[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] I've been looking at a few people out.
[0:14] So I'm just a new key.
[0:16] Officially, all of the business, two people out here tonight.
[0:18] So you'd be a special.
[0:23] If I should move over here, so you don't feel loud.
[0:31] Or you can talk to him, yes?
[0:36] If he gets too friendly, he'll stop it.
[0:39] I've been
[0:47] seven.
[0:47] Thank you.
[0:48] Right.
[0:53] Yes.
[0:59] Good.
[1:00] Good.
[1:00] Good.
[1:00] I'd like to
[1:08] call the evening's meeting of the warrant
[1:11] in Tanship Planning Commission in order.
[1:13] Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
[1:18] The pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
[1:23] and to the Republic of Georgia's stance,
[1:25] one nation under God,
[1:27] indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[1:50] First thing I would like to do is officially welcome Brian to the Planning Commission.
[1:56] It's a little work and progress here.
[1:59] Thanks for your interest and support.
[2:04] Brian is a newly appointed alternate member to the Planning Commission.
[2:16] Since we have a forum, regular members I don't know that we need to do anything at this point in time
[2:22] this evening's proceeding, so you will be an alternate.
[2:26] I'm trying to get pregnant, so I don't know.
[2:37] Now, the first two items on the agenda are the approval of minutes, and mostly a
[2:42] minute, but I did not see any attachments on the portal.
[3:06] Good evening, Fred, the meeting is in progress here.
[3:10] I hope you can hear us okay?
[3:12] Yes, I can.
[3:14] Terrific.
[3:15] We did just officially welcome Brian Shapiro here
[3:19] as the newly appointed alternate member to the Planning Commission.
[3:24] So he is here this evening as well.
[3:29] Brian, as you may or may not know, for it is a two-hat person.
[3:35] He's a member of the Planning Commission, and he is also a member of the Board of Services.
[3:44] Did I miss something?
[3:46] Or does anybody else have access to the minutes on the portal?
[3:51] I did not. I did not have access now.
[3:56] All right. Yeah, right now. I am not receiving anything from you guys.
[4:02] As far as video goes, but that's her. If you got me, you're letting me guys.
[4:08] Turn the light off.
[4:10] I got a picture on picture.
[4:13] So not having anything to discuss for us one and two we're going to
[4:19] table those, hopefully they'll be going to ponder the next meeting.
[4:24] So that'll bring us up to the new business item, reviewing comment on a sketch plan
[4:30] for Valley Square Phase I.
[4:35] Mr. Banner.
[4:37] Marcie, so nice to see you Ben.
[4:38] Are you doing?
[5:03] Thank you.
[5:04] Thank you.
[5:06] Thank you.
[5:07] Thank you.
[5:10] Well, you know what, we actually have these if you want.
[5:13] to save these for another reason.
[5:15] Do you want to throw it right in?
[5:16] Do you want to throw it right in?
[5:17] Do you want to throw it right in?
[5:22] Please.
[5:23] We're ready?
[5:24] Well, good evening.
[5:25] William Banner at some.
[5:26] I privilege to appear before this body once again on behalf of I star, just some introductions.
[5:36] Most of you know what, Tom Hanna, who from Gilmore and Associates, Tom has been the project
[5:42] manager for the Valley Square development since its inception.
[5:48] Present this evening is a high-stars representative of Donna Musiel who's sitting in the
[5:53] audience. Any questions that require decisions from a high star are on sure that Miss
[6:01] Musiel will be more than capable of answering them?
[6:05] There's the Planning Commission, this phase of Valley Square is inexplicably known as phase
[6:16] 1.
[6:18] I'm sure there's history and in fact I know the history and I won't bore you with it.
[6:24] But this is phase 1, phase 2 of course is built for the most part.
[6:30] uh... there have been several plans uh... that have come before uh...
[6:35] rout warington township
[6:37] uh... for the development uh... but this phase of the project of which is uh...
[6:43] track of about uh... thirteen and a half acres uh... it would like to get the rest of
[6:47] all these squares on cbd
[6:49] uh... and it's part of the uh... mixed use uh... development uh... approved uh... back in uh...
[6:55] it was 2003 or 2004. The original law concept for this phase of the project envisioned a
[7:05] motor in a restaurant and some retail shops. That project never moved forward. Back in 2007 or 2008,
[7:16] a subsequent owner of this tracked Valley Square lifestyle Valley Square Associates proposed
[7:26] a land development plan that is substantially similar to the plan that you now have before
[7:32] you. That was a plan that proposed various retail buildings laid out in a configuration similar
[7:41] to the configuration that's on the present sketch plan. Interestingly, that plan reached the
[7:49] level of final plan approval and it reached the level where land development and financial
[7:56] security agreements were actually drafted and it was right about that time that all lot retail
[8:05] activity came to an abrupt halt and the project never moved forward.
[8:11] I start financial acquired the property of from Valley Square
[8:15] Lifestyle and Valley Square Associates.
[8:18] Back I believe it was 2011 and has been entertaining various
[8:24] concepts for its development since that's eight.
[8:28] It is settled upon the sketch plan that is now before you.
[8:32] There has been some interest from users and pardon me for over failing to introduce Patrick
[8:43] McCabe, who's the leasing manager for this site, Patus here as an interested observer.
[8:51] Pat was instrumental in identifying one of the attendance that I can't, but I do have
[8:57] ability to identify this evening or the authority. And that's patient first. Patient first
[9:03] proposes to occupy the retail building. I think it's shown on the sketch plan as building one.
[9:12] And you'll see some elevations of that building. The other retail, there are negotiations on going
[9:20] for some of the other retail space. So that's an overview and a little bit of history of
[9:26] Now, I start comes before the board this evening, and with your permission, I'd like to hand over to Tom Hanna, who can take a couple of minutes and explain the site plan in the context of the overall development.
[9:42] Tom.
[9:43] Excuse me, Tom, before you do that, I have a couple of questions.
[9:46] If you could just clarify for me, this is a completely new land development application.
[9:53] It is a new application, but of course it can't be reviewed in the context as if there had been no prior attempts to develop in the past.
[10:11] Well, that's my question. Technically, is it a new application?
[10:15] Of course.
[10:16] As opposed to any type of amended final plan.
[10:19] It is a new application.
[10:22] And I have a quick question here that there's another sketch that was handed out to us.
[10:29] I'm sorry?
[10:29] That's from the county.
[10:31] How do you view that?
[10:36] Have you seen those?
[10:39] The county ladder in the county?
[10:39] Yes, Roy was nice enough to give us a copy of the review in the sketch prior to the start of the meeting.
[10:47] Obviously, nobody has had the ability to review it extensively,
[10:52] but some of the high points we did have the ability and certainly as we discuss the
[10:58] merits of the sketch plan, there will be some appropriate comments.
[11:03] We received that going dinner tonight.
[11:10] I apologize that I didn't know where it came from.
[11:13] Not a problem.
[11:15] I'm sorry.
[11:15] Please proceed.
[11:22] So I can just take you quickly through the layout here, the plan that's up on the board is
[11:31] the same plan that had been submitted in sketch format.
[11:35] Street Road is to the bottom east and road is to the left-hand side of the property.
[11:43] There's access, office street road, main access, office street road.
[11:48] That is a full access in, but access out is limited to a westbound turn, a right turn,
[11:59] only going out of the site.
[12:01] So it would be a westbound going towards east and road.
[12:04] There is a right in and right out access,
[12:07] off of East and Road, as well as two access points on to the lower portion of Main Street.
[12:15] This is Main Street that comes down through from the retail portion of Beltshire, what we would
[12:22] refer to as the Villageria, Valley Square Boulevard is out to the right hand side of the
[12:28] plan here.
[12:30] So this plan has seven buildings, as Bill had mentioned, building one, here, patient first
[12:38] as an interested tenant there.
[12:40] The balance of the buildings, not really sure, at this point, we're showing a bank located
[12:46] here, a possible restaurant in this location, and retail in the balance of the four buildings.
[12:54] There's approximately 330 parking spaces there to serve.
[12:59] The seven buildings required is about 284 per ordinance.
[13:06] So we've got a little bit of access but not a whole lot.
[13:13] Stormwater management, water and sewer utilities will be designed
[13:19] according to the touch of ordinances.
[13:23] In prior designs, the stormwater components have mostly been
[13:28] sub-surface under the parking lot.
[13:31] We do envision maybe a small surface base and back in here,
[13:36] but those details are yet to be worked down.
[13:40] We do have sidewalk connecting along the front edge of street road,
[13:45] east and road, back up to Main Street, the Long Main Street, as well as an interconnection to the
[13:53] internal walking path through the Valley Square development that parallels Valley Square Boulevard.
[14:07] That's a basic plan and a nutshell, in terms of, you know, technical details, I guess we can talk through them a few, you know, we've got to really get into the heart of the engineering for this.
[14:20] But that's coming up shortly.
[14:31] Obviously, for anything of this magnitude,
[14:33] one of the requirements is going to be a traffic impact statement.
[14:38] Was this sketch generated prior to any contemplation
[14:41] of a traffic standpoint?
[14:44] Let me address that.
[14:46] I star as well aware of the sensitivity
[14:50] and the requirement in the subdivision
[14:52] land development ordinance for a traffic impact study.
[14:55] There had been a traffic impact study in connection.
[15:00] Senate with the 2007-2008 land development approval, but that was seven or eight years ago.
[15:06] I star has engaged a hordering canter to do the traffic study, that traffic study is underway.
[15:16] Hordering canter have met with Pendot. They're aware of what Pendot's requirements are
[15:24] the intersections that need to be studied, and they are well aware of the
[15:31] pendants recommendations and connection with the prior land development approval
[15:36] that I stars predecessor process. So that is underway and by the time that the
[15:47] preliminary plan submission is ready to be filed, the traffic study should also be ready.
