have a basketball court, so we're providing a new basketball court. And then areas in purple would be potential play areas, and we're currently working with a playground manufacturer to assess what types of equipment and things to put in there. And then as well, there to the left, We will be trying to increase. That ball field and renovate that to just make it better and better playing facility. And my understanding is my canvas actually uses that ball field. To play baseball on. And then similar to the other projects, there's building additions proposed with this as well. So moving over to the left, you can see that large orange rectangle, that is proposed LGI room there. And then to the north of that will be a little bit of a concrete area where they can have a little bit of outdoor LGI space. And then the side of that, you'll see an addition there as well. That's by the admin office area. So there'll be adding and renovating onto that space as well. So there will be a little bit of improvements with that building addition that will approach into that existing parking lot. So we'll have to add a little new asphalt or do some mill and overlay in that area. And then one, oh, sorry, Matt, one thing I did not mention is the dumpster area. So we are going to, as part of this, we're going to adjust that to make it a better angle for the trash truck to get in and out as well.

Does that create enough usable playground area?

Yeah. We actually were assessing that the purple areas, they may not even need all that for playground equipment. I think the assessments was like 40 or 50 or 60 kids at a time. So we were in talks with the playground manufacturer, making sure we're providing adequate equipment. But his suggestion, seeing that they already had more than enough in this proposed plane for that.

That's replacing the basketball court?

That, replacing the basketball court. Yeah. With the same general size of what's currently out there. And there'll be multiple hoops on there as well.

And how do you get up to this, we'll call it basketball court and playground space from the school?

So we'll have a fence along the back of that sidewalk that's running down to contain any kids that were out for recess. So they would be accessing that playground similar to how they would access it today because there's currently, there's a fence that goes around the existing parking lot. So I believe they probably come out, I think out of that gymnasium, I think is where the cafeteria is, which would be just playing south of the ball field, kind of where that text is, that blue text. Yeah, to the right of there.

Yeah, right there in that area. And then that'll stay segregated from that parking lot and the traffic flow. Correct.

Yes. We'll have that all fenced in.

They'll be segregated and gym class goes out there and uses some of that area now. There's like a bike track that goes around the ball field and everything. So it'll still be retained. Like this playground that you've said is much bigger, almost 3,000 square foot bigger than like Hozak. So we're trying to keep consistency between the three elementary schools besides the playground, stuff like that.

Who's that parking area adjacent to the basketball court going to serve ideally?

So I believe that's probably in events and things.

That would be for event overflow, but then lots of it is extending the car rider pick up and drop off extension, because right now it backs out onto that road quite a bit. So instead of it coming in like where the dumpster's at, they'll be coming in the back. It's coming up, and the exit closest to the main road is a right turn only going out onto that.

So that's on the upper right. That's an additional access to the road. Yes. Okay. You're going to add that. Yes.

But there is a comment that we can.

Yeah, that was one of the engineers.

I mean, we can talk about it now if we want, since we're kind of on the topic.

It's closest to Ingmar. It's awfully close to the intersection.

Correct. So that entrance close to Ingmar is a no, you can't enter. So it's an exit only entrance and you can't make a left-hand turn. It's a right only out of there. So I know there was something in the ordinance that we can only have two entrance drives off of the road. So when we're looking at adding, trying to address the queuing issue, it makes sense to have that driveway all the way on the other end to add queue length. And then just with the circulation, because that central existing driveway there in the center that is an exit and entry is used for like the service truck that would come in for deliveries and things like that. And then also there's a fire lane in there as well that the fire truck would access that.

So the existing parking, it was just Angmar. Is that one way?

I don't believe it is one way because you can then you could it's wide enough you can it's two-way and so you could go out to that other exit.

Use the other exit. I mean theoretically you could still have two exits without having the one closest to Ingobar Road. That's the question.

Then we would lose

I think we would lose our circulation traffic.

Yeah, exactly.

We'd lose parking spaces so we can make a big U-turn before we come back.

Correct. Is it a matter of maybe taking that upper driveway curb cut closer to Inglemore and narrowing it down? So you have it labeled as a right turn out only. Sometimes you take those driveways and just make them one way out.

So it is narrow already. Okay. Yeah, it is. Okay. Yeah. It's not a, I mean, it's probably 16 feet wide. It's actually to, to be prepared for this comment discussion. I actually live close to Ingmar and I ran over there this morning because I remember seeing some signage and I went into that parking lot just to understand it. And that driveway is, is narrow and it is literally one, like one lane. Okay. So we can,

look at the circulation.

