# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - December 8, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 8, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4131 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4131?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-12-08 - **Last revised**: December 8, 2016 - **Length**: 14,577 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 8, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed 13 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 14 votes on various development proposals, subdivisions, and regulatory matters. The meeting included no public comment period, with commissioners focusing primarily on reviewing development applications and subdivision proposals throughout the Lexington area. The commission accomplished significant business during the session, approving several major development projects including Turfland Mall Outlot H, multiple units of the Meadow Oaks subdivision, and the Hash and Hounshell Property development. However, the commission also postponed consideration of two significant projects - Cave Hill Townhomes and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center Unit 1 - while denying approval for the Woodward Court Subdivision. Additionally, commissioners approved reapprovals for National Station, LLC and Gess Property Unit 8, demonstrating ongoing oversight of previously approved developments. One notable action was the tabling of a proposed amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations, indicating the commission's careful consideration of regulatory changes. The meeting concluded with approval to hear a future presentation from Community Ventures Property, LLC, setting the stage for upcoming development discussions. The session demonstrated the commission's active role in managing urban development and growth throughout Lexington-Fayette County. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 8, 2016 meeting: • Frank Penn • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Will Berkley • Joe Smith • Mike Owens All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting began with approval of the November 10, 2016 minutes by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. Two items were postponed to January 12, 2017: Cave Hill Townhomes (DP 2015-74) was postponed on motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Ms. Plumley [timestamp: 02:00], and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1 (PLN-MJSUB-16-00022) was postponed on motion by Ms. Plumley [timestamp: 03:00]. The consent agenda was approved by voice vote on motion by Ms. Richardson, excluding PLN-MJSUB-16-00022 [timestamp: 05:00]. Several development projects received approval with conditions: • Turfland Mall, Outlot H (PLN-MJSUB-16-00016) was approved with ten staff conditions on motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Smith [timestamp: 15:00]. A related waiver was also approved [timestamp: 17:00]. • Hash and Hounshell Property (PLN-MJDP-16-00037) was approved with 17 conditions and findings for use of access easement on motion by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 30:00]. • National Station, LLC (DP 2015-112) was reapproved with 19 conditions on motion by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 35:00]. • Gess Property, Unit 8 (PLN-MNSUB-16-00035) was approved with five conditions on motion by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 40:00]. Two Ashford Oaks subdivisions received reapproval: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-A (PLAN 2008-138F) [timestamp: 20:00] and Unit 1-C (PLAN 2008-140F) with staff conditions [timestamp: 25:00], both on motions by Mr. Craven. One item was disapproved: Woodward Court Subdivision extension request (PLAN 2013-129P) was denied for reasons provided by staff on motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Ms. Plumley [timestamp: 10:00]. The Amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations (SRA 2016-4) was continued to January 12, 2017 on motion by Ms. Plumley, passing 7-1 [timestamp: 45:00]. Finally, Community Ventures Property, LLC (PLN-MJDP-16-00055) was scheduled for hearing on January 12, 2017 on motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Drake [timestamp: 50:00]. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that required extended discussion and ultimately led to a continuation for further review. **Amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations** A procedural dispute arose regarding the proposed amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. The disagreement centered on the methodology for determining unit costs for sureties, which are financial guarantees required from developers to ensure completion of subdivision improvements. The discussion revealed differing perspectives on how these unit costs should be calculated and applied. The nature of the dispute was procedural rather than substantive, focusing on the technical aspects of cost determination rather than the underlying policy goals of the regulation. Due to the complexity of the issues raised and the need for additional clarification on the proposed methodology, the board decided not to proceed with a vote on the amendment during this meeting. Instead, the item was continued to allow staff and board members additional time to review the technical details and resolve the procedural questions that had been identified. The continuation ensures that all parties will have adequate opportunity to understand the implications of the proposed changes to the surety cost calculation methodology before the board takes final action on the amendment. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting began with consideration of the minutes from the November 10, 2016 meeting. Mr. Chair presented the minutes for review and approval by the body. The minutes were considered without recorded discussion or debate from other members present. No concerns or corrections were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of the November 10, 2016 meeting record. The minutes of the November 10, 2016 meeting were approved by the body. ## Postponement of Cave Hill Townhomes The Cave Hill Townhomes development proposal (DP 2015-74) was postponed during the December 8, 2016 meeting due to procedural requirements not being fulfilled [timestamp: 02:00]. Mr. Chairman addressed the postponement, explaining that the item could not proceed as scheduled because an advertisement requirement had not been properly met. The specific nature of the advertisement deficiency was not detailed in the available meeting materials. No substantive discussion of the townhomes project itself took place during this meeting, as the procedural issue prevented the item from moving forward to consideration on its merits. The postponement was handled as an administrative matter rather than a debated decision. The outcome was a formal postponement of agenda item DP 2015-74, with the understanding that the Cave Hill Townhomes proposal would need to return to a future meeting once the proper advertisement requirements were satisfied. ## Postponement of Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1 [timestamp: 03:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-16-00022 regarding the Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1. Ms. Plumley addressed the commission during the discussion of this item. The commission determined that the item required additional time for further discussion and review before proceeding. No detailed presentation or debate on the merits of the project occurred during this meeting. The item was postponed, with the commission indicating that more comprehensive consideration would be needed at a future meeting. The postponement allows staff and commissioners additional time to review materials and address any outstanding issues related to the Meadowthorpe Community Business Center development proposal. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 05:00] The consent agenda was presented for approval during the meeting, with Ms. Richardson serving as the key speaker for this item. The consent agenda included several final subdivision plans and development plans that had been reviewed and were ready for approval. The consent agenda process allows the governing body to efficiently handle routine administrative matters and previously reviewed items that do not require individual discussion or debate. These items are typically bundled together and approved with a single vote, streamlining the meeting process for non-controversial matters. Ms. Richardson presented the various subdivision plans and development plans that comprised the consent agenda. These plans had undergone the necessary review processes and met the required standards for approval. The specific details of individual subdivision plans and development projects included in the consent agenda were not elaborated upon during this portion of the meeting, as is typical for consent agenda items. The consent agenda was approved without significant discussion or debate, indicating that the included items were considered routine and non-controversial. This approval granted final authorization for the subdivision plans and development plans that had been bundled together in the consent agenda. The efficient handling of these administrative matters through the consent agenda process allowed the meeting to proceed to other agenda items that required more detailed discussion and consideration. ## Disapproval of Woodward Court Subdivision [timestamp: 10:00] The commission considered agenda item PLAN 2013-129P regarding the Woodward Court Subdivision. The item involved a request for a one-year extension of the subdivision plan. Mr. Chairman addressed the matter, noting that the request for an extension was not necessary. The commission determined that the current subdivision plan remains valid until January 30, 2019, making the requested one-year extension redundant. Based on this finding, the commission disapproved the extension request. The outcome was a denial of the requested extension, with the understanding that the existing plan approval provides sufficient time for the development to proceed under its current timeline. The discussion was brief, focusing primarily on the validity period of the existing subdivision approval rather than any substantive issues with the proposed development itself. ## Approval of Turfland Mall, Outlot H [timestamp: 15:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJSUB-16-00016 for the approval of Turfland Mall, Outlot H. The agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring commission action. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Berkley and Mr. Smith, who addressed various aspects of the development proposal. The presentation covered the technical details and requirements for the outlot development at the Turfland Mall site. The commission ultimately approved the plan with ten conditions attached to the approval. Among these conditions was a notable waiver for sanitary sewers, indicating that the development received an exception from standard sewer infrastructure requirements. The resolution passed, allowing the Turfland Mall Outlot H development to proceed under the specified conditions established by the commission. ## Approval of Hash and Hounshell Property [timestamp: 30:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00037 regarding the Hash and Hounshell Property approval. