Good afternoon, today is October 23rd, 2025, and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's Planning Commission zoning items. Our first item on the agenda today is the approval of the September 25th minutes, which Paula was kind enough to circulate. The floor is open for a motion on that. Okay. Yes, sir. Yes. September 25th? Yes. Approval. Okay. I'd make a motion for the approval of September 25th, 2025 minutes. Second. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Thank you. Do we have any comments or any revisions? Seeing none. We'll take a vote. Mr. Okay. Mr. Jonathan Davis, you're in the affirmative for the record. Okay. Thank you. That passes with one abstention. All righty. Thank you. Now, moving on to postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson. And I am here to make your agenda a lot lighter. On page 3 of your agenda, item number 2, MAR 25-13, for Scotty Basler, if you would like a one-month postponement to continue our negotiations with staff, we think we have a revised plan based on our meetings earlier this month, and we're going to, I think, have something on the books in order to kind of revise the development plan. All righty. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson or any comment? That is November 20th. That's what I was about to ask, November 20th. November 20th. You ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 25-13 to the November 20th meeting. Second. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Commissioner Wilson. Thank you, sir. Do we have any comment? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Okay. Good. And Mr. Owens? Oh, you. Thank you. All right. And Mr. Jonathan Davis, are you in the affirmative? It's in. Okay. All right. Great. All righty. Judy, are you? Okay. I'm in support. You are in support. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. You are in support of the motion. Right. Just for the record. There's nothing to press here. No, it's done. Just verbally. It's already been recorded. Okay. All righty. Thank you. Thank you all. And then on page five of the agenda, number three, MAR 25-15, Ball Homes Incorporated. We also would like a one-month postponement until 11-20. We continue to talk with the neighbors, representatives, and planning staff on the kind of development plan and those concerns. Okay. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any discussion or questions for Mr. Nicholson? Seeing none, Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 25-15, Ball Homes Incorporated until, is it one month? Yes. November the 20th. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you all. And then, finally, on page eight of your agenda, item number four, MAR 25-16, Winddale Development. We would actually ask for an indefinite postponement on this while we wait to kind of see how the infrastructure system plays out in the new expansion area. We're hoping that that will kind of come to fruition in December or January, but we didn't want to keep this on your all's agenda while we're just kind of waiting on that. All righty. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Mr. Pim? Are you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. If we don't have any other questions or comments? Mr. Chairman, I move for an indefinite postponement for PLN MAR 25-16 requested by the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pim. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Do we have any discussion? All right. We'll take a vote on that. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Nope? Okay. Then, I believe that takes us to page two, item number one. Good afternoon. Jeremy Young, Planning Staff. This is PLN MAR 25-10, is for Admiral Place, LLC. The requested zone change is for 56.27 acres. The request is to change from B6P with conditional zoning to a B6P with slightly modified conditions. It includes 2300 to 2350 Gray Lag Way, 2320 and 2344 Elkhorn Road, 2200 to 2277 War Admiral Way. The request is to remove the condition, limiting total building area to 532,000 square feet. This gives you an idea of the area. I think most everybody's familiar with the Hamburg development, but you've got Winchester Road here, then I-75, and it's situated between Sir Barton Way and the interstate here. That's this area. Zoning on the adjacent properties, you can see in the brown there, R3, planned residential, and B1 to the north, neighborhood business. The blue, you've got professional office, P1. The orange areas are B5P, which is interchange business. To the east, you've got EAR1, which is expansion residential, and the ED zone, which both of these are from the 96 expansion plan, and then an area of P1 to the south in blue. In the central area, that's still agricultural, urban, that's basically floodplain and open space for this development. You can see from the imagery in the lower left there, residential development, and then to the north, you've got the interchange business that's mostly focused on interstate travel, gas stations, hotels, those type of things. This shows you the development itself, and you can see the Lowe's, Walmart, the two large anchor stores, and then you've got a car wash here, and this gas station, which is the subject of the second conditional zoning restriction, and then you can see the green space here in the middle. You've got Sportsman's Warehouse, I believe, there, and then various retail and restaurants here in these outlots and this strip here, and as well, as you can see, some of the development here that's been taking place over on the east side of the interstate, which include the large hospital complex that's being built there. So when this was approved in 2005, the