Yeah, we can look at the circulation. So actually, Matt, why don't you just, since we're on this topic, just go towards the end of my presentation slide. So this here is the existing circulation. So they have the kindergarten pickup drop off there to the left. You have the bus is there in the middle that's in red and then to the right is in yellow is the current parent pickup drop off. So if you go to the next slide. So by adding this extra parking and that other driveway entrance, it greatly extends the queue length and gets the parents off of Gorsuch. And so if we eliminate If you eliminate that driveway, the proposed driveway, we're not really adding any length to improve any circulation for parent pickup drop-off. If you remove the existing, let's say middle driveway, now we're limiting how the service truck comes in for deliveries. And we're also limiting then the fire truck to get to that fire lane that's currently there. And then if you eliminate the one driveway there closer to West Inglemore, then we're shortening the queue length for parent pickup and drop-off as well. So we're not solving their issue with the queuing and things for the parent pickup drop-off.

So if I'm understanding your use of the word queuing, nobody parks, they just stand in the drive?

Yeah, so they'll queue just like my understanding is that the...

They line up in the parking.

Yes.

Does that prevent people from backing out or getting into their spot? If somebody was parked and wanted to leave, if there's 10 cars queued behind them, can they not get out?

Most of it's staff parking. If they do want to leave at that time, then they're not leaving.

Okay, so it does block them from backing out.

It does. It's the front of the building. We have parking up there, and that's where we do have some traveling teachers. So there's designated parking spots up there for them.

And this is, again, if they're walking, is there a percentage of students that walk to this school?

I can't answer that one.

There is a crossing guard. I have seen it that we don't accept it, but I don't I don't know how many students actually walk this school.

We can say it's K through five.

The kindergarten is over on the other end.

Correct. It's still like 24 years. So you've got where your new parking lot is. There's the adjacent property owner just north of that. The buffer address for that. Freeze there now.

Yes, so as part of it.

Sorry, so the other 1 is moving trees. So that was going to be another topic. Um, and we actually. In this plan, we were trying to meet the requirement and it currently does, but Brandon had brought up a concern how we were showing those trees there to the left of the ball field. And he had concerns about safety and not being able to see the playground well out of those windows. So with that, we then would be kind of in that same thing as the other projects. It wouldn't be as many. I think there's, I don't know, is there two or eight? I don't know, is there like 10 or 11? But we would be asking for that same similar modification. So piggybacking off like some districts already, where can we plant extra trees? These sites, we're not gonna be able to plant any additional trees on these elementary school projects.

And maximize the parking. Right. I mean, you only want to maximize the parking. Correct. Yes. Correct. Yeah.

And I say maximize the parking that there were. They need the parking because it's a safety thing because there's not enough parking now. So cars, you know, just kind of have to park wherever when there's events and things. So by adding this extra parking, it's getting the vehicles on site and not creating hazardous issues.

So I'm going to be the devil's advocate. You're going to drain out parking. You're going to build a really nice little league baseball field there. Isn't that just going to increase it to me and

Um, I mean, I think that. That would also be out of school hours and I would believe that, I mean, if we added up how many parking spaces there are currently, I. I don't think it would, I think we would be able to meet the demand. Um, anybody that would be coming to that ball field.

I don't think the. Parking concern the evenings, is it from the ball field? It's from the school events. Yeah. We have levels and it fills up like crazy. Can I ask a question? To the concern of the 3 entrances that on gross there. Would the, would it be wiser to ask for. The waiver, they'll have that 3rd. Entrance there, or would it be better just to not have that you could pull in and pull out of there and keep the 2, but we're not fixing. The car traffic backup that happens on that road. We can talk about that later offline.

I mean, just my just like thoughts on that is, you know, it's I mean, basically it would be like, you know, are you going to request a waiver with the justification is that you have a third entrance point to create more circulation in queuing and that's your justification and that's something that they'd be permissible to accept? Or is there a way that you can achieve that without requiring a waiver? I think that's really going to be like How you present it? Um, I mean, planning commissioner. Do you have any comments on that? I mean, it would.

I would definitely add the fact that the middle 1 is actually a fire lane.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I would agree with that at all. I think. I think modification makes sense here to make that the most useful. Uh, the lot addition. And yeah, I think with the acknowledgement that that center cut is essentially just an emergency access. Or maybe.

But it's.

May I suggest maybe you sign it, you know, emergency access or deliveries only. Yeah. Because if you're delivery trucks, maybe that's what you do. Okay.

We can do that. I guess. It just, it gives some basis for a modification. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay.

Is Ingmar currently full as a school?

Yes. The population population is honors 320 kids somewhere around there. There's more coming demographic study. No. our elementary population isn't going to rise up so much as compared to middle school and high school. Because of the developments in March.

We're referencing another issue.

Take down Angomar.

So we're trying to understand it.