[15:53] Where would that original submission have been left with, PENDA?
[15:59] Do you know?
[16:00] Well, in connection with the prior development, PENDA actually issued permits.
[16:06] So PENDA issued the issued permits for the driveway access issued, I believe issued a signal permit.
[16:18] But of course all of that will have to be re-reviewed by PENDA.
[16:22] It has not been extended, so it's void.
[16:29] A new permit would be required, but the intent here in laying out the scheme of development
[16:39] was to respect the designs that the pandemic had previously approved.
[16:51] I could add that the improvements along street road and eastern road would include widening
[16:59] widening leaders of 14-foot widening along the front edge of the property which allows for
[17:05] a direct turn lane at the designated right turn here at the intersection. So all the front edge
[17:14] along the long street road as well as the front edge on eastern road connecting into the widening
[17:20] that's already been done north of here. I will be part of this project.
[17:24] Honestly, the one thing that immediately caught my eye is that dual left turn lanes on street road
[17:31] not only into the development, but also southbound on 6.11. It looks as if you've increased the stacking distance in this proposal
[17:40] at least the sketch plan for the left turn to southbound 6.11.
[17:48] There's no
[17:51] from the driveway here, down here, right there.
[17:59] Now there's only a single lane, a single left turn lane coming into the site.
[18:03] But it appears as if you have increased its what you can car with that.
[18:08] Increase the length of the length of the turn lane.
[18:12] We're not showing any increase in the length of the turn lane over what had been proposed
[18:15] and previous plans. I'm talking about existing. I'm not concerned about that.
[18:19] Right. Yes. There are previous plans as far as what we are reviewing here, reviewing this
[18:25] plan. When I say previous plans, I'm referring to the plans that
[18:27] build spoken about from 2007-2008. Yes, there is a, there's no left turn there laying there.
[18:35] Now, obviously there's a center left turn lane and a portion of that is going to be converted
[18:41] into a left-turn line into the site, part of the concrete median that's now in the middle
[18:48] of street road would be taken out to accommodate the stacking for that left-turn line.
[18:55] I'm actually a little bit more concerned of it going in the other direction, heading west.
[19:00] There's more of a demand to make the left-hand turn on South 6-11 than the importance of making
[19:06] a left-hand turn into the development.
[19:09] I just want to make sure that proportionality remains in the public interest.
[19:14] That would be something that would be addressed by Mr. Horner and his report.
[19:26] I think a question about this sketch is from the county, someone said,
[19:34] which is totally different from this sketch.
[19:38] In fact, this only shows six buildings considerably less parking in no turn lights.
[19:43] I mean, it's only a sketch, but why, if this is from the county, why is it so different?
[19:50] That's an excellent.
[19:52] That's an excellent question.
[19:55] And it's something in the year two or three minutes that we had the opportunity to look at that,
[20:03] that we're somewhat perplexed by the county's reasoning.
[20:09] And I'm sure they're there.
[20:11] I'm sure there must be some rationale behind it, but the concept of eliminating the direct
[20:20] access to a street road,
[20:26] that effectively makes this project, that will effectively make
[20:30] this project, not feasible, from having spoken with Mr. McCabe who's here and having spoken
[20:37] with Donna Musil, who has been with I star for many many years and they've developed a shopping
[20:44] center for many many years, depriving the site of direct access to street road is a sure
[20:52] way to assure that if I star were full of shen off to build either 6 or 7 buildings that's a
[21:00] near guarantee that there would be 6 or 7 vacant buildings.
[21:10] So you know I'm sure that from
[21:13] Theoretic point of view, whoever came up with the sketch, was acting in good faith, thought it might be a good idea, but had a little understanding of the other part of land development and that includes identifying quality tenants, who will occupy the space, pay the rent, stay there, provide good and services to the public.
[21:42] This is a separate parcel of land.
[21:46] That is correct.
[21:52] Is it no longer in common ownership?
[21:57] No, no.
[21:57] The developer here has no relationship to rally square.
[22:03] Well, the current owner, the legal type to this ground,
[22:10] is in the name of, I start Harrisburg financial.
[22:18] I start Harrisburg financial trust, I believe, I need to look at my file.
[22:23] But it's part of the I start on Braille.
[22:28] All of these sections of Valley Square are owned by different entities,
[22:34] and that happened years ago.
[22:40] there's all of the, all of the sections, of course, are bound by the, the plan of development.
[22:48] But there is no, but there's no association.
[22:52] Well, you say sections. I'm asking these questions because I'm like no around here.
[22:56] Sure. I don't have all the history that you were perhaps some other members do.
[23:00] When you say the other sections, are you talking about three other sections or how many?
[23:04] Well, there are several sections that have been fully developed.
[23:08] One section is occupied by Wegmans.
[23:12] Wegmans owns its parcel in Faye.
[23:16] There is another section which is adjacent to Wegmans.
[23:21] And that section has been commonly called referred to as the traditional retail section.
[23:29] That property and that includes sports authority and staples in the state store and you're
[23:37] offering it with it.
[23:40] That parcel was owned by a separate entity and has been owned by a separate entity
[23:45] for more than 10 years.
[23:49] There is another section that has been referred to as the Lifestyle Center or the Shops
[23:55] of Valley Square, that section of Valley Square is owned by an unrelated company.
[24:05] Unrelated to the first term.
[24:07] Unrelated to everybody.
[24:09] And then there's the residential section, which presumably has yet to get another ownership.
[24:13] That is correct.
[24:14] there is the, there is the age restricted section, which is adjacent to, uh, to
[24:22] wagments, uh, that's owned by a separate entity. None of the entities have any, uh,
[24:30] commonality, uh, between the, uh, they're not subsidiaries. They're not related. They're separate
[24:35] companies.
[24:36] Because I think I read the county letter and, well, well, their sketch plan is not much
[24:42] of an improvement on yours, where they're coming from, I think, is why doesn't it carry
[24:48] forward the concepts and the aesthetics of what we call the shops at Valley Square?
[24:56] You know that, I mean, that development is an absolute gem, whereas what's being proposed
[25:01] here is at best pretty conventional,
[25:07] and at worst has some sort of significant downsides,
[25:10] both from a community planning aspect.
[25:15] It's a collection of pad sites and also from internal as well as external traffic aspects.
[25:27] And I guess what you're saying when you made your economic comments is this is just conceived
[25:34] to address a different part of the real estate market than the shops are.
[25:41] Well, I think you have some planning issues that come in supply and if you look at the,
[25:47] if you look at the overall site plan for the for Valley Square,
[25:52] and that was part of the part of the PowerPoint that was passed out earlier.
[25:59] You'll see that this site is physically separated from the shops at Valley Square, although
[26:07] it's in some proximity,
[26:11] there is a separation between the two, and we're not for that,
[26:18] because of that physical separation, it's very difficult, if not impossible, because of environmental
[26:24] issues, stream Carter, Woodlands, to effectively tie those two developments together.
[26:34] And so from an ownership planning point of view, while I think your comments are well taken
[26:45] that the Shops of Valley Square is a unique form of development, continuing that development
[26:55] into this tract is a near-impossibility because of the physical separation between them.
[27:02] I don't think we're certainly behind my comment, wasn't that suggestion, because you're
[27:07] absolutely right.
[27:08] This is not like an addition or an extension of a row of building, but it has totally
[27:13] different aesthetic. It has a different look. It has a different aesthetic. But that is not
[27:20] unlike the way Valice Ware has developed. That Wegmans has its own personality and
[27:30] aesthetic the traditional way. It's clearly true. You can't incorporate what we commonly
[27:36] call as big boxes into a sort of a traditional show and like the shops. It's impossible.
[27:42] That's a reasonable thing, but you're not talking about big boxes, you're talking about
[27:49] little shops.
[27:50] And in this instance, this property is part of the Carter overly district, and the Carter
[27:56] overly district requires some unifying theme of architecture, and I star as well aware of
[28:05] those requirements, and it plans to adhere to those requirements in terms of building aesthetics.
[28:11] which is to say that there will be a common color scheme,
[28:21] the Carter overly district requires a certain materials on the building facades.
[28:27] And that's a work in progress.
[28:29] But I start as well aware of those requirements and has every intention of adhering to them.
[28:40] the four primary retail buildings that you show.
[28:45] Are any of those intended to be a single user?
[28:48] At this point, what is occurring is that there has been some interest from some tenants
[28:58] because of the very early stage of the approval process.
[29:03] tenants are reluctant to commit until there is some level of approval, so that's a very difficult question to answer.
[29:17] My opening comment was that at this point there has only been one tenant that has expressed a willingness to
[29:30] commit to the entire building and sign a letter of intent, and that's a patient first.
[29:37] But there are others who are expressing interest.
[29:45] Well, let me ask the question in a different way.
[29:47] Are you more likely inclined to lease that to multiple users, as far as the four remaining
[29:54] buildings?
[29:56] You know, I don't know that, that's a very difficult.
[30:00] Question to answer because it's so speculative. Certainly, it would be an I stars interest to least the entire building, but that doesn't roll out the possibility that some of the retail space could be internally subdivided.
[30:18] Well, I mean, at some point in time when you come with a sketch plan, it will be relatively important to understand which way you're headed, because the commonalities of how you handle one building is loading as opposed to four tenants in one building, loading requirements, trash requirements, and other sundry items is a little bit different.
[30:39] Of course.
[30:40] And it does affect our perspective on the plan.
[30:45] I mean on the sketch that you have in front of us right now for the 27700 square foot buildings you show what I would
[30:52] proceed to be a single entry door in the front, which is connected to the sidewalk. That's why I'm asking.
[30:58] Sure. No, and it's a good question and I'm not trying to avoid the question.