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Craven and Ms. Mundy, who presented details about the proposed development plan and addressed questions from the commission. The plan under consideration involved the use of an access easement for the Hash and Hounshell property. Following review and discussion of the proposal, the commission moved forward with approval of the development plan. The commission approved the Hash and Hounshell Property plan with 17 specific conditions attached to the approval. The resolution also included findings related to the use of the access easement that was part of the development proposal. The approval represents the commission's determination that the proposed development meets the necessary requirements and standards, subject to compliance with the 17 conditions outlined in the resolution. ## Amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations [timestamp: 45:00] The board discussed agenda item SRA 2016-4, an amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Martin served as the key speaker for this item, presenting details about the proposed changes to the existing regulations. During the discussion, it became apparent that additional clarification was needed regarding the specific provisions and implications of the proposed amendment. The board determined that more time was required to thoroughly review and understand the technical aspects of the regulatory changes before making a final decision. Rather than rushing to a vote, the board chose to exercise due diligence by continuing the matter to allow for proper examination of the amendment's language and potential impacts on land subdivision processes. This approach ensures that any regulatory changes are well-considered and clearly understood by all parties involved. **Outcome:** The amendment discussion was tabled and continued to the January 12, 2017 meeting to provide additional time for clarification and review of the proposed changes to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. ## Approval to hear Community Ventures Property, LLC [timestamp: 50:00] The commission considered whether to hear agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00055 for Community Ventures Property, LLC, despite the application being filed after the standard deadline. Mr. Berkley and Mr. Drake were the key speakers who addressed the commission regarding this procedural matter. The discussion centered on the late filing of the application and whether the commission should grant an exception to hear the item at a future meeting. Despite the untimely submission, the commission voted to approve hearing the Community Ventures Property, LLC matter. The item was scheduled to be heard at the commission's January 12, 2017 meeting. The approval allows Community Ventures Property, LLC to proceed with presenting their case to the commission, even though they did not meet the original filing deadline. This procedural vote ensures the applicant will have an opportunity to present their proposal and receive consideration from the commission in the new year. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the minutes for November 10, 2016 - **DP 2015-74** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Cave Hill Townhomes to January 12, 2017 - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00022** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1 to January 12, 2017 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the consent agenda - **PLAN 2013-129P** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of Woodward Court Subdivision extension request - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00016** — passed (0-0): Approval of Turfland Mall, Outlot H with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for Turfland Mall, Outlot H - **PLAN 2008-138F** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-A (Ashford Oaks) - **PLAN 2008-140F** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-C (Ashford Oaks) - **PLN-MJDP-16-00037** — passed (0-0): Approval of Hash and Hounshell Property with conditions - **DP 2015-112** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of National Station, LLC - **PLN-MNSUB-16-00035** — passed (0-0): Approval of Gess Property, Unit 8 with conditions - **SRA 2016-4** — postponed (7-1): Continuation of Amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations - **PLN-MJDP-16-00055** — passed (0-0): Approval to hear Community Ventures Property, LLC on January 12, 2017 --- ## Full transcript got caught. He lost his car. He lost his education. He lost his laptop. He lost his home. He was in a hotel. He had bed bugs. His clothes had to be thrown out. So, he lost truly everything. And as a parent who just wants to provide, to watch everything that seemed to be your child go away. He lost his passion for sports. He lost his desire to read, his desire to learn. He lost all the things that used to give him pleasure. When he was arrested, it was a weekend, President's weekend, so the banks were closed on Monday and we couldn't get him out of jail. Clay actually went to the jail and just sat in the waiting room, just to be near where he was, like you would do with your kid in the hospital because there's nothing you can do but there's nowhere else for you to be. So he sat there and I sat by the phone and would accept phone calls from Alex and he was so scared. The toughest thing about addiction for me is the upside down nature of it where you You have to do things that are counterintuitive. As a mom, I protect my kid. When you're dealing with addiction, the things I was doing to protect him, like making sure he had enough money and clothing and shelter and food, actually allowed him to continue to use. And I had to stop doing those things until he could get into recovery. I stopped doing those things, he didn't understand that he couldn't keep living that way. It seems like you're making it just fine. The hardest thing was getting a phone call. You are the reason I'm alive And baby, baby, baby When I think of how you saved me I go crazy I've never known love like this And it fills me with a new tenderness And I know, I know, I know You're in my heart, you're in my soul You're all I can't resist And I need to tell you The first time I held you, I knew you are the love of my heart. I spent a lifetime waiting, always hesitating until you. I was lost so deep inside my shell Till you came and saved me from myself Now all I really know is I need you And you are the love of my life All the joy and tears that I cry And baby, baby, baby You don't have to say a word I see it in your eyes As we stand together I promise forever Till the day that I die You are the love of my life I spent a lifetime waiting Always hesitating Until you I was lost so deep inside my shell Till you came and saved me from myself Now all I really know is I need you You are the love of my life And you are the reason I'm alive I saw my problems and I see the light We got a loving thing We got a feeling right There ain't no danger we can go too far We start believing now That we can be who we are This is the word They think our love is just a growing thing Why don't they understand you're just a crying shame? Their lips are lying, only real is real We stop a fight right now, we got to be what we feel Peace is the word, it's the word that you heard It's gotta prove, it's gotta mean it Peace is the time, it's the place, it's the motion Grease is the way we are feeling We take the pressure and we throw away Conventionality belongs to yesterday There is a chance that we can make it so far We start believing now that we can be who we are Grease is the word Grease is the word, it's the word that you heard It's got a groove, it's got a meaning This is the time, it's the place, it's the motion Not grease is the way we are feeling This is a life of illusion Life's up in trouble, makes me confusion What are we doing here? We take the pressure and we throw away Conventionality belongs to yesterday There's a chance that we can make it so far We start believing now that we can be who we are Grease is the word, it's the word, it's the word that you heard It's gotta prove, it's gotta mean it Grease is the time, it's the place, it's the motion Now this is the way we are feeling Resistence is the word, it's the word that you heard It's got a groove, it's got a meaning It's got a meaning This is the time, this is the place, this is the most This is where we believe This is the word, this is the word, this is the word This is the word, this is the word, this is the word Hey life, look at me I can see the real time Cause when you shook me, took me out of my work I woke up, suddenly I just woke up Did I happen? When you find it, that you love the future behind Cause when you gotta tell that love you don't take care of Then you better beware of the happening One day you're up, we turn around You'll find your world, it's time to look down It'll happen to me and it can happen to you I wasn't sure I felt secure Until love took the deep heart Yeah, right on top of the world It happened, suddenly it just happened I saw my dream, gone and hurt When love walked away, my heart And when you lose the precious love in me To guide you, something happens inside you The heaven Not a delight For what it is It's not a dream It's not a bliss It happened to me And it can happen to you And then it happened And then it happened Ooh, and then it happened Ooh, and then it happened Is it real? Is it fake? Is this game of life and what's wrong? When I lost the love I thought was mine for certain Suddenly I started hurting I saw the light too late When that thick old finger of that Yeah, it came and broke my pretty balloon I woke up Suddenly I just woke up So sure I felt for you Until I took it to time When you've got a tender love you don't take care of Then you better beware of I thought you were Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum Well, love, love you, darling, come and go with me Come with me, baby, I'm the sea I need you, darling, so come go with me Come, come, come, come into my heart Hey, darling, we will never fight I need you, darling, so come go with me Yes, I need you Yes, I really need you Please say you never leave me We'll say you never Yes, you really never You'll never give me a chance Come, come, come Come into my heart I need you, darling We will never fight I need you, darling So come go with me Yeah! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to call the Urban County Planning Commission to order. Welcome to those of you in the audience. Welcome to our commission members. Thank you very, very much. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for November the 10th. Any additions or deletions? Hearing none, I entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, move approval of minutes November 10, 2016. Okay. Ms. Plumlee moved, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the minutes of November the 10th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. Postponements or withdrawals? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. If you turn in your agenda to page 8, item G, DP 2015-74, Cave Hill Townhomes. This one I was asking for a re-approval, but I found out there's an advertisement that has to go out in the paper, and it went out the day before I filed for the re-approval, so I'll have to postpone for one month. For one month? Yes. Okay. What date is that on the calendar? It's January 12th. January 12th. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? If not, anyone on the commission? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP 2015, Day 74. to the January 12th meeting. Okay, it's been properly moved that we postpone DP 2015-74 Cave Hill Townhouses until January the 12th of one month. It's been seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on item, page four, item H, Mettathorpe Community Development or Community Business Center. Excuse me, NUR? My name is Solomon Van Nieder. Okay, thank you. Excuse me. Page four. Item H. If you could speak into the microphone, I can't wait. Page four, item H. Okay, page four, okay. I'd like to postpone that for a month, please. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion for one month postponement. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move one month postponement until January 12th for Plan MJSUB 1622, Matt Thorpe. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded that we postpone Plan MJSUB 16-22, Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1, as amended for one month or January the 12th. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Anything from the staff? Okay, then, Mr. Salley, what about we can move to the consensus agenda? Certainly, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm very glad to tell you that most of the remaining items on your agenda do qualify for your consideration in approving the consent agenda this afternoon. I'll vote. There are several final subdivision plans that have been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee that appear on that agenda. The first is on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda, Major Subdivision 16-15, Story Business Subdivision Lot 6 amended. This is an amended final record plat for property at 353 Waller Avenue. On page 3, item C, this plan is also on your consent agenda. Major Subdivision Plan 16-17, Tuscany 9A. This was for property at 1864 Battery Street. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Major Subdivision Plan 16-18, Harvey property, Lot 2, Section 2. This property is at 4500 Old Schoolhouse Lane. The next item on the agenda also is on the consent agenda. Page 3, item E, Major Subdivision Plan 16-19, Tuscany Unit 9C. This property is at 1864 Battery Street. It's a portion of that address. On page 3, item F, we find Major Subdivision Plan 16-20, Tuscany Unit 3B. This property has an address of 1970 Winchester Road, a portion of. On page 4, item G, we see Major Subdivision Plan 16-21, Tuscany Unit 9B. This property has an address of 1864 Battery Street, a portion of. The last item listed under this section is one of the items that was just postponed, so it should be removed from the consent agenda for the Mentor Thorpe Business Center. In addition, there are four development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. appearing on the consent agenda. The first is on page 6, item B, Major Development Plan 16-41, Bella Wood Shopping Center, also known as Tates Creek Center, lot 6. This is an amended final development plan for property at 4153 Tates Creek Center Drive. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 7, item C, Major Development Plan 16-42, Sayre Christian Village, Phase 3, an amended final development plan for property at 3816 Camelot Drive. On page 7, item D, we find Major Development Plan 16-48, an amended final development plan for Boston Road Development, LLC. This property has an address of 3823 Dillon Place. And the final item on your consent agenda is on page 7, item E, Major Development Plan 16-50, an amended final development plan for the Stonewall Shopping Center for property with an address of 3197 Clays Mill Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time I believe the Planning Commission can consider approving these items as has been recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask to have one of these ten items pulled to allow it to have further discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to have any of these items pulled for additional discussion? Anyone on the Commission would like to have any of these items pulled for discussion? Any applicant would like to have any of these items pulled for discussion? Hearing none, then I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the consent agenda as presented by staff. Mr. Chairman, I move that approval of the consent agenda, deleting PLN-MJSUB 1622, Metathorpe Community Business Center. Opposed. Okay. Wise as presented. Okay. Ms. Richardson has moved. Ms. Karen Mundy has seconded that we approve the items that have been identified by staff, of course, with the exception of PLN-MJSUB 16-22, which was postponed. We have ten items on the consent agenda. Any other discussion on this particular motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, thank you very, very much. We got that taken care of. While we're setting up and preparing for the other one, if the Commission is okay with this, I'd like to move one of the agenda items up for the next, which would be on page 9. D, performance bonds, letters of credit. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call of bonds. Okay. Okay. Well, Mr. Cravens made the motion. Mr. Smith seconded that we have the release of the performance call of bonds. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote on that as it comes to back on your monitors? Okay. That motion has also been approved. So D, we can strike. Okay, Mrs. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, good afternoon. The very first item to discuss this afternoon appears on the very bottom of the first page of your meeting agenda. It is Plan 2013-129P. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for the Woodward Court subdivision, and this property has an address of 690 Woodward Lane. If you review the agenda, you can see that this item was a plan approved by the Planning Commission in 2015, pardon me, in 2014, and that the plan was certified in January of 2015, meeting all of the 11 conditions that were associated with the Planning Commission's approval. This preliminary subdivision plan is along Woodward Lane, which is to the west of Liberty Road, which is off the plan to the right. It is also next to the Danby Woods subdivision, immediately to the south of this location. And Checkerberry Drive from that subdivision currently stubs into the subject property at this location. It is immediately adjacent to a railroad spur, this location that eventually goes to the west and over top of New Circle Road in the vicinity of Young Drive and Liberty Road in that area. It's almost a straight shot. along the railroad at that location. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that was reviewed with a zone change several years ago. And as I mentioned, this plan was certified about almost two years ago as an approved plan. It proposed a new street and several residential lots, a few along Woodward Lane, a few already exist, and then mostly with the lots associated with Checkerberry Drive. The applicant is not the engineering firm that initially filed this subdivision plan. It is a different engineering firm. And they may not be familiar with recent changes to our land subdivision regulations that have extended the life of a preliminary subdivision plan to five years. That has happened since this plan was certified. You may recall we were having a few plans that we were bringing to you where the development plan had a life of five years and a preliminary subdivision plan three years. They were the same plan. They were a combined plan. So we solved that problem by having a text amendment, which has since been approved earlier this year, to make both of their lives five years. That is significant for this plan because it was approved in 2014. The applicant was asking for a one-year extension to that approval. With the text amendment that's gone through, this plan actually has life, if you will, until January of 2019. So we find that there's no need to approve this request. The staff last week at your subdivision committee meeting recommended postponement of this plan for that reason and also because there is a notification that is in the file from area property owners wishing to be notified of any plans involving this property, and to our knowledge that has not been met. So the staff would recommend either you follow the previous staff recommendation or that from your subdivision committee just to disapprove this request for a plan extension, given that it's going to be alive for several more years. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our review of this. Any questions for Mr. Sally? Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Okay. Do you want a motion? Well, I guess there's no applicants here. This will be easy. Yes, so we'll entertain a motion then, unless there's further discussion by the Planning Commission. But if not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of Plan 2013-129-P for reasons provided by staff. Okay. Since there's no argument on that, normally we like motions expressed in the affirmative, but we'll let it ride. Any other? We've got to get a second on it. Ms. Plumlee, and the motion is to support the recommendation of the staff for disapproval for the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Thank you. Yeah, that's okay. Motion carries. Thank you. I'll try to remember that. Sorry, because there's no issue here. That's right. Well, I understand. I understand. Following what the staff recommends. If it's disapproved, it just says the end of its recommendation stamp. It just says we approve of the stamp's recommendation. Yeah. It don't say for disapproved. That's right. Okay. I got you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. We are moving to page two. Excuse me. What is your name? It's Chris Bronzick. I'm one of the planners. So we are moving to page two, item B. We do have a revised staff recommendation. It's the purple paper. So this is Plan 16-00016, Turflin Mall, Outlot H, which is located at 2195 Harrodsburg Road. So we have Harrodsburg Road down here. The Outlot H is here within the Turflin Mall. Right here is Longhorn Steakhouse and City Barbecue. we have an aerial image as well. So this is an amended final record plat, and the purpose of the amendment is to subdivide Outlot H from Track 2. There are 12 total conditions recommended by the subdivision committee, with the first eight being your standard sign-offs. On the revised staff recommendation, item number seven, which is shown in your original agenda, has been removed in error. That condition must remain. So we still need them to denote the reciprocal parking agreement between properties. The address for Track 2 needs to be clarified. The first discussion item can be removed. Upon further review, there is an amended development plan, which shows a building here. It can be seen on the overhead as well. The image is reversed. Thank you. Now, it's okay. Thank you. And the final discussion item, there is a waiver in regards to the sanitary sewer. This will be presented by Mr. Tom Martin. If there's any additional questions you guys may have, I'd be happy to answer it. Otherwise, I'll hand it over to Tom. All right. Any questions? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the waiver that is associated with this particular proposal to create the lot is very similar to a waiver, virtually identical, in fact, to a waiver that was requested and approved by this body for the creation of the barbecue restaurant outlaw. And very simply, what it goes back to is that when Turfland Mall was developed, an old sewer line was constructed back in that day to serve the property. That line is old and is not to our current standards. A determination was made by our sanitary sewer folks in Water Quality that they did not want to assume responsibility. So that's a private line. It's noted as a private line. It's required to be maintained by the users. It will not be a public line. But these lots have to be served by that private line. Otherwise, they have to cross Harrodsburg Road to a public line, and obviously that presents a hardship to the applicant. So in reviewing this waiver as well as your current waiver, staff is recommending approval based on the circumstances that are fairly unique to Turfland Mall with the old sewer and the need to utilize that line in order to serve these lots. The plat will have to have the appropriate notes about maintenance and the appropriate easements, if necessary, in order to provide the sewer service to this lot. That will be approved by the Division of Engineering. And staff is recommending approval of the waiver request. Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, on the original plan, it says regarding proposed use of the lot. There is. The postponement is because of the use of the lot. So has that changed? Do we know what the use of the lot is? No, sir. We don't know who the end user is. But when that development plan was approved by this body, one of the conditions of approval was to show the use of that lot. and that's what the development plan does show, and that's how it was certified. It shows a retail building. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the 10 conditions and request approval. Any questions? Okay. Any comments from the audience on this agenda item? Any other comments from the commission on this? Not. We'll entertain a motion, two motions, first of all, for the approval of the plan and then for the waiver. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Mr. Berkley. I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJ-SUB 16-16, subject to the 10 conditions noted by staff. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Berkeley, seconded by Mr. Smith, that we approve PLN MJ-SUB 16-16, Turfley Mall, out lot H, as amended, with the 10 conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. And move for approval of the waiver of land subdivision regulations for sanitary sewers for the reasons noted by staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Berkeley. Again, seconded by Mr. Smith that we approve the waiver as outlined by staff. Any other discussions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion has been approved. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 4. It is item I, Plan 2008-138F Meadow Oaks Unit 1A, also known as Ashford Oaks. This is a final record plat for the area known as Meadow Oaks, which is located off Feliciana Way and the street here in this location. This is a private street that serves the development. Blackford Parkway would be down in this area, and that is the connection through here is to the Blackford Parkway. This is the Blackford property development. Winchester Road would be in that direction. This is development that was originally plat approved in 2008. It's been somewhat slow to develop out in this area with the single family homes. You have already approved an extension on this plat once before. They are back for a reapproval. These two lots have been recorded. This section of the plat, as you all originally approved it has not yet been recorded. It is apparent that as they move along, as they build on the lots, they're recording them as they prepare to build on them. So with that, they are back before you to request a re-approval of this particular plat. I would add that there was a waiver associated with this plat that is on your agenda, the report. This goes back to the sureties for the sidewalks. And at the time that this property was developed, individual builders were building the sidewalks, and the issue was they didn't want to have to put the sidewalks in and have them destroyed, torn up by construction traffic. So that was what generated that particular waiver, which was granted by the Planning Commission. With that, if you have any questions on that plat, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant? Again, Rory Kaye with EA Partners. We're in agreement with staff's recommendations and request approval, including the continuation of the waiver. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to address this agenda item? Any other discussion from the commissions on this particular agenda item? If not, we'll entertain a motion for the re-approval of Plan 2008-13A, 138F, I should say. Mr. Chairman, I move for re-approval of Plan 2008-138F for reasons provided by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we approve Plan 2008-138F Meadows-Oak or re-approval of Unit 1A Ashford-Oaks with the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, seeing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. Motion is granted. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, moving to page 5. The next item on your agenda is Plan 2008-140F. It is item J on page 5. This is Meadow Oaks Unit 1C. This is Meadow Oaks 1C. It's this area through here in relationship to this plant. This is basically the greenway conservation area for this development that was approved on the original plan. There's a little bit of floodplain here on the property. There's a creek down in this area as well. There has been no actions on this. This area was affected by a minor plat. Whoops. Here we go. Three-legged stew doesn't work really well if one leg is short. Again, as I was saying, this is a Greenway conservation plat. Nothing's happened. As you can see, it hasn't been dedicated as yet completely accepted, pardon me, by the government in this. And so they are, again, requesting reapproval of this plat. it was subject to the same waiver governing the private sidewalks as the previous plan. The staff is recommending re-approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin, the applicant. Again, we're at Cayley. We're agreeable and request approval, re-approval. Anyone from the audience like to discuss this agenda item? Any other discussion from the commission on this agenda item? We're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. We'll move re-approval of Plan 2008-140F Meadow Oaks. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we reapprove Plan 2008-140F Meadow Oaks Unit 1C Ashford Oaks with the conditions outlined, identified by staff. Any other comments, discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have to go like this one. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are on page 6 of your agenda under development plans. This is Major Development Plan 16-37, Hash and Hounchel, and you will find that we have passed out revised conditions on this particular plan. It was, as you can see, originally recommended for postponement. A revision was brought into staff, and we have, of course, prepared revised conditions for you. We put this up for you so you could get an idea of where this property was located. Again, we have Greendale Road in this area, and this would be Greendale Road on the development plan, and there's the proposed development. This is the street system that's going to be extended, Lucille Drive, in this location. Here's Lucille Drive coming up approximately through the center of the property. The local street, Applecross Drive, is over here on this side. It'll be extended through the property and stubbed into this property. And again, you can see that at this location. And you can see the area. We have big-ass fans, Eagle Distributing. In this location, Sandersville Road, Spur Road. We have a tremendous amount of single-family development in this location in Masterson Station. Here's the elementary school, and I'm sure you all recall, this is the local street system through here of an area that has yet to be constructed. It's been under development for some time. We've had some movement recently in this area of the development. This is the cemetery, and you may recall the discussion about the cemetery. So this is the location of the Hounchel property. Again, as you can see, as Apple Cross Drive comes in, They're proposing a very large roundabout on Lucille as it comes through the property. They are proposing apartments and townhouses. There are 74 townhouses proposed. They're approximately 20 by 50 feet. Here's your typicals with garages to be proposed. The apartments are three types. There's three building types, A, B, and C. A is the larger and has 36 units. These have been touched briefly in these purple just to give you. Are there all A's here? Type C here. This is type C, type B, and then A. There's two type B's and a type C. And this is track 2. This is track 1. In track 1, which, again, this is this area with detention office, access off of Lucille Drive here, access off Applecross here and here that happens to line up well with their proposed access easement to serve these townhouses. As I said before, these are type A, which are 36-unit apartments. They're proposing on tract A, which is 8 acres, a little over 8 acres, 204 units and 286 bedrooms in this area. The parking that they're providing is 308 parking spaces. That's only a very few, four or five over the required. So they're meeting their required. They're not overbuilding their parking at all. On track B, they have, again, two type Bs and a type C along with their type As. Type B and type C are smaller buildings with fewer units. They have 24 units. Now, there's a mix of one and two bedrooms in these apartments. They're not proposing any three bedrooms, but there is a mix of one and two bedrooms. Track B is over nine, track two, pardon me, is over nine acres, and it's got over 200,000 square feet of buildable square footage. And the FAR on these tracks are significant. They're maximizing, basically, their development here and their density. Track 1 is at 49%, track 2 is at 50%, and that is the maximum allowed under the R3 zoning. We have a condition on the plan for approval that they document that they've included the office square footage in that FAR, because it has to be. And again, they're right up against it, and we want to be sure their calculations are correct. If not, they would obviously have to either remove the offices or modify one of their building types and adjust the square footage. in a brief conversation with the engineer, he's assured us that he has included that in his calculations. We want to be sure that is clearly denoted in the site statistics. They are providing the parking in this area, by the way, is 329. And again, that's just a few over the required. We have highlighted for you their proposed detention areas. Some of this, the majority, is surface detention that they're demonstrating here. the hill and the watersheds break kind of through the center of this property and that was a challenge for them in terms of design. They are going to be able to sewer it in this direction and they've actually shown that. That's not something we necessarily have to see on a development plan except where easements are required but they are going to be able to sewer this entire property in this direction with the existing sewer system. To return now to the townhouses, This was an important discussion, and the reason for the original postponement was they brought in a design that was utilizing private access easements for a street system. And staff did not think that was necessary. We favored a public street system where it would work best. And when they brought this back, and again, with Applecross, that was not a problem here. And as they extended it through here and stubbed it into this adjoining property, what they had done was they showed all this area. We've seen two different designs with private access easements. They came in with this revision, and they are now proposing a public street system to serve the area, and again, and to stub into this property. So we're setting up access for this property as well as access into this property that adjoins it. But the townhouses in this location and along Apple Crossway and then in this area are all coming off of, pardon me, these are all