For my time, I'm sorry, I can't help. There was no response that you wouldn't have there. That was a thing of the past.

I just want to highlight, I know we briefly went through some of those slides, but we do have underground detention, just how tight this site is. It's under that proposed parking lot. We did get infiltration in that area, so it will be an underground infiltration.

It's just going to help fall.

It'll connect to the inlet. I think it's next to that proposed driveway that plan. North to the right, so it'll connect into McAnally's conveyance system. So we actually needed to get. A sign off from that for connection as part of our permit.

How much of a chicken and egg is that? Underground detention up there at the parking lot. such that if you pared back some of that impervious area, say cut four or five parking spots, hypothetically, to have a little more green space, plant a couple extra trees, would you take a hit on the capacity of the storage basin and its ease of installation? Because it just so happens that it takes up most of the parts. Yeah.

yeah i mean i think there is yeah some areas there to the the north um i mean you could have to we could modify to work around some things if you're um for trees and things like that um i'm not sure how to 100 answer that i mean we could We can modify the underground detention system how we need under some of that equipment and things. But we just really need to kind of keep it in the general location where it's at because that's where we got the good infiltration. There were other areas that we did do tests and we didn't get infiltration. So again, to my comment before with the MPDS permit, DEP prefers you to do infiltration. So that's kind of the area that we had identified where we needed to do stormwater. But there may be a little bit of space to do something like that.

I'll do that if you reduce the playground two days. Great.

I guess that's a question I have just based on your presentation. Like if it comes back that there's, you don't need as much playground area, like what, do you have a plan for, you know, if one of these playground area changes and you don't need to have all this recreation, like is there some type of alternative that you plan to do or? Because I know you're in talks with the playground company and said that there might be a large section that's not needed for recreation on one of these sites, which is something to maybe consider. If that does do away with part of that recreation, then maybe you have some more opportunity for green space.

Yeah, we can look at that and assess that and put that into our assessment when we come back next month.

Any other comments? Any more presentation on?

There was, I mean, they had the building additions, but again, we're just making listeners.

I think the architectural additions seem to tie in nicely. Whoever is responsible for that. There you go.

Good job.

Some pictures look good. I hope they look as good in real life.

That's the whole reason I came.

All right. Any more public comment that we need to hear? Doesn't sound like it. So for the issue of PSC 26-18 school plan, we can put a motion to table this one as well.

So moved.

So moved. Second?

Second.

We have a second. All in favor of table? Aye.

All right.

I opposed. No opposition. All right. Thank you. Well, you said, I still have a question. Yes or no answer. Two, actually.

Just before you tell us to order, just a note for the Planning Commission. The next two items that are on the agenda, and this was noted in my staff report, PLC 2619 and PLC 2620 are both applications that have to occur in conjunction with each other. There is a request for a lot line revision that goes in between two different zoning districts. So the MPC requires that a rezoning occurs prior to a lot line revision. So we just wanted to note that specifically because there is a specific process point whenever it comes to the approvals for that item.

It can happen concurrently, just one action in front of the other. Correct. Okay.

And are we dealing with both of these issues tonight or is this just a new table?

You know, these are both items that will be presented.

Yeah, and I know I've been up here for a long time, so I will try to be brief. I'll just have Matt go to, I don't want to just pick a slide because I think this is pretty straightforward.

Well, let me at least introduce them both for the record. The next item on the agenda is PSC 26-19, zoning map amendment request North Allegheny School District, block and lot 715F55, and PSC 26-20, Duncan Avenue plan, lot line revision, block and lot 715F55 and 826. All right.

So actually now I'm realizing that I didn't, Matt doesn't have that presentation that I did for this one, but I will, I'll still try to be brief. So you can share it, Josh. Yeah.

I'll try. If you talk to her, Greg, I'll try.

So the gist of what our requests are is there's an adjacent property owner that owns property up along Duncan Avenue and which is a venture champion property. partnership who's looking to dedicate part of their property to the district. Their property is zoned different than what the district's property is for, we're talking NAI. We're asking for a rezoning for the pieces of property, which isn't the whole thing. It's a certain, I think it's like six acres or so of the pieces that the developers limited to dedicate to the district. And then once that would be rezoned, then we would be looking to consolidate that into the overall NAI campus make room for a future project looking for a safer access up into NAI and additional access. So that will be forthcoming, but that's just the main gist of our requests.

So they're actually holding property also, the part of the parcel that they're dedicating to you to find west of their existing parcel. There you go.

So there in red is the current NAI campus and blue is the parcel that Adventure Champion Partnership owns, which is there by like that Allegheny Health neighborhood hospital in the Lowe's. So if you go one more, Josh. So those two, yeah, those two dark areas are the areas that they would be, they're dedicating, looking to dedicate to the district. But fortunately, they're two different zoning districts. So we have to rezone the piece that they're going to dedicate. So then we can consolidate it together. It's a little messy. Yes, correct.