[31:03] It's just that at this early stage, the nature of the leasing hasn't caught up and that's understandable.
[31:13] I did not go through all the details on these plans, but I assume we are talking about
[31:18] the single story structures.
[31:29] Before we get into the engineer's comments, I do thank the engineer for making the
[31:34] comment about the orientation of the restaurant.
[31:38] I also think you need to evaluate the 6,000 square foot building on the corner.
[31:45] If I read that plan correctly, that's facing backwards to the intersection.
[31:49] Do
[31:52] you agree with that?
[31:57] I'm not, are you referring, which,
[32:03] yep,
[32:08] I'm not sure, I'm not sure that I understand the question.
[32:12] Where do you think the front of that building is?
[32:14] I think it's facing north.
[32:18] Building number two,
[32:22] I mean, the parking, you know, similar to, I don't know that obviously the architecture hasn't been developed for this, but
[32:35] As is up in the the villageria, a lot of those buildings, most of those buildings are at four side of architecture.
[32:43] Well, I'm not concerned so much about the architectural appeal of the building.
[32:48] It's the fact that buildings have fronts, and they have mirrors.
[32:52] And we have taken a very critical view of looking at the front of the building from the streetscape.
[32:59] The supporting parking, though, is...
[33:04] That's part of this catch-point process.
[33:07] Likewise, the comment about the orientation of the restaurant.
[33:12] I mean, through previous opportunities in this
[33:15] township, we have what I personally perceived to be one
[33:18] backwards restaurant.
[33:19] And I think that's more than enough in our township.
[33:26] That's a presumably a fast food restaurant.
[33:29] It appears to have a drive-up play.
[33:31] It was laid out.
[33:33] It was laid out to give the leasing people
[33:37] maximum flexibility in leasing. At this point, a restaurant has not been identified. It's
[33:46] a possibility that a user might be a restaurant that has that wishes to have taken out
[33:56] service. It might also be the case that building might be at least two a restaurant that
[34:04] has no take-out service and has no need and no desire for a drive-through, but for purposes
[34:12] of the sketch plan, I start to show the drive-through lane so that it could preserve its
[34:20] options moving forward.
[34:23] And they understand that if there is a drive-through service that this will require a conditional
[34:32] use of approval as noted in the technical review.
[34:38] Is it contemplated that these are all sorts of users that no one would want to visit
[34:45] more than one of them on a trip?
[34:48] I don't think that's a fair statement, I think.
[34:50] There's a question about this.
[34:52] I mean, I don't think that that is, I don't think that isn't a assumption that went into
[34:58] the design of the plan.
[35:00] Well, it really is. There are no pedestrian connections. If you want to go from one store to another,
[35:07] you have to cross a parking lot every time.
[35:12] What pedestrian surfaces, if you will, there are,
[35:16] just the sidewalk in front of the building and connecting to the door, usually also down the side of
[35:22] the building, but connecting to another building.
[35:27] It looks like it's laid out for, because it's not
[35:31] well laid out if you would expect someone to patronize more than one of the buildings single
[35:37] visit.
[35:41] Which I take is the primary thrust of the county sketch point.
[35:45] That's what they're doing.
[35:46] What they're driving at.
[35:47] And if you've got a business concept that just totally excludes that fine, it's not so bad.
[35:53] But if it doesn't totally exclude that, it's not a good plan.
[35:57] Likewise, from a traffic standpoint, a very experienced shopping center developed or told
[36:03] me in the context of a center that had the parking in the middle, that there's a reason
[36:09] that put the parking on the outside and shopping centers.
[36:13] They don't work very well with the parking in the middle, and you've got most of your parking
[36:17] in the middle with a lot, a lot of cross traffic.
[36:22] Again, not from a planning standpoint, not a good layout,
[36:31] you know,
[36:33] I think it needs a lot
[36:36] of work to be a good plan, which doesn't mean it has to be the Shops and Valley Square,
[36:45] but a lot more can be done to make it function a lot better for what it's supposed to be.
[36:52] And all these freestanding buildings with no pedestrian connections and all this internal
[36:57] growth traffic is just not what you typically do when you start with a clean sheet of paper.
[37:04] Well, you know, I was, and this is a sketch thing. I'm not trying to give you a hard time.
[37:09] I'm just trying to, when you come back with it with a more refined plan, then it might be,
[37:14] it might go down better because it's more functional.
[37:17] Well, I appreciate that you're not, that your intent is not to give the applicant a
[37:22] time and your comments are not taken as such. But it's also the case that I star has developed
[37:32] a lot of shopping centers. They've been successful.
[37:40] I think that's an issue that certainly
[37:42] your comments have been noted and will be evaluated.
[37:49] But I trust you'll understand that there
[37:51] it might be a different set of opinion.
[37:55] On those couple of issues, I'm really not so sure.
[37:59] I'm not sure it's been thought through.
[38:02] So hopefully they will take those comments because they don't come from an uninformed background.
[38:10] And give some further thought to what they're trying to do here.
[38:14] And you're confident that I start as representative has heard your comments and we'll give it the respect they deserve.
[38:31] I'm a street road while I've got the floor.
[38:35] I understand your desire I would even call it a need to have the access from street road.
[38:44] But the left turn for traffic that's traveling in the general in the eastern direction on street road that's going to cross the two lanes of traffic to make the left end.
[38:57] That area is already a pretty hair-raising place to make a left-hand turn.
[39:02] If all you're trying to do is to get into the bank that's across the street.
[39:06] And now to put a posing traffic into that turn lane.
[39:14] So soon after that barrier ends, where it doesn't have a lot of room to pull over.
[39:21] Again, it's something I wonder if it's really workable.
[39:24] Or how you're going to handle the problem of a posing turn lane traffic.
[39:29] Because what you have now is a center turn lane that really only serves the bank and the drug
[39:36] star across the street, presently, there's no need or nobody ever attempts to make a
[39:40] left in that single turn lane, but you're proposing a situation where there's going to be
[39:46] a lot of traffic, put into it, and people go in the opposite direction of the turn lanes.
[39:53] That's going to be a problem that needs more than we see here to work out.
[39:58] You know, you raise an interesting question and back in 2007-2008 when a similar plan went
[40:06] through the approval process, there was a proposal to a signalized this intersection,
[40:14] and Penn Dot was less than thrilled with that idea.
[40:17] It's so close.
[40:19] and the traffic study that supported that prior plan and with the pen.send point concluded that there was that there would be sufficient gaps in the traffic to permit that.
[40:37] Oh, there surely is. I'm not terribly, you know, it's not that hard to make a left on street road because for whatever reason, the traffic lights do create very large gaps.
[40:49] Now what the concern is is the is the opposing traffic sharing a turn lane.
[40:56] Some people making a left to go to the to the bank and the trucks are on the other side.
[41:01] And some people making the left to go to yeah because there's only one lane unless we're
[41:05] going to get separated lane somehow.
[41:08] Well it's not going to be a continuous left turn lane through there though will actually
[41:11] would be two opposing left turn lanes.
[41:16] It will be restrips so that there's opposing left turn lanes,
[41:19] which is typically the way left turn lanes are set up.
[41:22] If you're in a left turn lane, generally across from you,
[41:25] it's either another card turning in the opposite direction
[41:28] left.
[41:28] Well, the one, you know, it's not all that clear,
[41:33] but you can't say it in the shaded sections
[41:35] at the bottom of your drawing.
[41:37] But I think there's a drawing on the entrance
[41:39] that's near the drug store, but you can't make a left-end to it because the barrier is
[41:44] there.
[41:45] So if you want a little bit of the drug store or the bank, you make a left-end to that other
[41:49] dry right, which you can see, which is directly opposite yours.
[41:54] You think you can somehow make that work?
[41:57] That's the preferred alignment from Penndott's standpoint to have the driveways aligned.
[42:07] You don't show a left turn out of the TV bank driveway and yet there is a left turn there too.
[42:16] Time to make it.
[42:19] But we're restricted, Valley Square is restricted from turning left out of our driveway.
[42:27] Well, across the street it should be shown right and left.
[42:33] I think if there were a way to put it further down the street road, it would be helpful.
[42:38] Well, the other comment that I have up here when you put this connection and you made a very nice
[42:45] contiguous path to Main Street.
[42:47] I absolutely don't see any reason why you can't create the same similar path perhaps over here
[42:54] to line it up so that you have a more natural flow of traffic.
[42:58] I'm just going back to the, you know, the original discussions and permitting with Penn
[43:03] Dodd.
[43:04] Well, let me, let me state something for the record.
[43:07] We honestly don't care about what was previously approved.
[43:11] You're bringing set of documents in from scratch.
[43:14] We're going to evaluate these.
[43:18] We just went through this conversation rather heatedly with a different applicant.
[43:23] That no longer is appropriate for discussion.
[43:28] You have no vested interest in those plans.
[43:32] So what's on the table now is what we were commenting on.
[43:37] You can make your own decisions based on history, but please don't use that as an excuse
[43:42] to expect us to simply...
[43:45] What had previously been permitted in the reason why we selected this...
[43:48] But that doesn't apply to us, and it goes to stating facts, that's all.
[43:55] To go back to what Bill was saying, there are two considerations there on Street Road.
[44:01] There are at least two times a day that the traffic going towards 611 on Street Road can be backed up,
[44:09] pass the other entrance to Valley Square for a considerable amount of time.
[44:15] And obviously, where this to become successful, it would actually create more traffic there.
[44:27] From in the traffic there is what he said about, there is a left turn from TD bank, try and make it.
[44:35] It's impossible.
[44:39] For lack of a longer discussion, please be cognizant of the fact that traffic will be an important issue.
[44:47] We're trying to find ways to minimize conflicts and not create additional ones.
[44:55] Note it.