applicant offered a couple of restrictions to help it comply with the comprehensive plan, the first of which was limiting the total square footage of building area to 532,000 square feet, and then limiting the gas station to the south of Walmart. It's located roughly on a 1.5 acre parcel and no more than 1,500 square foot of area for vehicle fueling facility and canopy. And section 6.7 of the zoning ordinance outline the procedure for modifying conditional zoning restrictions, and basically it says it has to go back through the original zoning process and the findings required, there has to be a significant physical, economic, or social change either on the property or within the area that the property is located. And staff recommends approval of the request following the review of the justification submitted by the applicant. We believe that they've demonstrated significant changes in the physical area. When this zone change was originally approved in 2005, it was basically on the outskirts of town. There wasn't much development between Fortune Drive and this area other than the northern portion that was dedicated to interstate travel. And now the recent addition of lands outside of, or on the east side of Interstate 75, which are part of the 2004 expansion, which include housing and commercial development well beyond this parcel. So we feel that retaining the limit on square footage is not appropriate. We do recommend retaining the following restriction that limits use of the 1.5 acre parcel at the southern end of the property to off-street parking, vehicular circulation, and no more than 1,500 square foot of a portion of vehicle fueling facility and canopy. And of course this recommendation is subject to the approval of the associated development plan, PLN MJDP 2539. And if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Okay thank you Mr. Young. Do we have any questions? We do not. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to go over the associated development plan, MJDP 2528. Hamburg Place B5P and B6P Highway Commercial Area. So on the development plan we show, this is the Walmart and the Lowe's, this is Sportsman's Warehouse in this area, so this would be Sir Barton. This is Winchester Road and then I-75 across the top of the plan. For the purposes of the development plan the only real changes are to Outlot 5 and Outlot 6. Actually I think I did that backwards. I think that's Outlot 5 and that's Outlot 6. They're currently undeveloped. Outlot 6 is between, I believe that's Elkhorn and Graylag. It's vacant, looks like a grassy area and kind of the same for Outlot 5. And so for the development plan the requirement's not met to depict the interior landscape areas on Outlots 5 and 6. Number two, provide dumpster enclosure information and denote location for Lot 6. Number three, label centerline of blue line stream present in the greenway. Number four, denote no buildings or structures shall be located on any land with a slope greater than 30%. For areas with slopes between 15% and 30% the provisions of Article 6.11 of the Land Subdivision Regulation shall be applicable. Number five, provide a tree inventory map and tree preservation plan exhibit. Number six, ensure Outlot 6 will meet requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Article 18, which is landscaping. Number seven, addition of internal pedestrian walkways in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Article 16-6A3A. And then number eight, there are additional notes in the CELA provided by the Division of Engineering. There are some concerns on Outlot 6 for a steep slope into the greenway and the need for a retaining wall in that location to be able to build what's depicted on the plan. Under design considerations, and I think this might be related to the Outlot 6 with the steep slope, it says when placing fill on the current sanitary sewer line, be sure the new design criteria is followed for the correct pipe material to be used for the new depth and easement encroachment pipe protection is followed. Under plan questions or concerns, discuss changes in lot sizes and overall total acreage and site statistics from previous development plan. And then the Technical Review Committee recommended approval subject to the following sign-offs. The approval by the Urban County Council of the removal of the conditional zoning restrictions. Otherwise, any commission action of approval is null and void. And then we have Division of Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Urban Forest or Green Space, Department of Environmental Equality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. And then finally, to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And that's all. All right. Thank you, Chris. Before we go any further, Commissioner Barksdale is having some technical difficulties with her computer. If we could have some assistance, please. And then for commissioners looking around for your supplemental staff report, we don't have printed copies this week, but it is on Granicus. Okay. And I, yes, and I have a copy I'm happy to share. Okay. Any questions for Chris on the development plan? Okay. Thank you, Chris. Sorry for the distractions. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Okay. Mr. Penn, Mr. Forrester. Before Mr. Nicholson starts, just a question to staff. I think subdivision committee has seen the development plan and approved it. Am I correct on that? Recommended approval? I believe that's true. I see we didn't add the subdivision recommendation on the agenda today. I'm sorry about that. Yes. The subdivision committee did recommend approval. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wirth. That's important. All righty. Do we have any other comments before we move on? Okay. Mr. Nicholson. And Ms. Wirth, I might have an answer for why that got left off that I'll kind of tease at the start of this. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of War Admiral Place. We are in complete agreement with the staff report. During the kind of postponement, we were able to have a great conversation with staff talking about all of the different changes that have occurred in this corridor. As I know, I believe Mr. Young referred to in his presentation, at least it's in the staff report. Planning Commission very recently heard and found an agreement that those changes did exist on this exact corridor kind of right across the street. And I do have a more thorough presentation on some of these, on the points and on those changes if there are any kind of further questions. But I do want to respect you all's time as it's very rare we have this room to ourselves. Now from a very big picture standpoint, this is an incredibly straightforward case. War Admiral Place was kind of developed back in 2004 and there was a massive gap of acreage that was basically where Lexington had developed to where War Admiral Place was going to be developed along Winchester Road. In such, there was a lot of consternation on what this will look like. This will be probably the most dense development that occurred outside the downtown core in this area. Let's take a beat and let's see how this goes. And that is I think why the kind of this conditional zoning restriction got in place kind of originally. And what we have right now is we have two vacant out parcels that exist in a commercial center on a major corridor that are prohibited from being developed. Prohibited from being developed. We couldn't market it. We can't talk to tenants about this because this zoning restriction exists. And we have plenty of now vacant land. We have plenty of underutilized land as you can see and if those are the words that you have heard most in this room, I would not be surprised in any way, shape or form. War Admiral Place would like to contribute in Lexington's mission to continue developing under vacant and underutilized land on our major corridors where we've shown that development and density is appropriate. Now I want to be incredibly clear and this is to your point. This is a spec development plan. These buildings do not have tenants. We have not talked to any tenants about this. We would do more kind of detailed study with regards to what the retaining wall will look like once we know what that final building will look like. But this was like whenever you look at the conditional zoning restrictions and look at many of them, a development plan is required to be filed with that application. And so we wanted to basically show what could work on these properties that do meet today's more rigorous B6P regulations in order to show that development could occur here and it would not impact basically how War Admiral Place functions and how the surrounding area functions. But we do not have tenants. We do not anticipate kind of building these buildings as currently proposed. Once we're able to actually talk to tenants, be able to figure out who wants to be in this area, we would have to bring back kind of amended development plans in order to fully be vetted and make sure we comply with all of the kind of updated rules with the B6P zone. With that, you know, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we are in agreement with staff and would appreciate your consideration. So Mr. Nichols, if I hear you right, you want the zone change and this is just a placeholder for the development plan? Without a doubt. We do not anticipate to bring back final development plans with these specific designs. That does not mean that they would not look similar once we actually found out what the tenants are. As we kind of talked a lot in this room with the kind of minimum floor area ratios and the maximum kind of lot coverage in B6P, this really was to show, yes, these lots could be used under today's rules, which a lot of developers are having a hard time meeting. So changing the B6Ps helped you be able to do this? It was, this allows us, we could actually develop a B6P parcel under today's rules. We've heard a lot that people are struggling to do that. We proved we can do it on these land. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Davis, Molly. Thank you, Chair Davis. Mr. Nicholson, just looking at outlot, sorry I sound so loud, outlot six, it extends so far into the floodplain as you've shown it currently and I know you're going to change that. Was any consideration given to instead reducing some parking? We certainly can. We don't even know the tenant yet and so it's difficult to project what their parking is. I meant in the existing massive amount of parking because that surely isn't always filled to capacity. We have yet to even be able to dream on what redevelopment could look like here. These are existing out parcels today and so that's why we wanted to show here are vacant parcels that can be developed, of course they would have to be in accordance with any kind of green space rules, floodplain rules, and get kind of fully vetted. But before we can even dream on what could occur on this sea of parking, this restriction has to be kind of taken away. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe Mr. Young did say this, we are not asking to change the other conditional zoning restriction on this property in any way, shape, or form. It will remain on site regarding gas stations. Okay. All righty. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Nicholson? Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this application? I feel obligated to ask. Seeing none, all righty, do we have any final commissioner question or comment before we move on to a motion? And the floor is open. And we would need, I suppose, a motion on the zone and then a motion on the development plan. I can attempt to make a motion on the zone change. All righty. All right. I make a motion that we approve the zone change request for PLN-MAR-25-10 for Moore Admiral Place LLC from, sorry, to become B6P, zoned B6P Highway Commercial. I believe that's what we want to say? The motion would be to remove the conditional zoning restriction with B6P. And to remove the current conditional zoning things. Second. Okay. All right. Mr. Bickler? I just want to clarify, because we're only removing the conditional zoning on the square footage limitation. Right. Yes. Thank you for that, Robin. So we had a second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is everybody good with that? And then, oh, he answered it. He answered this call. Okay. All right. Do we have any further comment on that motion from Commissioner Mollodavis? All right. We'll take a vote, please. All right. And that carries. Mr. Pinn, if you're off the phone, could you cast a vote? Okay. That's an affirmative. That's unanimous. All right. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Now, am I correct that that takes us to the ZOTA? The development plan. Oh, I'm sorry. The development plan. Okay. Do we have a motion on the development plan, please? Thank you, Commissioner Wharton. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2539, Hamburg Place B5P and B6P, as submitted by the applicant, with the technical committee conditions attached. All righty. Thank you, Judy. I second. I almost said, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Forrester. All righty. Thank you. Do we have any discussion on that? Can you restate the motion, please? I believe it was just a motion to approve what's in front of us. The development plan. The development plan? The development plan. Okay. Is there a problem? I thought we – what happens when Mr. Nicholson has said a different development plan is going to be brought before us? This is a placeholder development plan. It has to be approved so it can bring something back later. Can we say – That's the way this works. Can we incorporate some language? Because to me, if I were reading the minutes later, wouldn't it sound like the development plan had been approved, as is? It has. If we vote to approve it, it has been approved. But the applicant, any property owner, could then bring back revisions. Got it. New, amended. Yes, correct. Thank you. And so in this case, they filed a preliminary, a revised or amended preliminary development plan. So they won't be building on those two lots based on this plan. They will, as Ms. Worth said, bring a final development plan back and then that's the one that they would be able to receive permits on. Okay. All right. So that motion was made by Ms. Worth, seconded by Mr. Forrester. Do we have any further discussion? We already have. All right. Okay. Mr. Penn's in the affirmative as well. So that is unanimous. Thank you. All right. Now, I believe that takes us to our SOTA question. And Daniel, and then, let's see here, John, I believe, yeah, yeah, I think so. Before you begin, Daniel, Mr. Davis is going to. All righty. Thank you, Daniel. All right. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. The next item on your agenda is a zoning ordinance text amendment to amend the PUD 3 zone to allow short-term rentals. So the applicant today is Turner Properties, LLC, and they are amending Article 3 and 22 to allow short-term rentals within the PUD 3 zone. The PUD zones, just to refresh everyone's memory, are these specialized zones. They're usually somewhat location specific, so they'll have locational criteria, but they are designed to provide more flexibility than our standard zones. So they usually will have specific design features, but it will allow them to do things like modify their allowable uses or get some additional flexibility. They're not terribly common. We have, as I stated earlier, a grand total of three of them. We have the PUD 1, which is located to the southwest here and is a residential zone primarily. The PUD 2, further up on North Limestone near Lugart, once again residential. And the applicant here with the PUD 3 is the most recent and that is located off of Leastown Road slash Main Street with the Turner Commons development. So in 2022, just to give you a kind of idea of the timeline and why we're having this discussion, the PUD 3 zone was created. This was before Lexington kind of created our rules and restrictions on short-term rentals. So it was initiated beforehand, so it didn't include a zone that had not yet been defined. So when it was created, the applicant intended to allow for short-term rentals. However, it was not baked into the language. In 23 and 24, when you all as a body looked at short-term rentals, none of the PUD zones were included. That was just a little bit of an oversight on our end, so this left a gap where every other zone in Fayette County sort of was addressed, yay or nay, on how they could sort of adopt and utilize the short-term rental regulations. However, the PUD 1, the PUD 2, and the PUD 3 were left out of that. 2024 brought us a revision that dealt with the agricultural short-term rentals, but it still left that gap. So the applicant requests a zoning ordinance text amendment in order to allow for this as a principal use in the PUD 3 zone in the same lines that it's allowed in the I1, the I2, the downtown business