What is it just to the right of the blue?

It's a daycare? No. No. I'm trying to. It's senior living. It's a senior living facility.

That senior living is the further building.

It's the daycare.

Yeah, Doodle Bugs.

It's right behind the hospital. Okay.

The smaller one is the daycare. The larger one is the senior living.

Right. The one that has the center is Redcrest.

This is Redcrest.

So this parcel is that is zoned MU isn't really developable in the MU.

It's a pretty sliver piece of property. And it does have some topography to it. And it's next to, there's a stream. And I think part of that is there is a little bit of a slope, yes, to the right of it. But there is an area where we can make want to spill the beans, but they're looking at doing a connection up into NAI. So there is a sliver of that that matches well with the existing grade of NAI. So we could have a nice access road coming down as a connection to Duncan. But the rest of that is pretty much undevelopable.

Challenge. I mean, are you looking at...

And we've already assessed that it's looking at least well that we're going to have ourselves that's that's that's.

I guess the question is this is property coming off the tax rolls.

I guess yeah.

Probably the highest assessed.

It's commercial property that's going to be gone. not a big, but a substantial, a substantially larger amount than a curb cut for a driveway.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- yeah I mean I just just from a general standpoint like that's not really something that we necessarily consider when we're looking at these items like where we look at these items from a standpoint of the. HAB-Jacques Juilland- planning code and does this meet the town ordinances for you know zoning districts and off you know lot line setbacks all those those good things.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- What lot is so the darker blue. theoretically comes out and then the lighter blue remains. Is that lighter blue its own distinct tax lot or is it part of the larger reserve area of Canlis Crossing?

I believe it's its own parcel lot number. And there's already an area there in the light green that's already graded out flat for something potentially in the future.

Yeah, I mean, it's a developable parcel appears to be that just hasn't been developed yet.

So, the piece that the developer would be keeping, I think he could develop the piece that he's dedicating to the to the school districts is. Undevelopable land for him.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That said, I think. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Anybody else have any questions, comments.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Is there. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Your trees along. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, It. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Is not.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, The small.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We could we can look at that and then we can talk with. Brandon, and that can maybe be part of our conversation we have with Matt, but there is wooded area, and I know there's right-of-way and things for Duncan. I'm just not sure how much that right-of-way goes into the property where there aren't any trees.

And any future land development that would include that area would require buffering and planting and everything that's included within that.

So they're going to lose more trees potentially. Yeah.

I think I recall on the plan sheet, I think it was page three, there's an artifact that says People's Elementary at the bottom instead of NAI.

Oh, sorry. We'll get that cleaned up. Yeah, it was probably a carryover. I know there's some text things, I think, across all these that kind of apply that we need to get linked up, such as Township of McAnlis. I apologize.

It was also Ducan Road, wasn't it? D-U-C-A-N?

I think it's actually.

Is that how it's called? Is that how it's called? D-U-N. D-U-N. D-U-N was not it. It was Ducan. Nice, but not quite. Sorry. We'll get those cleaned up. I knew what you meant. At least I thought I did. Okay, we're going to be I can something perhaps amend motion first. Is that what we're doing? That's something gender right now. All right. So I need a motion.

We're up to opportunity for public comment first.

Oh, okay. All the public that's out there wants to comment on this.

I'll go through it. Sorry. All right.

see 26-19 zoning map amendment request north allegheny school district block and lot 75 55 can we get a motion to approve the zoning map amendment request north allegheny school district block and lot 715 f55 is there such a motion i guess just for clarity it would not be the entirety of that block of law it would just be the part of it that's depicted here

Yeah it would be, I guess, Anna, is there a specification that we need for a motion regarding that because of the specificity of the application?

I would assume the application specific. So if we're voting on the application, then you don't need to specify.

Thank you.

Okay. So assuming that it's application specific, is there a motion to approve? Can I have such a motion? So moved. Second? Do I get Sean for second? All in favor? Opposed? Hearing none. So the second item to be voted on is the PLC 26-20 Duncan Avenue Plan Lot Line Revision, Lot 715F55 and 826N100. Any public comment on this particular item? Hearing none, so can we have a motion to approve? Don't have any plans not buying revision, but I'm not 75 at 55 and a 26 and 100. Such emotions are moved so moved second. We have a second. All in favor. Opposed. I have it all.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for your time. I know it's been long and I really appreciate all the feedback.

I don't think so. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Second? Second. All in favor of adjournment? Opposed? None.

So thank you everybody for dealing with the technical issues. And we'll get worked out eventually. We're going to get there.