[45:04] Is there anything on your review letter that's noteworthy?
[45:08] Oh, I think there's definitely something you should talk about. Do you want to start as certain comments you'd like to go through?
[45:14] I was waiting for that opportunity. First of all, thank you for the review.
[45:21] It's helpful. And for the most part, there's the responses, so it would be a little complied, but there are a couple of points that we really ought to talk about.
[45:35] I touched on, I briefly touched on the zoning issue, comment one, the restaurant with
[45:43] a drive-thru, that would require conditional use, and I just want to make clear if I
[45:50] didn't do so earlier that this design was the drive-thru was placed on the sketch plan
[45:59] to give I start a marketing flexibility.
[46:04] I want to make clear that a restaurant user has a specific restaurant user has not been
[46:11] identified for this site.
[46:12] It may be a drive-thru, it may not be.
[46:15] The purpose of showing the restaurant as it is, I start at least an agent thought that this
[46:22] be a good site for a restaurant and as the planning process goes forward, it might be the case
[46:32] that a user is more clearly identified. If that user requires a drive through, then of course conditional use approval will be part of the approval process.
[46:44] But if that user, if that operator does not need a drive-through, then of course that option
[46:52] will be eliminated.
[46:54] I also want to make clear that I star is not marketing exclusively to restaurants, so that
[47:03] specialize in takeout.
[47:05] They've engaged very capable, up-leasing agent, who's marketing the site to a multitude of users.
[47:15] As for the other zoning issues,
[47:19] I touched upon comment 5B, the need for a traffic impact study.
[47:27] And I touched on the requirements who would hear to the corridor overlay.
[47:33] I started didn't want to talk a little bit about common 5D, which is the environmental assessment report.
[47:42] Now, there had been an environmental assessment report submitted with the approval of the Valley Square Project as a whole.
[47:52] that's part of the township of archives,
[47:59] in terms of an environmental impact. In terms of
[48:04] environmental impact, I noted that in the subdivision and land development comments that
[48:14] be Section 2 comment 1, CKS had recommended that the wetland study be updated, and they
[48:26] have no objection to that, and it would be willing to update that study, and that's probably
[48:33] a good idea to do so, and they will not commission that study. But in terms of the environmental
[48:39] impact assessment report. When you look at the ordinance, an awful lot of that report is
[48:47] really not environmental in nature. And if there are specific items that are not otherwise
[48:56] covered during the traditional land development approval process, for example, there has to
[49:04] compliance with a natural resource protection standard in the zoning ordinance.
[49:10] And that requires, you know, that requires attention to what woodlands, disturbance.
[49:17] It requires attention to other environmentally sensitive lands.
[49:22] There's other sections that require attention to stormwater management.
[49:27] And of course, that has environmental implications, and I start as willing to, is certainly willing to comply with those regulations.
[49:37] But if there are specific aspects of the environmental assessment that the Planning Commission or CKS fields need to be addressed,
[49:48] like to know what those would be.
[49:54] And I guess you're saying you'd rather not do a full environmental impact assessment.
[50:00] Well, there was one done, right?
[50:02] No, I'm not.
[50:03] I'm not.
[50:03] I'm not.
[50:04] I'm not.
[50:05] You know,
[50:07] to do an environmental impact assessment.
[50:10] I don't know.
[50:10] I don't know.
[50:10] I don't know.
[50:10] I don't know.
[50:11] I don't know.
[50:12] It's an expensive proposition.
[50:16] I couldn't agree more.
[50:18] And if it's, look, if it's going to give information that the
[50:22] municipality needs to make an informed decision, I start won't resist, but if the purpose
[50:29] of an impact study is to make an environmental engineer happy, and if it's addressing things
[50:41] that really don't add to the body of knowledge, that the planning commissioner of the
[50:46] governing body needs, it doesn't serve much of a purpose, and that was the genesis of
[50:51] question, if there's something that you feel needs to be addressed, that's not already
[50:59] part of the approval process. Certainly, I start as willing, you know, would be willing
[51:04] to address those.
[51:07] Mr. Banner, I think anything that is of that particular nature, that type of resource ought
[51:13] to be reusable to some degree. I mean, if it just needs to be dust that offer update it,
[51:18] I mean, as your plan moves forward, I think you have to deal with it accordingly.
[51:22] You know, we still have the right to request a waiver.
[51:31] That's correct.
[51:33] Well, that's actually under the zoning.
[51:35] But I would suggest that you would submit the report that was previously submitted, and
[51:39] we would look through and see if there's any additional information or an update that
[51:42] would be necessary to it instead of actually doing the whole report, see what the original
[51:47] report had in it.
[51:48] Could you said one was submitted originally with his land development correct way back in
[51:53] Division of application?
[51:56] There was there was a report. Okay. The challenge is finding it.
[52:06] Who owns the parcel just to the east of there?
[52:11] That woodlands and welllands is just across valley square.
[52:15] When you're talking about all the different owners of different tracks,
[52:17] I'm not, I'm not, I could be wrongs.
[52:21] The parcel, just the east of Valley Square here.
[52:25] And I'm adjacent to Street Road.
[52:28] You tell them about it on the east side of Valley Square,
[52:30] but the part?
[52:31] Yeah, it's on there towards the family valley.
[52:33] Pardon me?
[52:35] It's the front-age.
[52:36] Because if you tell a square and, like,
[52:40] the family having it, that front-age is on the tating wall?
[52:44] Yes.
[52:44] That's part of that shopping center parcel that has the more traditional section.
[52:51] I don't know the owner.
[52:53] Well, the operator is allied properties and I think the owner is values where one LLC.
[53:10] Foundry to this parcel is this yellow line here.
[53:15] Well, it doesn't show on the plan.
[53:17] Presumble your plan to try to save some of those woods that are on your property.
[53:23] especially those areas where there are no buildings in your proposal.
[53:27] You're further down in this area down.
[53:29] Yeah, down that end, and it sort of curves around.
[53:32] This area down here is wooded.
[53:35] Yeah, and on your property it's also wooded.
[53:38] And there's some areas there that you're not proposing for any development at all.
[53:42] In presumably, you would preserve the forested areas there.
[53:46] The sketch plan doesn't address it.
[53:48] I think we'd be looking for that.
[53:49] The stream corridor comes wraps around the back of the site here.
[53:53] And then comes down and goes under stream row.
[53:56] There's a small portion of land between Valesquare Boulevard
[53:59] and the property line for this parcel
[54:01] that is owned by the village, the village area.
[54:06] And that's essentially that stream corridor
[54:08] that goes down under there.
[54:10] Isn't that this line right here?
[54:17] That's a setback line.
[54:19] That's not the actual stream.
[54:20] The actual stream is off the property.
[54:22] You can see it here.
[54:24] It's looking at one of the overall plans of chose at a cross-touched area, and I can't
[54:28] see what the cross-touching stands for at this scale, but it's usually a do not touch.
[54:36] It's an offset of the actual stream corridor itself to establish what the ordinance referred
[54:44] to as a type 1 stream, which is defined by soils and the word flood-slaying area.
[54:52] And from that, then there is a 100-foot setback to actual building structures.
[54:58] So I guess the question is though, even though you show this area back here as being what
[55:02] I would perceive as a grass area, you're obviously not going to clear it and grass out.
[55:09] That's the point, you know, when your next plan should show where the woods are and where
[55:15] you're playing to take them out and where you don't plan to take them out.
[55:20] And that's part of the preliminary plan requirements.
[55:35] I think our only point is that to the maximum extent possible consistent with being able to develop the site, you should try to preserve those forested areas.
[55:55] There's one other comment, and that's the general engineering considerations, come in three.
[56:03] And that's a comment that recommends the applicant's review, the location, the proposed internal drive and the Tom, could you address it?
[56:16] You maybe could highlight it on the...
[56:17] Yeah, I
[56:22] take your comment about potentially shifting the access point, that's something that, you know, I don't think this is speaking to you.
[56:30] talking about extending this access up to Main Street here.
[56:35] That's correct.
[56:37] What this plan doesn't show is that the
[56:39] topography in that area, there's a significant
[56:42] great drop between this area here and the road.
[56:47] There's about nine feet of elevation difference.
[56:52] So the grading from to extend that road out to here would be
[56:56] challenging it would also, you know, make this access drive around the back of these buildings.
[57:04] We wouldn't probably wouldn't be able to accommodate that in terms of a loading area for these buildings here, it would have other impacts.
[57:14] So, I guess my comment kind of touched upon what some of the planning commission members have said here, as far as there's just so much cross, I mean there's
[57:24] Cross traffic and there is no loop or continuity and I'm very concerned there's no loading
[57:29] I'm loading area some of another common in our letter and the pedestrian walkways
[57:34] So we were trying to channelize things there and I have a senior elevation channel to I didn't until now
[57:39] Any type of circulation planning one of your big objectives is to avoid cross traffic
[57:45] And this plan really maximizes cross traffic
[57:48] And that's why I keep trying to suggest that within its own concept, it can be a lot better.
[58:01] Can I go back to a point you made about the front of the buildings facing the roadway?
[58:09] What would you envision the parking to support that? Do you envision parking then being between the building and the roadway?
[58:18] Or, at that particular intersection,
[58:21] unfortunately, I'd have to say yes.
[58:23] I don't think we want the rear of a building
[58:26] being the first thing you see at the intersection
[58:28] of six-eleven and street road in Warrington, Township.
[58:34] Especially that close to the corner.
[58:38] That's just wrong.
[58:51] As far as the engineering comments,
[58:53] I, you know, there's really not more to discuss,
[58:59] I think we've had a good conversation about the overall planning aspects, people have made
[59:10] a lot of comments.
[59:12] I start needs to evaluate them, is there anything else that a planning standpoint that
[59:19] members have?