rear loaded. And these are rear loaded. That was a concern as well with staff, that they be rear loaded and they're proposing these access easements to remove all that conflict with the number of units they're proposing on the local streets. Now, they are going to be on this local street. There's going to be some areas of the townhouse conflicts. They've doubled up their driveways together to reduce each point of conflict. And they have parking. You can see parking areas that they're proposing. And this street will come in to serve this development. But it's not going to, in staff's estimation, have as much traffic flow as we suspect Apple Cross will in the future. So again, by having rear-loaded off of this access easement, we think that's an improvement both in design and in traffic control and reducing conflicts. They have a few units down here that will again be front-loaded off of this section of the street, but this is just internal, as you can see, to the townhouse development. Now, in order to utilize an access easement as sole access to lots, it is necessary that this body make a finding. But that's an important distinction. It's sole access. And in this situation, they are not providing sole access by these access easements to these lots. They're just providing vehicular access. And I know that's a fine term to use, but that's how the regs read. So access to these are provided, but vehicular access will be via an access easement. What that allows you to do under your authority is to approve it without any specialized finding. In essence, what you're saying is you approve of this plan and you approve of the easements as shown to serve the property as proposed. The highlights right here are four units that are fronting on a 12-foot pavement access easement. You can see through here there's 16-foot pavements with associated parking off of it on the access easements. These four right here do require a finding for sole access because they don't technically front on a public street in any location. We have handed that out to you, findings for an access easement. And that also brings us to a condition on the plan that you can see on your agenda. We'd like to resolve this area and this design. It's only 12 feet of pavement. As you can see, there's 16 feet of pavement. And there's a parking area right there, just a thin little strip. We have not had an opportunity to fully vet this with traffic engineering. It's just a little bit awkward. We think that's something that can be resolved. So, again, that is a condition of approval on the development plan. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Ms. Mundy has a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, you said the future development down below this map. How many acres are in there and what are we looking at or do we have any idea? I know we're not considering that, but where? Offhand, I don't remember the acreage. You can see it here. This is about 29 acres and you can see it right in here. So it's at least half of that or a little more. We do not have a plan. Okay. We do not have a plan on this property. We do have approved plans here through the West. They've expired. They're going to have to be reapproved. Okay. Well, the reason for my question is we're stubbing that street off. We're setting the width of that street now. Yes, ma'am, as a local. Yeah, as a local. So we're stubbing it off then into that property. We don't know what's going to go there. We don't know if that street is going to be able to carry the traffic or not. So I'm just a little concerned if that street is ample. And I'm sure you've looked at that. So I don't know really why I'm questioning it. It's an excellent question, but it is part of the local street system, and that's one reason we wanted to highlight this. These are your collectors. Yeah. So all this is a local system. They're all sized the same. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Again, it's Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. Maybe I can answer a couple of questions. The acreage to the south, there's two parcels. One of the parcels is 14.26 acres and one is 11.22, so roughly 25 to 26 acres. So also I'd like to clarify, as Tom mentioned on the floor area ratio, that he was questioning whether we included the offices. And we did include the offices in it, so we're good on the floor area ratio. And we will add to the statistics. We'll show that on there, too, and that will help clarify that. But with that, we are good with the 17 conditions on the revised staff recommendation. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to have anything to say about this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? And we're ready for a motion. And let me alert you to the fact that in this motion you should also indicate the findings for the use of the access easement as well. So we're ready for a motion from the Chair. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-37 Hash and Hounsel property. with the 17 conditions noted by staff, also including the two findings for use of access easement recommended by staff. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Will Berkley and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN-MJDP 16-37-HASH and Hound Shell property with the 17 conditions outlined and identified by staff. Along with that was the PLN MJDP 16-36, that is the findings for the use of the access easement with the conditions also and findings that have been outlined and identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. No kidding. The other time you see it, however, as we go there later. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. It's so tight. That was a team. It was a very tough section. No. No. It's a good one. It's a good one. Yeah. Oh. It's so bad. Yeah. Oh. It's so bad. It's so bad. Thank you. It is DP 2015-112 National Station. This is a final development plan that was originally approved by the Planning Commission a little over a year ago. This is at the end of National Avenue. You're familiar with the adaptive reuse and the activity on the front end of National Avenue near Winchester Road. Here's the railroad that runs in the rear in this location. And this is Richmond Avenue coming off Main Street down this way and up where it intersects with National Avenue. This is a warehouse area. You may recall that, well, there was a board of adjustment that approved a soccer facility here. And one of the issues on this plan originally was the shared parking and for them to meet the parking requirements. This is a large 14,000 square foot building here used for warehousing purposes, and they're proposing to develop many warehouses on the property with access through here and parking and access to the interior of the property. The Planning Commission granted a variance at the time of the zone change, I believe, on the landscaping in this area, you may recall. There was a zone change on this parking lot that accompanied this property. It's been brought back to you for re-approval. The plan expired in November, shortly after your last meeting. So the applicant has filed this plan and is requesting re-approval. And with that, you may notice that there was a postponement recommendation. However, we are recommending approval. This is not an adaptive reuse plan, and it does not require any signage. This is strictly a B4 use on this property that has had a Board of Adjustment action on a part of the property. With that, staff is recommending approval of this plan subject to the original conditions on your agenda. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, members of the planning staff, I'm Mike Robbins and I'm here on behalf of the National Station LLC who are the owners of this property. We are in a complete agreement with all the 19 conditions. Actually I believe almost all of them have already been met. I would like to ask for a motion. I would like to move that you approve this plan today. Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Anyone in the audience would like to address this agenda item? Anyone on the commission have any other discussion items or questions? If not, then I'll entertain a motion for reapproval. Yes, Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for re-approval of DP 2015-112 National Station, LLC with the 19 conditions as set forth by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we re-approved DP 2015-112 National Station, LLC with the 19 conditions as outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Another bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're moving now to the top of page 9 of your agenda. This is the last subdivision plan on your meeting agenda today. It is the only minor subdivision plan. It is item A on your agenda, Minor Subdivision 16-35, a minor amendment for the guest property, Unit 8. This property has an address of 840 Hayes Boulevard and 4115 Sperling Drive. The staff has provided to you a revised recommendation on the orange-colored sheet, and I've just passed out to you a couple of sections from the land subdivision regulations that explain why the staff has referred this to the commission. First, I'd like to orient you to the location of the subject property. The property is along Hayes Boulevard, south of Todd's Road, which is off the plat to the north. It is immediately to the south of the Athens Childsburg Elementary School, which is at the corner of Hayes Boulevard and Jewett Creek Drive. Jewett Creek extends around the school through the Childsburg subdivision, intersects Sperling Drive at this location. Sperling Drive forms the southern boundary of the subject property. And Jewett Creek also provides a small amount of frontage for the subject property as well. These two addresses encompass about 32 acres of land. And currently, the property exists in two tracks. And that's why we've provided the existing plat also to illustrate where the property is. Again, Jewett Creek, Sperling Drive has a small amount of frontage on Hayes Boulevard. There are two tracks, one in pink, all along the frontage of Hayes Boulevard, and a small amount of frontage along Sperling at the corner. The rest has frontage on Sperling and Jewett Creek. This parcel, I think I gave you incorrect acreages, is 32 acres in and of itself, whereas this parcel is almost 14 acres in size. So we are looking at a larger property than I've described to you. There are three different zones that encompass this property. There is about 11 acres of community center zoning near the corner of the intersection of Hayes and Sperling. There is an area to the south of about 9 acres that is in an EAR2 expansionary residential 2 zone that also has a transition area overlay zone applied to it. The remainder of the property and the majority of the property is in an EAR2 zone expansionary residential 2 that allows residential development at a density of three to six units an acre. Of course, there's no change involved with the zoning. That is to remain in place. The proposed plan is a combination consolidation, easement, and non-building plat. It has three functions. The consolidation portion of the plat proposes to link a portion of the southern part of the property with a portion of the existing pink property here through a small isthmus, if you will, connected here. So this will be one parcel of land if this plat were to be recorded. The property on the remaining frontage of Hayes would then be severed from its parent and would exist in only about three acres configured at the intersection, and this tract is entirely zoned CC, Community Center. There would be another track created generally along a greenway and floodplain area in the center of the property, a track for