zones, etc. Staff finds that that is appropriate. We also want to take this opportunity, even though it is a very limited framework and a very limited extent in which the PUD 1 and PUD 2 exist today, to go ahead and incorporate this, that way we have all of these on the same page at the same time. So the staff alternative text accepts the applicant's proposal as is in the modifications, but then allows the PUD 1 and the PUD 2 to be considered the same as the single family or the residential zones, depending on whether it is a single family or a multi-family context. And then the applicant's addition to the PUD 3 is found down there. So essentially, these would still be bound by all of the normal restrictions that you all worked very meticulously over a number of iterations to kind of put in place. It just allows for these to be considered on the same level of similar zones. And so with that, staff is recommending approval of the staff alternative language. Once again, looking at consistency across our zoning ordinance on how these short-term rental uses are being regulated. And then once again, this will provide sort of enforceable limitations on hosted and unhosted short-term rentals. And once again, just provides a pathway for them to be treated equally as the rest of the property owners within Fayette County. So be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Yes, sir. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Pim. So what we're doing is updating PUD to conform with our not being able to do- Yeah, the way that it was written is within our zoning ordinance, we have this table. And if your zone is not listed on this table, it is not allowed as a use in that zone. So the PUD zones 1, 2, and 3 were left out because they were sort of a limited niche zone that it was overlooked in that initial process. What you see before you is every zone in the zoning ordinance, including the mixed-use zones and some of the lesser-used ones. So this just basically fills in a donut hole that was left in the previous iterations. Thank you. Commissioner Maldonado. Sorry, just to ask one more question. I don't see, just to make sure I understand, PUDs 1 and 2 are not included in here because they are not allowed in those. Let's see. I'll show them right here. I see PUD 3. Yeah, so PUD 1 and PUD 2, a little bit tough to see on the screen here. Blue is the staff edition. So PUD 1 and PUD 2, because they do allow for sort of multi-family and group residential, as well as sort of the single family lots. So they were not previously included. They're shown in blue because they are staff recommended additions. They're not on the version we're seeing on screen here. They're not in what we're. Okay. We've got PUD 1 is shown on here. Where? Here. No, that's P1. Oh, that's P1, I'm sorry. P1, there's no, we need a PUD 1, a PUD 1 and a PUD 2. I'm rusty. I believe what you were looking at is the applicant's requested language, so they just requested the PUD. So we have the, being shown up on screen here, the staff alternative language that was sent out online. But we'll make sure it's up so that. Your staff alternative just didn't make it in Granicus, just to clarify. At least, that's what we're seeing, is the staff alternative is missing in here. Understood. So we've got it up on the screen, and we'll be willing to walk that through you. Apologies for that. So given that we're looking at the version that, that version maybe. Yes. The P, the PUD 1 and PUD 2 have some number of dwellings restrictions. Are we, should we be looking at some dwelling restrictions for PUD 3? So the difference between the PUD 1 and the PUD 3, or the PUD, the first two PUDs, is they are primarily residential in nature. The PUD 3, the intent behind that zone, is sort of a mixed use entertainment. So it's a formally industrial area that the particular Turner Commons. And so when you get into the sort of higher intensity, more entertainment focused, like our downtown zones. So that very bottom line, the B2, B2A, adaptive reuse projects in the I1. Those are regulated differently, so those are intended to be in more intense uses, so they don't have the same restrictions. So really the kind of buckets that these fall under are sort of the residential and the rules that kind of pertain to those. And then you have sort of the neighborhood level commercial, which still has limitations. And then you have the really intense commercial, which that B2, that very last row at the bottom, reflects areas that are intended to sort of serve in a more intense fashion. The zone already allows for things like hotels already. So this is just once again another way that they can sort of serve that traveling public that is expecting to be at an entertainment mixed use type destination. So staff's recommendation was to include it in those types of uses, which wouldn't have a limit on the number of units that they could have on that particular development. I don't see a problem if we're talking about hotels and high density. What I was envisioning is if this is a mix and we end up having some condominiums, we have some duplexes and some other things. Then you get into spreading out vacancies as opposed to putting them in a high rise. And that changes the dynamics of the area people are living in. So I'm not recommending, I'm just asking a question. Yeah. Okay, do we have anything else for Daniel? Thank you. Mr. Cato. Good afternoon, my name is Zach Cato. I'm an attorney at Billings Law Firm in Lexington, here on behalf of the applicant. We agree with staff's report. We have no problem with the alternative tax that again, the PUD 1 and PUD 2. This was an issue of ships passing in the night when we did our PUD 3 versus when the short term rental regulation went into effect. We didn't have a definition when we did PUD 3, then we got one, so now we have to go back and tie it up. So that's really all there is to it. We agree with staff and I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Mr. Pim. So you're telling me that PUD 3, have you ever done this before in your practice? Have you ever used a PUD 3 before? Our firm did the ZOTA to create the PUD 3 for this purpose. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay, I don't believe there are any other questions. As always, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular amendment? Mr. Cato. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Cato. Do floors open for discussion or motion? I move to approve the PLN ZOTA 25-16 with the staff alternative text that addresses all three PUDs. Thank you, Mr. McClure. We will move a second to that motion. Commissioner Parkstale, thank you. Any discussion? If none, we will put that motion to a vote. Okay, Mr Pim is in the affirmative. Okay. All right. And that I believe carries. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cato. All right. Do we have any commissioner items today? I know we have the adoption of the 2026 meeting and filing schedule. Tracy, yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Davis, members of the commission. We normally talk about this at our work session in October before we come straight to the planning commission meeting. But I'm happy to answer any questions before we adopt it. Molly's probably the first, the only one here that hasn't seen one of these before. So if you have questions about the grid of dates, I'm happy to help interpret that. I will just note two changes from last year. Of course, the commission will continue to meet on Thursday afternoons and in council chambers or the Phoenix building on the third floor. The staff does suggest moving one date a week earlier, and that's the reapproval, continued discussion, and extension deadline. And at the top here, it's the second one down. So filing is one day, and then the next one is the reapproval. So if someone has a plan that expired or they would need to come back and talk about something, moving it a week earlier allows for our technical committee to review those and be prepared to act on that if they're not coming back to the commission but just coming to the tech committee. And then directly under that, under line four, it says subdivision, reg, and zoning ordinance waiver. So in previous years, we really only had subdivision waivers to consider. Now we have zoning ordinance waivers as well. So we've just added that text to clarify that's when those applications must be submitted to. But the date is the same. It's the Friday following the technical committee meeting. All right. Since I'm the one who hasn't seen these before, I assume we are not meeting on Thanksgiving or Christmas. That is true, thank you. For the holidays in November and December, a lot of times our fourth meeting of the month, it comes on fourth Thursday like today, would fall on Thanksgiving, and then usually the week of Christmas. And so in November and December, we do not hold work sessions. So instead, on that third Thursday of the month, we hold the zoning hearing. Thank you. There are years where it gets really close to Christmas where we combine meetings. But for those who have been here for one of those, sometimes they can get very lengthy. So if we can separate them, we like to keep them separate. Yes, sir, Mr. Pinn. Tracy, we have postponed a lot of things. Are they all gonna catch us within November, or are we gonna be crowded in against that two weeks in December? Well, I asked Mr. Nicholson that before he was asking for postponements, and he told me, well, one, I'm indefinitely postponing, so that kind of takes that one off the shelf. So the two that we have, he anticipates the Basler property being ready for hearing in November. Okay. He did not commit about the Tucker property. We do have three, all right, three zone changes already filed for the November meeting, so we may be here a little longer than today for sure. Well, it's me. Anytime you kick it down the road, it's gonna catch up with you at some point. It does, I told the chair that earlier today. So that's the November 20th meeting? November 20th, yes. Okay, do we have anything else for Tracy? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Tracy. The floor is open for a motion. If there's no further discussion or questions. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion for the adoption of the 2026 meeting and filing schedule based on the revisions by Ms. Tracy Wade. Thank you, and Commissioner Worth seconded. Any discussion? All right, we'll take a vote. And Mr. Penn, are you gonna be in the affirmative on this one too? Okay. Okay. Okay, all right. That carries unanimously, thank you very much. Do we have anything else from the commission before we hear from the director of planning? Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind you all that we do have a planning commission work session next Thursday, October 30th. We'll be back in the Phoenix building, third floor, and we do have a full agenda of updates and presentations for you all next week. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Duncan, on Thursday, there was an article in the paper about council passing industrial bonds for housing that last week. Could we have just some information on that at our work session as well, just up to date on what that means? I can certainly ask about that, yes. Okay. If we have nothing else, without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. ♪♪