[59:20] Well, just to summarize, we're all collectively on the same page, I think the general thrust
[59:25] would be, you may need to evaluate what your end user concept plan really is if it's going
[59:33] to be more segmented and conventional, mom and pop type stores than these buildings.
[59:41] You might really want to consider consolidating buildings and make it more conventional.
[59:45] It's going to be an easier proposition.
[59:48] If you're going to have more proposed single user buildings, that's a different scheme
[59:54] completely, and assuming that that is the marketing plan to have.
[1:00:00] The users that our single users, any connection between other users would be incidental and not the primary thrust.
[1:00:11] For example, somebody who's visiting patient care, depending upon the hour of the appointment, might want to get a bite to eat lunch, for example.
[1:00:27] And there might be some feet off from that, but if the scheme is to have essentially
[1:00:36] separat users, and that's what the concept, that's what the marketing scheme is.
[1:00:46] I think we've all understood the comments about looking at the internal circulation,
[1:00:55] what
[1:00:55] would there be any additional comments
[1:00:57] that the latter marketing scheme?
[1:01:01] Well, I don't think we really have much to say
[1:01:03] about your marketing scheme.
[1:01:05] You're in the business, you know the market.
[1:01:06] It's a question of what works and practicalities
[1:01:10] for us and what doesn't.
[1:01:12] I mean, this whole section up here
[1:01:14] is kind of congested and misaligned from a traffic standpoint.
[1:01:19] They're the kind of things that create bottlenecks
[1:01:22] all over the place in the comments
[1:01:24] from our perspective are the more commonality that you can get in your drive aisle alignment
[1:01:31] the better. And if you can allow for some areas where you can actually provide intermittent
[1:01:37] sidewalks to at least get from one side to the other of the development, we're not saying
[1:01:43] everything has to be connected, but you should provide for some type of pedestrian traffic.
[1:01:51] Just to expand in that a little, it's not so much that their individual buildings are companies
[1:01:58] whose building is their brand, like McDonald's, Burger King, Thunkham, Donuts, you know,
[1:02:11] then maybe they want a free standing building because their building is their brand.
[1:02:14] But the Carter overlay district itself discourages that sort of thing, as language that says,
[1:02:20] people that have a building as a brand may need to consider to change it in order to accommodate
[1:02:25] a more unified design pattern. And most of the companies that have buildings of brand
[1:02:32] are fast food anyway, I'm struggling to think of any people that use office buildings
[1:02:37] that are that way. So I'm not seeing the need for eight free standing buildings or
[1:02:45] So the bank is a good example of building as a brand, and certainly the restaurant.
[1:02:52] But the others, I'm not sure that's true.
[1:02:56] Well, let's say say.
[1:02:56] If it is true, that's a reason to try to do this.
[1:03:02] I start recognizing that the property is in the corridor over late district, and they understand
[1:03:07] that the corridor over late district requires a uniform meeting in architectural elements.
[1:03:14] and they understand that a warrant and temperature
[1:03:17] is sensitive to what those needs when the plans come
[1:03:24] before you,
[1:03:29] those considerations will be taken into account.
[1:03:32] And if that means with the individual load buildings,
[1:03:37] perhaps reoriented a bit to address some of the comments
[1:03:41] that individual members have made tonight.
[1:03:47] It is possible, not possible, it's required that there be, that there be a unified architectural element that will look through the entire graph.
[1:04:01] I hope that the builder may release them.
[1:04:03] I'm just not struggling for a reason to do this because, I mean, that's a reason because you don't want to invest in all of it.
[1:04:09] when you can only rent one part of it right now.
[1:04:13] But, you know, apps and something like that, it would make more sense to have a more
[1:04:18] consolidated plan with better circulation.
[1:04:22] I don't think those concepts are mutually exclusive.
[1:04:28] You might want to look a little more into this sketch.
[1:04:34] It's rudimentary as it is.
[1:04:36] It seems to absolutely answer some of the concerns that we've been talking about.
[1:04:44] The placement of the buildings, the sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera.
[1:04:49] That may be of been what they were thinking when they did that sketch.
[1:04:55] Well, that part is true, but the sketch also eliminates direct access to that.
[1:05:01] That's a separate issue and that's uh, I'm just talking about the actual, they did away with one, they joined three, they turned what will probably be the patient first towards the intersection and the restaurant and the banker across from each other.
[1:05:18] It's just something that I start to look at and if there's a way to, if there's a way to preserve access to a street road, which is an economic necessity, certainly nobody is dismissive of anybody's good ideas.
[1:05:39] I think your access point on street road is going to be relegated to your traffic counts when they come back.
[1:05:46] That will have to make very good sense.
[1:05:51] I do have one more question.
[1:05:55] Side walk or the path that you show up here.
[1:05:59] There's a reason why we're not going all the way out to the traffic signal in the straight line.
[1:06:08] There's quite a bit of elevation difference.
[1:06:11] There's a, there's a very steep slope probably two to one slope that goes down from the edge of the edge of pavement on the street road down to the stream corridor.
[1:06:23] The culvert that goes under street road, essentially a fill condition there.
[1:06:30] So it's going to room to provide sidewalk along within the right way there up to Valley Square Boulevard.
[1:06:37] Is there any point to that sidewalk?
[1:06:39] Are you going to bridge the stream?
[1:06:41] There's actually an old bridge there right now, the old road alignment for Street Road used to follow that.
[1:06:48] That's interesting.
[1:06:50] And then I guess if it was going to be continued, it would be the next door property owner would have to do that.
[1:06:56] There is, I don't know how far they've kind of lost track of how far they extended the trail down.
[1:07:03] That is where Boulevard. It does at least come to Main Street, where Main Street and Valley Square Boulevard.
[1:07:11] Connect, and I think it may go across, but I'm not, we have to look into that.
[1:07:16] That was the original concept that was to create that loop.
[1:07:28] I just have one question on, in the connectivity of the sidewalk, so the ordinance speaks to internal roadways.
[1:07:39] It's something to find that in this case.
[1:07:42] What would you consider being turned over?
[1:07:43] You don't have any.
[1:07:44] That's one of the problems.
[1:07:46] But the only area that qualifies as an internal roadway in much you've drawn is the one right,
[1:07:52] you know, the one coming on the street road.
[1:07:55] And you six eleven.
[1:07:56] And made eastern road or not?
[1:07:57] No, also street road.
[1:08:00] All the rest of them look like parking lot access drives.
[1:08:02] Well, I guess the one that comes off eastern road to where it connects with,
[1:08:07] with Maine could be, you know, but that's what creates all this cross traffic, because everybody
[1:08:13] who wants to go anywhere is in parking lot lanes instead of on an access road.
[1:08:25] Were you talking specifically about zoning and comment number three?
[1:08:30] Yeah.
[1:09:33] But we can give you a definitive answer on that.
[1:09:36] I think we're going to have to leave it up to you to realize the comments that we've
[1:09:39] made and see if you can provide some depth or anything.
[1:09:44] That's my pathway.
[1:09:44] I think this
[1:09:50] has been a productive conversation.
[1:09:55] Members have made some comments that I start needs to evaluate.
[1:10:00] I'm not sure that we are going to move the process much further along, but I don't
[1:10:06] mean to discourage anybody from making comments, but it seems as if we pretty much exhaust
[1:10:12] a thing.
[1:10:12] Just one more question for clarification.
[1:10:15] This is a completely self-sufficient development, so all the stormwater management
[1:10:19] that will be dealt with independently.
[1:10:24] Yeah, all the stormwater management generated
[1:10:26] on the site is handled by this site.
[1:10:29] Yeah, we're not really able to do it.
[1:10:29] It didn't know why it was contemplated
[1:10:31] that this was handled by the previous construction.
[1:10:44] There are any comments from anyone in the audience this evening.
[1:10:52] Any comments from anybody on board?
[1:10:57] The comments from you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:11:00] Yeah, I would like for you again, sir.
[1:11:02] I'm very disturbed by the failure of the flight.
[1:11:06] any method for pedestrians to have access from one retail store to another.
[1:11:15] I think we have, it's not only a question of convenience, it's a question of safety,
[1:11:23] especially as we're getting into snow season,
[1:11:27] the thought of people having to track from one store to another by foot,
[1:11:33] I have to move cars from one building to another.
[1:11:38] It just seems so logical that when you're at this state and planning to plan this way.
[1:11:55] Thank you Fred. We know that comment.
[1:11:59] I do have one more question because I can't see any answer to this.
[1:12:02] When you're sketching on plans and looking at in between the center lines of all these driveways,
[1:12:07] you have some paper cross hatching.
[1:12:09] It goes right down here. It looks like it's creating little little parcels. What's the reason behind that?
[1:12:20] Like every little parking island is boxed in.
[1:12:27] Are you referring to the little dashed lines?
[1:12:29] Yes, that's a center line of every driveway.
[1:12:33] It's just a set of lines.
[1:12:36] There's no intent for
[1:12:40] just generated through the alignment of the,
[1:12:45] we'll need to develop the layout as set of lines throughout it.
[1:12:54] It's not meant in terms of self-division.
[1:12:57] I just didn't see a reason for it.
[1:12:58] I'm just question.
[1:13:11] We're done.
[1:13:12] I'm going to share with you other comments or questions.
[1:13:17] I want to thank the Applanet's mission for Ratec and Time.
[1:13:19] and wish everybody a very Christmas.
[1:13:23] Thank you.
[1:13:23] Thank you.
[1:13:48] All right.
[1:13:51] Moving on, I remember five on the agenda,
[1:13:54] comprehensive plan.
[1:13:58] What I see you've printed out copies of,
[1:14:01] is this all three of the sections that David had
[1:14:04] forwarded to us?
[1:14:06] Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:14:08] This is a bill for yours.