mostly what is today an existing detention basin that serves not only the subject property but also other development in and around this area, which is primarily single-family detached residential. And then the final parcel proposed is almost two acres in size here along Sperling Drive. This parcel, the smallest of the five, along with this portion of the consolidated parcel, were approved earlier this year by the Planning Commission with a final record plat. That plat has not been recorded, and thus it has not met your conditions of approval that you placed on that plat either. So in a sense, this proposed plat asks that four of these five lots be granted non-building status, including this lot here, which is currently approved for subdivision. Generally, the staff is not supportive of, if you will, going backwards in plan status. The two lots we have today, neither one are encumbered by non-building restrictions. The proposed plat will encumber almost the entirety of the property with non-building restrictions. We don't see much advantage to that, but it's not prohibited by your regulations. The main reason the staff has referred this to you and the reasons that I've handed out the subdivision regulations is the main tenant of a consolidation plat, according to the subdivision regulations, is you cannot at the end of the day have more transferable pieces of property after a consolidation than you have at the beginning. This prevents the creation of lots that otherwise have to come to the Planning Commission and be approved. That's the main reason for that restriction. As I've mentioned, this plat would have five lots, whereas the existing property is two. So that's the main reason the staff has referred this to you. There is not, in the staff's view, a prohibition on approving this PLAT, but we are asking for several conditions so that the PLAT can be revised to be more consistent with your subdivision regulations. And those are identified by the five conditions that are listed on the staff's recommendation. The first is that we have addressing offices approval for the addresses of all five parcels. Again, today we have two addresses assigned. We obviously need three more addresses approved by that office for these tracks. The second condition is the addition of building lines shown along all streets. The only building line that's identified is the one along Hayes Boulevard here. And the reason this is also an easement plaque is that they are proposing to create a new 20-foot easement in this building setback area. So that is identified. The development plan that's been approved for this area has already created, if you will, building lines for the property. So this condition basically asks that the information on the approved development plan also appear on this plat for consistency sake. The third condition is to revise the purpose of the plat note, which appears here, to indicate that lot four, the smallest lot, where we do have the approved subdivision plat, is not to be a non-buildable lot. This is per the approved development plan and the subdivision plat you've approved. The logic behind that is, today, as the property exists, we have two buildable tracks. If this plat is recorded with this change, at the end of the day, we will have two buildable lots. The orange lot and the yellow lot. The other three will have non-building status. So we have not diminished the value of the property, the condition of the property. We have two buildable at the beginning. We have two buildable after this plat is done. The fourth condition is regarding the landscape buffer along what is to be a single-family area and a multifamily area that is currently undergoing development. This was an issue when the subdivision plat for this area was approved, and it was identified that Article 23 of the ordinance does require a landscape buffer along this property line. And this condition is lifted, if you will, from your approval earlier this year of the plat for this area. The staff's concern is if this plat is recorded in sections, it is possible that the buffer could not be shown on this property or created. So it's in essence to avoid that potential that may or may not exist. The final condition is one that you typically see when we refer a minor subdivision plan to you. We're asking to denote the date of today's hearing on the plat just for record keeping so that we know the Planning Commission considered this plat and may or may not have approved it. That, in conclusion, I've mentioned we have two buildable lots today. at the end of the consolidation plat, we would have two buildable lots and three non-building lots. So we think this is more consistent with your land subdivision regulations. I appreciate your kind attention. I know this is a little out of the ordinary, and I will be glad to try and answer any questions from the Commission at this time before you hear from the House of Pen. Mr. Sally, you noted that there's a detention basin on that plan. Yes, sir. Was that a detention basin that was built for another development, or was that a detention basin that was a pond there on a guest property? That is a good question. There are several detention basins throughout the guest development that were in existence prior to the development. And as the development of the area occurred, those basins were enlarged, were engineered, and were changed, even some involving changes to the environmentally sensitive areas in the wetlands to allow those to function better for stormwater. Mr. Penn, I am not sure if this is a constructed basin or one of them that was existing. Mr. Cayley may know. I know many of the others were in existence. This one, I am just not sure. Yeah, because it does make a difference. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Sally? Okay, thank you. Thank you, applicant. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. To make it easy, I agree with Bill. We're okay with the five conditions, and I'm not going to do another combination plat like this again. They keep bringing me here. We will keep our non-building miners and our consolidation miners separate so that we don't have this problem. As far as the basin area, I think the one we're talking about here was created by the construction of Hayes Boulevard. Through the middle of all of guests is a regional stormwater management facility. We've got multiple basins. They're in the lowlands. There's a clomer associated with them. There's a lot of engineering that's gone into the backside of this. Does that answer all of it? Well, it tells me that if that was not existing pond or relation, then you don't have the problems that you have if that's a constructed basin. So I hear you saying that that was a constructed basin. I think that one is because I don't remember that one holding water. Upstream of there, there was an old farm pond that has been expanded for stormwater management. So this is a detention or retention basin? Mr. Parker, who is now with traffic engineering, was with engineering and did a lot of the inspections. You've got a combination out here, Mr. Penn. You've got a detention basin and some wetlands. It's all part of the regional system for the area. More confused than I was. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to talk to this agenda item? Okay. Anyone on the commission? Okay, if not, ready for a motion then on this. plan you want something yeah motion on the plan Mr. Chairman I guess I'll move approval yeah okay speak up yeah I'll just talk on them I don't fix them Move approval plan MNSUB 16-35. With the five conditions. That'd be okay. Yeah, five conditions. With the five conditions noted by staff. I have a second by Ms. Carolyn Richards. Okay, it's been approved, moved by Mr. Mike Cravens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richards. that we approve PLN MN SUB 16-35 guest properties with the five conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we're down to commission items. Okay, Mr. Martin will be ready. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, under your commission items, on item one, we have an amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. 4-7 is the article that deals, in this case, 4-7D9 to be specific. It's the area that governs performance and warranty sureties under your land subdivision regulations. This was an amendment that planning staff requested the Planning Commission to initiate, in turn based on a request by the Division of Engineering. They have spent several months reviewing surety requirements in order to ensure that they work better in protecting the government, both in terms of cost and ensuring that public infrastructure gets constructed as designed and in a timely manner. In essence, what they've done is kind of tightened up the surety requirements under the land subdivision regulations. regulations. They've addressed this with several minor edits that you can see in your report on your agenda. One of the first ones, under no occupancy permit, it basically used to refer to utilities and sanitary sewer where applicable. They have added to this access to a public street or private street or access easement, stormwater infrastructure, and natural gas, which was already in that. But again, they've expanded the requirements of what must be present before an occupancy permit can be issued on a structure. In the next item, which is 4-8C, under completion of utilities and final course, You can see that they edited out quite a bit of that on the subregs and basically made a statement that completion of utilities and final course of asphalt shall be in conformance with the current edition of the procedures manual. That is something that gets updated periodically, and it was updated recently, and that is what governs the design and construction of utilities and public infrastructure under our regulations. There's then a recommendation on the renewal of the surety. And what is significant under the renewal of the surety under 4-8D, As you can see, it's been added as a condition of renewals for sureties older than three years. The Division of Engineering will require recalculation of the amount of the surety based on the current unit prices. That replaces a condition that is currently in your regs that actually says the Planning Commission will renew the sureties and may, may, not shall, may require recalculation of the amounts. And this was done to grant Division of Engineering the authority to renew these sureties and increase the amount as necessary that will be done. The concern, again, was that if these sureties were called, that they be of an adequate amount to cover the cost. And I would point out the good news. There's been concern about this for some years, and we had a downturn, as we're all aware of, in the economy, and that heightened the concern. But the good news is this hasn't really been a big problem for our community at all. And that's something important to note, that we've not had a real large problem with having to collect sureties and construct public infrastructure. There's been a couple of instances where some developers went into bankruptcy, and some things had to be done. Generally, that's been sidewalks and trees have been the issue. And as a result of that, trees were actually added. Street trees are now bondable under our regulations. That was one of the changes that's already been done. So with that, under 4-8F, they've added surety forfeitures. Now, this is brand new. This isn't an editing of a previous requirement on your land subdivision regulations. This states, if a surety is forfeited or called by the urban county government, the corporation principals or developer will be prohibited from submitting a surety to the urban county government for a period of three years from the date of forfeiture. So they've put a little bit stronger language in there to ensure compliance with sureties. If someone walks away from a surety, they're not going to be allowed to come back on a new development and issue another surety to the government for a period of three years. Basically, I think we're saying, fool us once, shame on us, and you're not going to fool us twice. With that, your staff has reviewed this. We've discussed it with the Division of Engineering, and we are recommending approval to you of this text amendment. We think that it is very much in keeping with the intent of your land subdivision regulations. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin on this text amendment? Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. Mr. Martin, on this, that's pretty harsh, that three years, but anyway, on this unit cost, how is that determined? Engineering determines that based on current prices. They update those, I believe, yearly. Well, I mean, I got a call. Some of them had some concerns on that. I think before, how is it done now? Do you know? How is it done now? They use unit prices, but I don't know. But they use contractors that, I think they have a group of contractors that look at those things and update the cost. I mean, their actual cost. Yes, sir. I guess the concern was unit cost and the division engineering, if they're not getting bids or they're not getting actual prices from suppliers and that sort of thing. I mean, I guess that could be a gray area on how much the unit cost could be. I suppose that may be, but it's staff's understanding that they use actual costs. there's a representative of engine here that may be able to answer that question with greater clarity than than i'm able let's find out about that okay would you uh mr martin yeah i unfortunately don't know her name steve says steve was or steve would i mean it it's considerable amount of money if you look at these since i'm one makes this motion every week. And again, the good news is we haven't had to fall. Here's what's $432,000. Well, 30% of that's in addition, you know, on top of what the cost was and then... Come on down. Because you're 10% of the work to be done and then 20%. That's what you're saying. So on a $432,000, I mean, that could be $60,000 too much if they miss the cost. Of course, the renewal, Mr. Craven says, based on current unit prices. So if the question is how those are determined, we can try to get an answer to that question. But that would be the basis. It may be 10 percent increase, maybe a 2 or 3 percent increase, maybe a 50 percent increase. But it says it's 10 percent plus 100 percent, and then it goes down to, say, 20 percent on top of that, right? Which I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing how we get an established unit cost tied to something. I'll have to defer to engineering how they determine it. She's right here, right there. Thank you. I'm not specific. I'm Vaughn Adkins. My first time speaking, I've been with the city six months. So my experience in the development of the surety calculation form is limited. But from what I understand, capital projects and engineering work together with, like you said, the contractors that we utilize, but also we get some feedback from the developers that we're working with on a constant basis on those cost forms. And Mr. Cravens, if I can add to that, the urban county government puts out bids for work like this every year. And so we do have a bank of data on a per-cost basis that the urban county government can rely on for what these kinds of capital improvements are costing the urban county government. Now, I, being in planning, don't know if they do that, but it would be logical from my frame of reference to believe that they're using what it's actually costing all the taxpayers to build curb and street to factor into those per-unit costs. And I understand, but the line's being stricken out the way we've been doing it, which is that way. So how are you going to do it now? I think the one thing that will stay the same is the per unit costs that are used for the bonding purposes and also for estimating costs for sureties. I guess what some of them wanted they wanted a little more something tied to something there that we wouldn't I mean that's the way we've been doing it and then you're striking out the line that establishing a procedures manual shall be available and then you're just saying engineering's going to do it so So we don't have an exact way they're going to calculate it or anything. I don't know if I can clarify. Is your question, I don't think the surety amounts have been increased. We have some sureties that are 3, 5, 7, 10 years old in some cases, and that doesn't have anything to deal with it. That's not what I'm asking. I'm saying in determining the amount of the surety, it says the unit cost for public improvements, construction items, shall be determined. And then you strike out the way we've been doing it, and then it says by the Division of Engineering that you're going to determine the unit cost. And I'm trying to get some sort of procedure on how you're going to do that. Are you going to keep it up? I don't think the method is going to change. All we're changing is the unit cost. We get punch lists and we go over it with the developers and engineers. We work with them to find out the final punch list that becomes the surety. And we work through resolving the issues that need to be completed and release things as they get done annually. and then what we're saying is after three years, if there's still items that just have not gotten done, then we can adjust the unit costs and bring the total amount up to deal with inflation. Okay, I'm going to try this again. I'm just saying when you first start, you determine, then you struck all that out, what you just said you were going to do, so why would you take that sentence out? What they've actually taken out here is the Planning Commission making a finding on the conditions. I can read it to you. I'm a little, I'm not sure what we're. Under 4-7 is the third or fourth line from the bottom. It says annually in. Oh, okay, I'm on the wrong. Procedures established by the procedures manual and shall be available from it. So you're saying you're going to keep doing it that way, but then you take that line out. Well, I think, Mr. Cravens, very simply, if the Planning Commission was to say, we want a surety called and we want it increased, you would probably, I suspect, ask engineering to tell you what the appropriate amount would be. They would base that on unit prices. then you take 20% for what it says, inflation and administrative costs. Well, I'm saying when you come up with this, just say here's one that's $432,000. Okay, you're going to come up with that by unit cost, and then you're going to add 10% onto it because you want to have more than you need, and then you're going to add 20% onto it. But how did you get the original amount? I believe they're going to base... Who priced the unit cost originally? I think they're going to recalculate the surety on the current unit prices. And that would be 20% of that. I don't want to recalculate it. I want to calculate it to start with. You see... Oh, it's calculated on unit prices to start with. Okay, so how do you get those unit prices? You're taking out the procedure that we follow by bids and all that and just letting it be completely on the Division of Engineering to determine those. Except that they base it on unit prices that they receive and they use for all their projects and bids that they get. I mean, they're working on this sort of thing all the time. I know, but why take that line out then? They're just trying to make it simpler, I believe, is my understanding, just trying to make it simpler for them to determine it. The procedures manual do still govern. That's what they use. But they're taking that part out that they're not going to use it anymore. The procedures manual will still exist if this text amendment is adopted. I think the only material change would be whether or not the commission feels that this procedure should still be identified in that manual or not. The Division of Engineering didn't think it was necessary, but certainly the Planning Commission can still require that if you leave that Section 47D.9B unchanged. You have that ability to make that change, if you will. Again, I think it says the unit costs for public improvement construction items shall be determined, instead of saying annually, but just by the Division of Engineering, based on whatever I would think year that they're in. It could also give them the flexibility to do it every six months or every two years, depending on how things are fluctuating. So that's where it is. Anyone want to raise it? It's possible. Yeah. I remember a few years ago there was problems getting concrete, and prices were wildly fluctuating. This has been maybe five years ago. And unit prices can go down. They don't always go up. I think they're trying to give themselves a little bit of flexibility of where they start in trying to determine. They don't want to wait a year to change them. Well, right. Rather than just performing something every year, which may or may not change, I think they're looking for a way to just have a reasonable, you know, look at what is really currently happening. Well, it's just, I mean, from the developer side, it's just a, I mean, these are some big amounts of money. and that's either cash or a letter of credit that goes against your line of credit and sitting there. I mean, it's their fault it didn't finish, but maybe, maybe not. But if that were at least initially calculated on something that you could rely on, I think it would be a little better. I believe, again, it is calculated on something you can rely on. I've got a calculating assurity based on the infrastructure plans and the costs that have been submitted to them. Okay, let's go to Mr. Barclay. Can we not just simply change the text to say market-based unit cost, the recommended text? Yes, you can make amendments as you see fit. And I can't speak for engineering, but I did speak with Doug Burton about these amendments a while ago, and it's my understanding that the unit prices are based on market prices. Does it say that in the manual? Does it say that in the manual? I am not sure. However, I believe the former process in the manual was to convene a group of industry professionals and establish the unit prices so they would have been reflective of the market prices. That makes sense. That's what it's done now, but they're taking that out of here. And that might still be the current process in the procedures manual. Okay, Mr. Drake. Mr. Chairman, does it solve the problem if we take out the period? Because I understand some of the concern here is prices change. Perhaps they fluctuate more often than annually. So if we eliminate it annually but still specify the methodology, which is the procedures manual, does that satisfy it? In other words, what he's pointing out is just strike the word annually out, because then you still have the flexibility, but then keep the procedures manual portion in. Is that correct? Yes. Well, I don't know how often these things are updated. Do you all know these bonds? Vaughn can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the procedures manual is updated every two years. I'm talking about the amount of the bonds. Okay. I'm not sure. You see, there's a lot of not-sures and don't know, and engineering's not here, or she's here. Yes. Okay, so if they're reviewed annually, why would we want to increase them semi-annually? Occasionally, developers will ask for a review before the expiration for that annual. So they can lower them because they've completed the work? If they've completed, yes. That wouldn't change the unit price. I think that actually I realize now. I think rather than just doing it annually and say here and how it is, someone could take advantage of a reduction in unit cost, even though it wasn't an annual event. This way, engineering gets to look at everything at that moment in time and make a determination. But you say you're still going to use the procedures manual? Well, they have to use the procedures manual. I guess my problem is it's marked out right here. I guess the question is, I think as I understand as I've been trying to listen to this, and Mr. Drake had made the suggestion that you just take the word annually out, keep the procedures manual in, because what I hear you saying is it's based on a procedures manual, but yet at the same time you struck it out of this. Why would you not just leave it in and just modify the word annually? You could? You all are welcome to do whatever you think is appropriate. I just remind the commission this basic draft was provided by engineering. By engineering, right. But we're going off of, yes, this is a direct draft from the urban county engineer. That's what this is from. I would point out that under 4-8C, they make a statement, completion of utilities and final course shall be in conformance with the current edition of the procedures manual. I think they were just trying to, again, just tighten things up a little bit to make it easier and cleaner. Okay. Let me go back to the current procedures manual. And, Mr. Cravens, as you pointed out, the real issue is if someone, if you have to call a surety because someone doesn't complete a job, that's not, fortunately, a big problem for the developers in our community. Let me ask you this. Is this possible to postpone this item until we get a better speech? Certainly. Okay. A better read from engineering. Is that agreeable with you all? Mr. Chairman, since you started your hearing on this, we would just encourage you to continue. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Continue. That's a good point. Then I'll entertain a motion for continuation. Could I ask a question? Yes, yes, can you? I'm a little bit unclear on how. If this happens, it used to be the Planning Commission would have to say you need to up. Assuredies are called or whatever happens. That's why you vote on these things. We're taking that out and putting it in the hands of engineering. Is that correct? Planning Commission will not be approving call of bonds or whatever else. Is that what we're doing here? No. As I understand it, it's the renewal. as a condition for renewal, the engineering. And again, yes, you all would call them. Okay. But any renewals or extensions would no longer be granted by the Planning Commission. It would be granted by engineering. And I'm okay with that. Okay. That's where I was trying to say. Well, is there on it? It's renewals and extensions that they will be handling, and that's where the new costs would come in. Right. Okay, now let me ask the Commission, is there any readiness on this? Because what I was getting ready to do is entertain a motion for continuation, but if we have resolved that issue, then you want to continue it. Okay, then in a case, I'll entertain a motion for continuation. Until, okay, oh, Carolyn Plumlee has already made that motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded that we continue this, and we get some clarification from engineering on some of the questions that have been proposed. Mr. Chairman, before the commission votes, you should continue it to a date certain. Okay, what about January the 12th? Okay. Well, that's too bad. We'll continue to January the 12th. What I would suggest, though, because I think your points are good points, we can see if we can get some clarification to you about how that's going to shape out. Right. And then we'll send it to you in the mail. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we continue this article with discussions on SRA 2016-4 Amendment to Article 4-7 on the land subdivision regulations until January the 12th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes on your monitors? Okay, the motion passes. Seven to one. I think you get your sentence right. I get what I say. Also, let me also indicate that one of the things that Mr. Drake made a recommendation related to the annual, I hope you all take that in consideration, too, as it relates to just that one word and then maybe modifying the rest of the sentence as is. Thank you. Okay, next. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We do have one item on your addendum. It involves a brand-new plan filing that you have not seen at any of your committee meetings. It is Major Development Plan 16-55 for Community Ventures Property, LLC. This plan did not meet the meeting and filing schedule deadline to be on your agenda in January. However, the applicant is asking the Planning Commission to consider allowing it to be placed on that docket. What I've handed out to you is a copy of your bylaws that indicates why we have a meeting and filing schedule. And Mr. Walburn's letter speaks for itself, and I know he will be much better able to present it to you than I. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. I'll try to be brief, and if you'll indulge me, I'll tell you about a 60-second story that I think encapsulates what happened here. Believe it or not, I did not always want to be a land-use lawyer. When I was a little boy, I wanted to be an airline pilot. And being a little bit of a nerd growing up, I read everything I could ever get my hands on about air travel. And one of my favorite stories is the story of Japan Airlines Flight 2, which was a flight in November of 1968, perfect flight from Tokyo to San Francisco. Everything went right. Coming to the end of its 5,200-mile journey, coming into fog and clouds, the pilot just misjudged the runway and put the plane down in San Francisco Bay. Nobody was injured. Everybody was fine. But he just missed the runway by about two and a half miles. And so the captain, whose name I looked up was Kohei Aso, was interviewed by the NTSB. And they said, you know, well, Captain, what happened? And I can't use the language that he used because it wouldn't be appropriate for an open meeting, but it amounted to, well, I messed up. That's what's happened here. There was an unfortunate miscommunication between myself and the carman office about who was responsible for filing this plan. We were lined up perfect, had a beautiful flight. I think we had a beautiful plan. We were ready to get it in on time. We just came up about an hour short. We submitted a plan on a cell at about 5. The cutoff was at 4. I would ask you not to hold our unfortunate miscommunication against our client. I would say that much as Japan Airlines, too, no one's been hurt. We wouldn't have missed any meetings. We can still get on all the appropriate agendas. And here, I guess for lack of a better way of saying it, falling on my sword and asking for your mercy to let us appear on the January docket as to keep this project moving along. This is a zone change you all might remember that you unanimously approved over on the East End. I think it's a very exciting project. I take full responsibility for any error that occurred, and I'm simply asking for your indulgence so we can keep moving forward. I apologize for that error. I certainly respect the rules and regulations that the commission has laid down, and I'm simply asking for a one-time waiver of that filing deadline. But it would be at your mercy. Mr. Walden, I have to tell you, I read that book. It's entitled Loud and Clear. but you left out one part of that. First of all, there was two parts. Number one, that was the shortest meeting that the National Transportation Board had ever had once the pilot admitted what he had done. But the second thing was he was also suspended. Demoted, in fact. But he didn't get fired. That much is true. I appreciate the diligence related to the language. He used some very clear explicities that were very dynamic, and, of course, they challenged him two or three times. Do you have any other explanation? And he said, no, I just messed up. Like I said, he was clear about it, but we hear you. Commissioner, what do you want to do about this? Yes, sir. I want to ask you what hardship does delaying in a month do to you? We've talked a lot about that with the client. We believe it could delay the beginning of the construction process. The next filing deadline is at the start of January. It wouldn't come on until your hearing is in February. I think it could delay about a month. If we timed it right, if we were able to get on your January docket, I think we hopefully could have planned certification by the beginning of March. It's traditionally the beginning of construction, so that would be the hardship I think it could cost. So you're saying it would back you up a month? Correct. And though I said I wouldn't do it in the letter and I won't do it now, I'm not going to make excuses, I would say I think in talking to Commissioner Paulson and Mr. Slee, we are the first person to be impacted by the abolition of late filing. We could have late filed. I know you all abolished that. another, I guess, plea for mercy that we didn't have that option. You can only fall on your sword once. I'm making sure it's in there real good, though. Commission? Well, I'll tell you how I feel about it, and you all can do it. This is a benevolent time of the year. I think we could give him a little mercy on this and go on. So unless you all have some, when I heard about this, I had some reactions to it because it was related to our bylaws and what was what. But I believe in this case, since he's admitted that he has done what he can do and he's asked for some mercy from this panel, I'm inclined to give it to him this time. I'll entertain a motion, though. Go ahead. Yeah. I don't know the motion number, but I'll recommend that. It's right here on the page. It's on the addendum sheet. Okay. White sheet right behind you. I'm going to move that we allow a plan MJDP 16-55 to be heard at our January 12th 2017 meeting. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Berkeley, seconded by Mr. Drake, that we approve of the extension for PLN MJDP 16-55 Community Ventures and Property, LLC, and that we'll allow that particular agenda item to be heard January the 12th, 2017. Any other discussion? Yeah, I do. Yes, sir. It's not that I don't want this to pass. I'm sure it's going to. What I'm going to say to you is that for us to do our job right in the subdivision committee and in the zoning committee, staff has to have adequate time to do their job. And the amount of late files had gotten to the point to where that was not working. That's the reason the late file was taken out. I don't want to do hardship to you or your client, either one, but I am very much committed to sticking with the rules and procedures because it makes everybody's job work better, including the subdivision committees. So when my chairman asks for Christmas time, I guess I'm not going to be the Scrooge at Orange Christmas, but I want you to understand I'm very committed to this filing deadline, and to not bring him back the late five. I certainly understand. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Okay, motion has been granted. I sincerely thank you. Any other commission items? Any other items to come before the commission itself? Okay, without any further business to conduct and without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.