[1:14:11] You know, we do have his sections electronically.
[1:14:14] Right.
[1:14:15] I don't want to do that because I want to see that one.
[1:14:21] I'm totally mindful.
[1:14:23] I didn't get it until I'm there.
[1:14:28] So there come before I have to, the county comment letter.
[1:14:31] I love about five hours.
[1:14:34] Literally the county's letter team will go.
[1:14:37] Six blocks.
[1:14:38] Oh, they give them six.
[1:14:39] And they get paid.
[1:14:43] And they get paid.
[1:14:44] excuse me, I don't care if you can see
[1:14:50] it.
[1:14:51] So this is, you can see that there's a color difference
[1:14:55] between the red changes of the ones that we had made before.
[1:15:00] Four, and the blue are the changes made as a result of our discussions two weeks ago.
[1:15:29] And once again, I think, after 14, there are no changes, it's just ready to first, 14 pages on what you have here that we're working with.
[1:15:39] The biggest is the sort of the everyday debuffer part of Farmount to make it more that natural buffers should predominate.
[1:16:39] I will leave it up to everyone's wishes here.
[1:16:43] Personally, I would like to review this a little bit more in depth and not necessarily this evening.
[1:16:50] I don't know if
[1:17:10] anyone feels contrary.
[1:17:12] I think we'll just table this till the next agenda.
[1:17:17] Everyone can please review it.
[1:17:22] The comments that you made about buffering, I mean,
[1:17:26] I just peruse them very quickly, but at some point in time,
[1:17:31] as we address the ordinances in general,
[1:17:34] there's a buffering
[1:17:38] void in the overall ordinance,
[1:17:41] It's not just specifically in this particular visker.
[1:17:48] I want to try to keep the flavor and content.
[1:17:51] Naturally, this is going to be the work and progress
[1:17:53] to move it into a broader classification across the township.
[1:17:59] Uh-huh.
[1:18:00] That makes sense.
[1:18:05] All right.
[1:18:06] To get back to the comprehensive plan and the sections
[1:18:10] that did come in from David Zip,
[1:18:12] has everybody had a chance to go through those?
[1:18:23] I don't know if there's anything noteworthy that we need to contend with, there's a couple
[1:18:32] little typos and things that I've seen, but I guess we can get through those in the final
[1:18:38] draft format.
[1:18:47] Was it the intention to do a working draft tonight on this or to make comments back to David?
[1:18:58] Now, really, it's just, for, I mean, again, where we left this, is we're relying on the
[1:19:04] book's county planning commission to basically do the draft.
[1:19:09] At that point in time, he sent us the first three sections.
[1:19:13] We can certainly review them in common amongst ourselves, but I don't see anything happening
[1:19:19] until that complete draft gets assembled in all its components and gets officially commented
[1:19:27] on and passed on to the Board of Supervisors.
[1:19:32] I suppose if there's anything he's done and I didn't see anything that you find really
[1:19:38] troubling could get back from sooner, but I didn't really see anything that way.
[1:19:45] I mean, he's taken basically the mechanical section of it and tweaked it to bring it up
[1:19:51] today's standard, what he still has yet to do is provide the theoretical part, and that's
[1:19:58] what we have really been discussing for the most part.
[1:20:03] So, when I, okay, but I think he might have,
[1:20:09] when I looked at it, I thought maybe there
[1:20:10] are some things that we might comment back to him that would make our life easier when it comes
[1:20:16] time to be looked at an entire graph.
[1:20:21] And specifically,
[1:20:24] a number of people, myself, Rich,
[1:20:27] Fred originally talked about not
[1:20:36] having the kind of document that was here before, where
[1:20:40] I don't want to get past the first two pages,
[1:20:43] but before he lost interest.
[1:20:47] So, and recognizing that your goal, which was to,
[1:20:53] to the best of our ability, taking an existing document,
[1:20:59] useful as it was, and we allow for that
[1:21:04] to a new useful document.
[1:21:07] No, I haven't said that.
[1:21:10] there's a lot of information in these general sections that can just as well be in some
[1:21:15] appendix.
[1:21:16] They are going to be.
[1:21:17] Okay, but then why wouldn't we make that comment back today, because we didn't shuffle
[1:21:22] the deck yet.
[1:21:23] When the hold deck is provided to us, we will put it together in our preferred quarter and
[1:21:30] then change the numbers for pages.
[1:21:35] And that would work, except that if you want to pick up key pieces.
[1:21:42] So, might just talk by way of example.
[1:21:45] Well, again, Ben, keep in mind that he's taken their basically chapters.
[1:21:49] I think there's 11 different sections in this particular document.
[1:21:54] He's given us three of them.
[1:21:56] The ones that we really care about, he was just instructed two months ago
[1:22:01] that it's his responsibility to do that as well.
[1:22:04] There are the ones that we should have done.
[1:22:07] I think they understand that we want certain parts in appendixes anyway, don't they?
[1:22:12] But didn't we tell them that when they were here?
[1:22:15] Yeah, they take away.
[1:22:15] And again, this is how we will structure the parts, and that's the way they will go back to him for the final cleanup.
[1:22:29] I understand your concern.
[1:22:31] Well, yeah, no, and where I was kind of going on this was that we had what, something like 10 sections.
[1:22:43] Most of them just drowned on and when you got to the bat, where you tried to make some implementation, there was no connectivity.
[1:22:53] So if some of the things, if let's say, let me take the people, the population housing
[1:23:04] trends, there are some nuggets of information in here that would be helpful to a future
[1:23:11] planning effort, first specifics, the, some of the demographics of the population and the
[1:23:21] demographics of the housing could end up with a few short sections in the preamble to the action
[1:23:32] part.
[1:23:33] This was in the back end of this document.
[1:23:36] I'm not expressed myself very clear.
[1:23:39] Which I think he's going to do.
[1:23:41] Again, those couple pages at the back, it is fully intended to move them up to the front.
[1:23:47] Okay. And everything else will be after the fact whether you're called an appendix or not, it'll be supplemental information.
[1:23:56] We're not going to start with the history of the township from 1870 and move forward.
[1:24:02] We're going to start with today and put the history behind us.
[1:24:06] Okay.
[1:24:08] Yeah, the first time I read the whole comprehensive plan.
[1:24:12] The first thought I had was that obviously it was written for someone who already understood all of that stuff.
[1:24:18] which at the time that I read it I didn't actually I thought it was just the opposite
[1:24:24] written from somebody who would not have had not a clue what weren't in township look
[1:24:28] like.
[1:24:28] So I'm talking about the actual meeting, the meeting, the stuff that mattered.
[1:24:35] Well, again, that's what I fully intend to have as a executive summary approach.
[1:24:41] First couple pages are going to be the meat of that document.
[1:24:45] I'm really care about the rest of it, it's ancient history.
[1:24:50] How we got to this point, it creates the first couple pages.
[1:25:01] And I don't know quite honestly that it's worthwhile to give it back to David and drips and
[1:25:05] drabs.
[1:25:06] I think he'd be a little bit more appreciative that just get a whole comment section.
[1:25:13] Part of me's just being tidy is an engineering report.
[1:25:18] That's okay.
[1:25:20] Well, I mean, the reality of the situation is we're just getting a tweak to the document that's already in print.
[1:25:26] And at that point in time, you know, we're not doing a wholesale free rate.
[1:25:30] We're just doing a very selective rewrite.
[1:25:33] All right, let me one more comment, I'll back out of this.
[1:25:37] On the environmental thing, I actually had three sections.
[1:25:42] The third one, with our recommendations for the improvements, where you can't just accept
[1:25:50] that, it appeared to me that the third section might be fodder for a working session
[1:25:57] between us, the EAC and the Board of Supervisors, because there's a lot of things that
[1:26:02] if nobody ever read them and tried to implement them, you may have decided after the fact
[1:26:07] that you're going to have some remorse out of it,
[1:26:12] having a grade to this by default.
[1:26:16] Good evening, example, if you come.
[1:26:18] OK.
[1:26:19] When it goes in the environmental protection,
[1:26:22] recommendations and for improvements,
[1:26:25] I have to go into the document,
[1:26:27] because I went about to print out all that stuff.
[1:26:29] There's about two pages back there that say the township
[1:26:33] ought to do this, and I think it starts
[1:26:34] with the riparian rights, so it's not overwhelming, but it may, the very least, the board
[1:26:43] of supervisors, it wouldn't want to take a look at that, and maybe we would, too, to see if
[1:26:48] we agreed with it, because we were right back. The very first thing that Fred and I tried
[1:26:52] to do is to force the board of supervisors and to have an opinion about anything on this.
[1:26:58] all right so the EAC very obviously has some pretty strong opinions and you either shut
[1:27:05] them down or agree with them to be brutal so there's that's not something the
[1:27:15] David should decide it's not something the EAC should unilaterally decide why
[1:27:21] don't go to the very end I don't think that David decided or say I mean we did
[1:27:26] He just, he just, he just, he just, no, he, he, he just berated and incorporated what they said.
[1:27:33] Right.
[1:27:34] Which we didn't comment on.
[1:27:35] Which we didn't comment on.
[1:27:45] Find a page for me.
[1:27:47] I'm not sure I'm looking at what you're describing.
[1:27:50] Okay.
[1:27:51] Go to, it's page nine, I think.
[1:27:57] It starts with a heading environmental protection recommendations for improvements.
[1:28:00] And it's got bullets on repairing buffers, well-hand protection, low-impact development,
[1:28:07] basically saying to stop developing anything anymore, disturb any wooded areas.
[1:28:16] Conservation plan requirements and site analysis.
[1:28:21] It's not really extensive, but there are some things in here that seem to me that they were
[1:28:25] taking an opinion.
[1:28:26] Are you talking about Section 9 or Page 9?
[1:28:28] page 9 where it says environmental protection pages are in the 20s. This is on the environmental
[1:28:36] documents, 11 pages. Right, I'm looking at page 27 that says environmental protection policies
[1:28:44] and programs. Is that where you're at? No. No. Oh, you're talking about the document page.
[1:28:51] Yeah, okay. No. Where I was starting off was what is document page 31 and
[1:29:01] there
[1:29:02] There are policies and first of all, policies and programs is the meat of this thing,
[1:29:12] which is the second section.
[1:29:14] First section is all information.
[1:29:20] Third section, they are taking a stand on improving the policies and programs.
[1:29:33] So a lot of this stuff that was on environmental protection policies and programs start on
[1:29:37] 27 is existing verbiage.
[1:29:45] Unfortunately, we're making a bigger document but there's not much we can do about it at this point in time.
[1:29:54] From what I'm remembering here, this looks like exactly the way it came back from.
[1:29:59] Yeah.
[1:30:00] I'm sure he'd do it if he created it in the document format.
[1:30:07] I distinctly remember seeing his paragraph about a bad house and a screech out of program.
[1:30:19] But you mentioned the stream buffers.
[1:30:22] And I recall that the environmental group commission wants bigger buffers.
[1:30:29] And that's no shock because at least from environmental standpoint, ours are fairly small.
[1:30:35] But that's a substantial solution.
[1:30:38] You're going to take a 50 and a 50 and a 50.
[1:30:40] I'm going to bring it back.
[1:30:41] I'm going to bring it back.
[1:30:42] I'm going to bring it back.
[1:30:45] I'm going to bring it back.
[1:30:47] Right.
[1:30:48] This reduces the amount of developer land on a lot of parts.
[1:30:58] But their recommendations are to do that.
[1:31:01] So, at some point, when you decide whether it's our recommendation to do it.
[1:31:06] Okay, and that's a little easier way of saying what I was trying to say.
[1:31:11] So, I'd even expand my comment in the recommendations for improvements to the back policies and programs as well.
[1:31:17] Because you can't, at the end of the day, you can't separate that because it'll impact the heck out of the vision for the future.
[1:31:24] Yeah, if you put that kind of language in a comprehensive plan, then presumably you're looking for somebody to put it in an ordinance, eventually, and a plan itself doesn't do anything to anybody, but it's a blueprint for future ordinances.
[1:31:43] This is the dilemma that we created for ourselves. We solicited the opinions of all the answering words and bodies, and this is what we've got.
[1:31:51] So it will be up to Board of Supervisors to separate.
[1:31:55] Yeah, boy, it was a long time ago.
[1:31:56] I said, you'd be lucky to get anything.
[1:31:58] A lot more in your bargain for it.
[1:32:00] There's a really, really big hours to give them a part.
[1:32:05] Give them a document that reflects our judgment.
[1:32:09] The simple fact that we solicited an opinion doesn't mean we have to accept it.
[1:32:14] Whether we have to just pass it on and put that burden on the supervisors.
[1:32:17] Well, we are going to prove for you that before we pass it on, but for the most part, this is a collective document.
[1:32:27] I don't think we are going to enjoy true editorial right.
[1:32:33] Enjoy what?
[1:32:35] True editorial, what?
[1:32:38] I don't have a real beard.
[1:32:40] But I'd like to...
[1:32:41] Can't carry a camera.
[1:32:42] I can't carry a camera.
[1:32:43] Like, so I made that some things.
[1:32:48] We need to be better if I want to stay in the conversation.
[1:32:52] I heard, by the way, I can always hear your developers seem to turn off the type of
[1:32:58] someone's or before or before.
[1:33:00] One's daily.
[1:33:01] We're relaxing, and that's the problem.
[1:33:04] We need to stay close to the microphone.
[1:33:09] I know, it would be nice to get some input, not everything it wants to give us time to look at.
[1:33:20] You always say come through and you have some suggestions or you have some input on it.
[1:33:26] I forgot to tell you about myself now.
[1:33:28] You know, I'm getting a look at it and just to get a general idea of who are the director,
[1:33:33] and who are interested in for something like that.
[1:33:37] I just find a thing, I know it's
[1:33:43] on the web page.
[1:33:48] I, I, sometimes it's better when it's in our mailbox, I think everybody is, you know,
[1:33:53] time to look at this comes the most adventure about that.
[1:33:58] I think it's a few videos.
[1:33:59] I try to get here specifically to get some, you know, just in what's work on, and some inputs.
[1:34:09] I find very helpful.
[1:34:12] There's only two of us that can show up at one point.
[1:34:16] They talk for everybody to make it, and some of their names on here.
[1:34:24] And then somebody else comes in and usually I do, and I prefer to, I think, sometimes because I am
[1:34:31] So, like you have to say, by making any sense here,
[1:34:40] you are, Carol, for sure.
[1:34:42] Unfortunately, things besides the planning, so we could get some input, again, our mailbox,
[1:34:47] and sort of, it's really brings into attention.
[1:34:50] My, at times, it's not posted, it's not posted when it comes to the media.
[1:34:54] And I know you guys have a lot to look at, too, and my, but we have a lot of other things
[1:35:03] and sometimes those aren't able to look at it.
[1:35:06] So we can be good on your input and your expertise.
[1:35:14] Well, that's kind of why at least I personally am reluctant
[1:35:17] to pass too much information on because I don't know what it's going
[1:35:20] to look like at the end.
[1:35:23] I mean, David just literally provided these five weeks ago.
[1:35:29] And we still are kind of reviewing and discussing.
[1:35:31] And again, I don't know that it's going to be in our best interest to send anything back
[1:35:37] to David just yet.
[1:35:38] We can certainly try to edit things and continue the conversation.
[1:35:44] But I don't know that I feel comfortable bringing the Board of Supervisors in for something
[1:35:48] that's still this far in its infancy,
[1:35:59] although if you would like a copy, we can certainly
[1:36:01] Provided to you,
[1:36:07] is, is, is, is, well, again, where we started with this was, as a result of the joint meeting that we had and the presentations and the discussions with Bucks County Planning Commission.
[1:36:26] Lynn Bush and her associates clearly understand the intent and the flavor of our thinking.
[1:36:35] And it was just recently decided that we were going to rely on David Ziff to put the entire draft together
[1:36:41] at which point in time he had already been working on the first few sections.
[1:36:46] Again, they're the mechanical sections dealing with the numbers and the hard counts.
[1:36:54] which is what for the most part he's gotten back, and we did provide him with drafts that
[1:37:01] were performed through all the boards and advisory groups here at the Township, and he
[1:37:08] did doodifully include that documentation. So he's pretty much doing what we've been expecting
[1:37:15] him to do.
[1:37:18] And here we'll come up with the first draft of the visit statements that were in the end.
[1:37:24] That's what we're currently expecting.
[1:37:28] Is it his intent or should we ask that it be his intent that he at least point out total
[1:37:37] disconnects between some of the elements of these preambles to those visions?
[1:37:43] Well, I think what it's going to be appropriate to do maybe in the upcoming months is to have
[1:37:50] another consultation with Linn and David and try to tie some of these things together a little
[1:37:57] bit tighter.
[1:37:58] I mean, by now he may have a couple more sections for, I don't know, or when he gets down
[1:38:05] to it, since they're the professional planning organization, I would expect any organization
[1:38:11] like that, or an engineering organization,
[1:38:16] to point out the inconsistencies and one section
[1:38:18] to another.
[1:38:19] That's all.
[1:38:21] There's going to be things that are in this buried in this old comprehensive plan that are not
[1:38:27] implementable and are a way to weigh in what I'm going to be.
[1:38:30] I think he has already done that for the most part because he did the original edit which
[1:38:35] crossed out things which he didn't think were applicable.
[1:38:38] I can't swear to the fact that he took out things that were duplicated or inconsistent.
[1:38:57] Well,
[1:39:05] we're at the same point in time where it becomes down to just deciding how to handle
[1:39:12] these particular documents.
[1:39:13] I mean, we can put one on the table right now and read through it, pick it apart, or we can
[1:39:20] would independently and discuss it at the next meeting, at least if we can consider one two or
[1:39:26] all three of them, that would are invalid and we can move forward.
[1:39:36] Well, why don't we put that on the agenda for the next meeting, but what on the agenda?
[1:39:42] Everybody, everybody reads them and he comments they have, but things they think he should
[1:39:48] change, we could talk about it in the sun.
[1:39:53] Well, okay, bearer in the spirit of what Rich is saying,
[1:39:57] at least what I went through to my own internal action plan,
[1:40:02] so to speak, was not just keep this as a living document
[1:40:06] until we see it all.
[1:40:09] And then put it together.
[1:40:12] It's going to be easier for us to do it in pieces.
[1:40:14] I mean, but for instance, you know, the first section, the people of Warrington, and again, that's, that's all, it's facts and figures.
[1:40:23] I mean, I'm not going to spend any time disputing what he came up with, because I don't have the authority to do that.
[1:40:31] So I just have to trust his editorializing for now.
[1:40:38] So that one collectively, I mean, he's probably more privy to those from which we are in English.
[1:40:46] But there are going to be certain elements of that information that are going to help guide us into what we can do.
[1:40:54] Right? So just like we know, we all are accepted early on that this was no longer a rural community.
[1:41:03] It was sperm and community and we were being overcome by technology.
[1:41:06] No, let's go back to the square one. This is still a rural community.
[1:41:09] I thought this last time.
[1:41:12] That's not my point.
[1:41:13] I'm only making it by a plate of example.
[1:41:16] Is red still here?
[1:41:17] Yes, he's still there.
[1:41:19] Yeah, he's still vertical.
[1:41:22] He's still here already.
[1:41:26] Just checking for it.
[1:41:32] But there are certain elements of what's happened in population and housing.
[1:41:35] They're going to have four clothes on certain future items.
[1:41:40] Yeah.
[1:41:41] By the way, but at the sake of digressing here,
[1:41:43] I mean, you know,
[1:41:46] housing trends aren't dictated by planners.
[1:41:49] They're dictated by people who buy houses, and they can only guess just like everybody else.
[1:41:56] It comes, you know, he's got the facts and figures in front of them, and if he reaches a conclusion,
[1:42:01] who are we to dispute it?
[1:42:07] But that's just that particular section.
[1:42:09] I mean, the others are a little bit more sensitive, and you do we note it, you know, the environmental
[1:42:14] conclusions in here could be a little bit foreboding. We really do need to analyze what we wanted
[1:42:22] to put in this document. In some instances, the less we say the better off we are going to
[1:42:31] Again, it's a planning document. When you talk about section one that population and housing
[1:42:42] statistics
[1:42:43] which give you this historical numbers.
[1:42:47] But the other thing you should look at is
[1:42:50] what are our plans to control these numbers.
[1:42:54] We look at here between 2000 and 2000.
[1:42:59] You have the keys perfect.
[1:43:02] The fact that the foundation of people over 60
[1:43:08] has increased by a factor of significant factor,
[1:43:17] 94% to since 2000 is that what we want
[1:43:22] to continue to do is it good for the township because they pay real estate taxes and
[1:43:31] and school taxes, but they don't
[1:43:36] see it so they're, and they don't, that they're in
[1:43:41] council meetings, they, they, they, they, it's so, it was a certain, different
[1:43:44] attention. These things have point of plan for, one of them, by the previous survey that
[1:43:53] was done in the 2006 survey, which said no more age-restricted housing, that we've got to take
[1:44:03] these statistics and put in a section section of how do we want to plan what we want to encourage
[1:44:13] the township to do to control the population and the future.
[1:44:32] Roy, would you be able to check with David and see what his expectations are for any supplemental
[1:44:38] information coming back?
[1:44:42] He identified a couple of things in the document that he needed on Parks and Rack.
[1:44:48] That's not going to happen until the parking right place done.
[1:44:52] I told you that.
[1:44:56] Which is when?
[1:44:58] We've been a couple of couple of months.
[1:45:05] I don't wish why don't we, I for one, I'm going to try and look at these things as they come in a little bit.
[1:45:13] Not exhausted, which you now can miss me not to waste that much time.
[1:45:18] But I think that, and then if there are any elements that we should ask back to him, we could.
[1:45:26] But there wouldn't be much point going over each one, and a meeting, until they're all there.
[1:45:35] I would be very lengthy meeting.
[1:45:38] I don't know how to owe it to ourselves to do it.
[1:45:40] I don't know how to do it.
[1:45:42] It's a question of getting back to David.
[1:45:47] It doesn't necessarily serve the purpose in and of itself on the short term because he's just a clean-up guy.
[1:45:57] I mean, as long as we review it and come up with a consensus, he's ultimately going to do what we tell him to.
[1:46:03] He's not making the decisions.
[1:46:06] He's just taking the first crack at it.
[1:46:17] But now we're back at the same point we have been all along.
[1:46:20] I mean, what we're looking at are PDFs.
[1:46:24] I'm assuming he sent PDFs.
[1:46:27] No, they were word documents.
[1:46:28] Yes.
[1:46:30] Would you say on Porto with PDFs?
[1:46:34] Do we have to forward it?
[1:46:35] All right.
[1:46:36] Because, again, this comes back to the same issue.
[1:46:38] I personally would not want to see seven different sets of comments coming back.
[1:46:43] We're going to have to come up with our own housekeeping effort to get one working document
[1:46:47] here that we are going to tweak and move forward with, and that can only happen at this
[1:46:54] table.
[1:46:54] That's
[1:47:02] your type of skills.
[1:47:08] Welcome to the debate.
[1:47:23] Do we want to make a commitment to be prepared to move these three sections forward at the next meeting?
[1:47:34] Everybody's free to bring their own red line copy.
[1:47:37] We'll compare notes, figure out what really needs to be addressed, whether or not we send it back to David as a move point, but at least we will collectively have our ducks lined up.
[1:48:01] Can you agree?
[1:48:20] What else
[1:48:29] do we have to talk about here, Roy?
[1:48:34] not much. I give you the drafts that Terry Clevin said. I think given me. And Cindy would like to talk about the TDR.
[1:48:44] Oh, I do. Yeah, you said we were going to talk about it nice and I wanted to be present for it.
[1:48:50] Tom's art going is working on revising reception to TDR. We're working on that, right?
[1:48:55] We had a meeting not too long ago with Dick McBride, and he has some different numbers
[1:49:04] and we have with the TBRs that are going to be concerned, he'll assuming that the developer
[1:49:16] ultimately prevails over the court challenges.
[1:49:20] According to his numbers, the thing that Brian gave, my number is slightly different.
[1:49:26] He has all the TDRs being exhausted if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if a condition is planned
[1:49:32] for care and this is approved.
[1:49:33] I have a difference of 15.
[1:49:37] I think, I think, comes from the fact that the client property, which is a question, the
[1:49:42] question center, whether it generated 100 or 115 TDRs, but what I've seen is 115, that's
[1:49:51] where it differences.
[1:49:54] So we might soon be out of the TDR business, so let's see what happens
[1:50:02] there. The other, the other T, the other T, the importance is, you have them, it's the one
[1:50:11] about the successive multi-minors subdivisions, which we need to talk about, and then the
[1:50:20] other one on the big box. It's not for the C, we need to distribute it. And you have that one as
[1:50:26] well. So, well, if that's what I'm thinking of, it was only an excerpt from a
[1:50:32] from municipalities or not, I mean, as he's still putting something together.
[1:50:38] Well, that's the basis for the comments.
[1:50:42] So he did prepare something, we'll take it for the engine, basically, as well as what's going
[1:50:46] to happen is the supervisors are going to introduce these ordinances, then they are going to
[1:50:52] refer that to you and to the County Planning Commission for the required Planning Commission
[1:50:58] use. After that, incorporating the changes are needed in the doctor's ordinances. So, he's preparing
[1:51:07] an ordinance that the supervisors are going to refer to you.
[1:51:14] I just had one observation on
[1:51:16] that. It's talked about being a big box ordinance, but it's really kind of a medium box ordinance
[1:51:22] in that the maximum square footage limit, is not all that big, and that's okay, I mean but it's just...
[1:51:32] I've never came from Buckingham, which is basically basically wouldn't limit most big boxes from coming because they're usually bigger than that.
[1:51:43] I'm not saying I'm opposed to that, I'm just saying it was that the phone.
[1:51:46] It's that what you want, right?
[1:51:47] I think you're bugging him.
[1:51:48] They can say 24 square feet, but it's not.
[1:51:52] That's right.
[1:51:53] Sorry, Bill, what was the size
[1:51:54] that you just couldn't, seven, five,
[1:51:56] I just didn't get five.
[1:51:59] That's, well, that's actually, that's not.
[1:52:01] That's little box.
[1:52:02] But the, there's a maximum size, I believe, 35,000.
[1:52:06] Something like that.
[1:52:07] Yeah.
[1:52:07] And that's pretty small big box.
[1:52:10] That's OK if that's our intent to have no big box.
[1:52:12] That won't even get you a better story story.
[1:52:15] But if, but if, you know,
[1:52:16] But if we don't have much land left and see we need to be developed, we're talking about the last piece right now.
[1:52:26] No place to put a big big box.
[1:52:31] Yeah.
[1:52:32] I'm going to get rid of that.
[1:52:33] We don't mind, right?
[1:52:39] Yeah.
[1:52:40] What might happen to anything is some of the stores that are going out over the traditional side.
[1:52:46] They could get, you know, randomized and become a different size store.
[1:52:50] It's probably smaller.
[1:52:51] What happens was borders, yeah, one from one large door, a couple smaller stores, we could see that sort of thing happening.
[1:53:01] Yeah, I thought the way Terry described what he was doing is very, very well done.
[1:53:17] Well, not the prolongedist meeting, but that makes the earlier presentation here, all the more important to figure out what their intended uses.
[1:53:26] Because when you have a big box, and they have a supply chain that deals with that single
[1:53:35] use, and then you cut it in the four pieces, and now you have that four different supply
[1:53:39] chains, subsidizing the same square footage, and it was never contemplated, and all
[1:53:45] that breeds this mismanagement.
[1:53:49] Conquit.
[1:53:50] It's
[1:53:55] a really device.
[1:53:56] Poorly device, plan.
[1:53:57] I think
[1:54:01] somebody who actually drives some street road all the time,
[1:54:05] thank you.
[1:54:12] Marist, there's no other comments.
[1:54:17] I'm going to turn to meeting.
[1:54:30] I've heard that.
[1:54:33] I've heard that.
[1:54:34] I've heard that.
[1:54:36] I've heard that.
[1:54:36] And now.
[1:54:37] I've heard that.
[1:54:40] Yeah.
[1:54:43] I've heard that.
[1:54:43] I've heard that.
[1:54:44] I've heard that.
[1:54:45] I've heard that.
[1:54:45] still there.
[1:54:48] You're going to made us at the diner or what?
[1:54:52] You're going to made us at the diner or what?
[1:54:56] This looks like a BMW A.
[1:54:57] I'm only kidding.
[1:54:58] I'm only kidding.
[1:54:59] I love a drive, right?
[1:55:02] Just give us your credit going, Nubba.
[1:55:05] So take your of it.
[1:55:06] Some of this is a bit too good.
[1:55:09] Thank you.
[1:55:10] Very dangerous.
[1:55:22] Yeah, fine, this can't sell.