Music Planning Commission. Our first item on the agenda today is not the approval of minutes, but rather we're going to go a little out of order to the performance bonds and letters of credit. We have a memorandum in our packet from Mr. Fairchild dated August 10th. The floor is open for any discussion or motion on the performance bonds and letters of credit. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for release of the bonds as presented by the staff dated August 10th, 10th, 2026. Second. Thank you, Mr. Penn. We have a second for Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion to that motion? If not, we will go ahead and take a vote on that. Okay. Mr. Penn, could I trouble you for your vote? Mr. Penn? Frank, can you vote, please? Thank you. Thank you, Larry. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, postponements and withdrawals. And if you do have any postponements and withdrawals, please approach the podium and just tell us which page of the agenda you're on to help us keep track. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the record, John Woodall. And this is development plan 26-00030 WML properties, two keys. This is Mr. Schutte's matter. He had an issue with one of his little boys come up today, so I volunteered to come over. I don't know much about this. What I know about the two keys, I chalk up to a misspent youth, to be honest with you. So just ask that it be moved to the next meeting, 30 days. Okay, Mr. Woodall, do you need two weeks or four weeks? Yep. Four weeks. Four weeks, okay. Scott Schutte told me two weeks. Two weeks. Two weeks. Okay, so that would be August 27th. Okay. We have a request from Mr. Woodall. Is there any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickler. Have you all been in communication with neighbors about the postponement and the reschedule? Commissioner Mickler, I couldn't answer that, to be honest. This just came up. I would say probably not. Is there anyone here? Well, then I guess it's just a... Because I've noticed a few people at each of these meetings from the neighborhood for this, and I think this is the third postponement, if I'm not mistaken. And so I am starting to get a little sensitive of how many times neighborhood folks are coming out to these meetings. I understand. Okay, aside from Mr. Woodall, is there anyone present representing the applicants, or is the applicant here today? Okay, just wanted to make sure. All right, well, understanding that Mr. Woodall is substituting today. I'll make clear that this will go on the 27th regardless. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right, do we have any other questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion to postpone to the August 27th hearing. Okay. thank you i'm sorry do i have a motion oh for mr mickler okay and then commissioner worth a second is there any discussion to this motion seeing none sorry i can oh i'm sorry my screen says move for robert mickler so oh that's fine i will move that we postpone this to august 27th okay thank you okay thank you yeah looks good second for commissioner worth okay if no discussion we'll go ahead and put that to a vote okay thank you mr woodall any other postponements or withdrawals hi my name is charlie hall with thoroughbred engineering i'm on page four of the agenda under waivers. I wanted to request a postponement of PLM WAV 260021 Griffin Gate Center, Clarence Hotel. The associated plan was postponed at TRC. We're still working through the client. This waiver will most likely change and may not even be necessary when all is said and done. Okay. So would you be postponing indefinitely? Probably 30 days. 30 days. 30 days. Okay, so that's to September 10th. Okay. We have a request to postpone PLN WAV 26-21 to our September 10th meeting. Are there any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion. I'll move to postpone PLN WAV 26-21 for 30 days to the September 10th meeting. Second. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? If not, we will take a vote on that postponement. Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Good afternoon. Brad Boaz with CMW. Back to page two. PLN MJDP 2652 White Farm and the associated waiver request PLN WAV 26-24, we would request a one-month postponement to the September 10th meeting. All right. Do we have any questions on that particular postponement request? And I guess, Mr. Boas, is this just an attempt to resolve questions? Yes, it's to our waiver request we need to do a better job justifying our waiver request. Okay. Okay. So this is a request on both fronts to September 10th? Yes, sir. Okay. Do we have any questions or the floor is open for a motion? I believe we can put both of these in one motion. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement appeal in MJDP 2600052 White Farm and the associated waiver, PLNWAV 2624, to September the 10th as requested by the applicant. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Do we have a second to that motion from Commissioner Molly Davis? Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and take a vote on that. Both of those items. Okay. Thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Boaz. Okay. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals today? Seeing none, I believe that takes us to page four to the waiver section, PLN WAV 2622, South Farm Marketplace Lot 1. There we go. All right, perfect. Jeremy Young for Planning Staff. This is PLN WAV 2622 South Farm Marketplace, Lot 1. And it's a little bit difficult to see here, but The subject property is here. That's the border of the property. You can see this is Nicholasville Road here, Man O' War, and this is the Walmart Supercenter. The proposal is to add about a 7,600 square foot addition for online orders and customer pickup. And it will be roughly in this area with associated parking changes and circulation modifications to the site. And this will give you a little bit better idea of what the site looks like. As I pointed out, this is the area here. The waiver request is for Article 20, which is open space requirements. The green shows the vegetated open space, and the red shows the usable area. They're providing 7% vegetated space and 2% of the usable area of the 10% required for each. And that's essentially what the open space standards require. The intent of that ordinance is basically to improve the quality of life to offset some of the paving, heat island effect, those types of things. visual enhancements for the customers and employees of the facilities as well. And as I mentioned before, they're providing 7% of the vegetated area and 2% of usable area. There is common area required, and they aren't providing any of that. The site will essentially stay the same with the exception of the addition of the structure and the parking circulation rearrangement. The open space is not being reduced. There just isn't any improvement in that area. And the findings required for granting a waiver of the zoning ordinance can't negatively affect health, safety, and welfare of the public. The extent of the waiver is the minimum necessary to provide relief to the applicant and that either the applicant has incorporated other design features or that strict application of the ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. And that's what the applicant has stated in their justifications, is that they would have to essentially redesign the entire parking lot in order to comply with these standards. and staff has recommended approval of the waiver of article 20-2b it does not compromise the public health safety or welfare the extent of the welfare or the extent of the waiver excuse me is the minimum necessary to provide relief to the applicant and strict compliance would constitute a hardship to the applicant considering that it is a fully developed site in its current And if you have any questions, I can answer those at this time. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions on this? Yes, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Specifically to the slide before, has the applicant incorporated other design measures that exceed the minimums of the zone that compensate for this noncompliance with the requirements to be waived? I don't believe so, no. Thank you. Mr. Mickler. Two, I guess, questions here. One is we're seeing an expansion of the online pickup for online orders and conversion of part of that parking lot. I would assume then those customers' total duration in the parking lot is going to be much smaller than someone who historically would have parked and shopped there. It seems like this change is a change that a lot of retailers are seeing. They have a pretty large available parking lot in which the entire parking lot would not have to be redesigned to take some of that and expand green space or open space to improve their some metric towards either green space or tree canopy or something. especially as this would in theory reduce the number of people parking for a long time in the lot. So I guess when we saw another request for a waiver that we supported for a gas station not that long ago that was a fully developed site, they did make some movements in the right direction. So I felt comfortable supporting that. It didn't meet the requirements. They were fully developed. There was some consideration. There was still a waiver. I guess I'm struggling a little bit with the fact that this doesn't budge even one inch in the direction we're asking people to go in our city. I guess if you could speak to that. I mean, certainly we'd like to see them get as close to the minimum requirements as possible. Generally, we looked at it as they were trading pervious surface for pervious surface. So they weren't reducing the amount of pervious surface that was on the site. So it was not going to create any more runoff than is currently on the site. So that's generally the framework that we use to evaluate this particular application. So I'm just restating to make sure I understand correctly. So unlike sort of when we looked at that other gas station and we saw, we said, well, we're giving a waiver, but they made some improvement in that direction. Here, the staff recommendation is to say, because it's fully developed, it's okay if no improvement towards these goals is made. Is that correct? Yeah, and like I said, it would certainly be preferable to have some sort of movement toward compliance. So following up to Mr. Mickler's question, using your previous last point, on the gas station, were they adding hardscape when they put that gas station in? Because what you're saying here is this is already paved property. They're not adding any additional hardscape here. I'm not familiar with the details of the gas station. Someone else handled that report. So I can't really compare specifically to that application. But that's the way we evaluated this, was that it was not creating any more impervious surface. Well, I can speak to that. They were adding, I believe, a drive-through and just reconfiguring a little bit. And they ended up adding like a picnic table and just a small area outside that somebody could gather. It didn't meet the requirements, but I believe it was like the recommendation from the staff and subdivision committee at the time. I wasn't on that committee, but that they were moving in the right direction. And here, we're just not moving anywhere. We're just trading asphalt for asphalt. And so, I mean, we're not even putting a picnic table out. So that was the level that we're not moving an inch, I guess. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Young? If not, thank you, Jeremy. At this time, we'll hear from the applicant, if they are present. Hello, I'm Jared Hutchison. I'm with the design engineer, Carlson Consulting Engineers. and just to add a little bit to that we are reducing or increasing the amount of pervious areas so we're not replacing hardscape with just hardscape or replacing some of that hardscape with pervious surface so they're you know in return will be a reducing runoff to that site and you If you'd like us to explore areas of increasing vegetation, I can flip through here. There is an area where we could do that. Over here in this area, in addition to requesting for this waiver and through the design process, and working with staff, bike and pedestrian requested two direct sidewalk connections. So we are adding a sidewalk over there on that right side, and then we're also adding a sidewalk connection to the storefront with that on the left side near that parking area. But this area here, it's existing like stone mulch. We could replace all that area and increase that vegetated space. with just some sodded area there. There's already trees currently there, so we're going to just replace those. And just in my observation earlier this week, we noticed that there were a few dead trees that had been removed. So we'd replace that. We'd be adding more trees than are out there currently right now. But that is, I guess, an area that we could expand, you know, that vegetated area and we could update the plans accordingly if, you know, you indeed wanted us to improve the site. Yeah, that's all I have to say. I didn't know if there was any specific questions about the site or anything else, but that's my proposition. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Jared, if I may call you Jared, did you say you have stone mulch around trees? Yeah, that's just the existing conditions out there today. Are they on a slope? Is that why you have stone rather than mulch? Hardwood mulch? I'm not entirely sure. It's just, you know, we are the design team brought in. And we evaluated all the landscaped areas because that was a part of the tree protection plan, all the requirements with the process. Do you think it would be reasonable to ask this site to reach, make at least some stride, some effort to have to try and meet the 10% requirement for vegetated open space or the 10% requirement for usable open space? because these, I know this was grandfathered in, and these are new rules, but it is a very large parking lot with an awful lot of asphalt, and it is brutally hot there in the summer, and just very unappealing and anesthetic, in my opinion. Yeah, and I mean, we definitely could add, you know, that green space there, as I've stated. I mean, we're at 7%, I believe, right now, so that would get us a lot closer to that 10%. I don't believe it would get us to that 10%, but, again, we're just replacing with what was out there, you know, stone mulch with stone mulch in some of those areas. Could you see making a case to the people who have hired you to remove some of the parking to increase the vegetated open space since you are now having a measure that will allow people to spend less time in the parking park there? I mean, just due to the nature of the project, we are decreasing pretty significantly the amount of stalls we have out there. I believe we're, I don't know, I have to look at the plan, but I know we are losing a few dozen parking stalls out there. Okay. So there is that just in just the nature of the expansion being built over the parking in that area. We're losing stalls in that way. Okay. You mentioned you are adding pervious surface. Sorry. Sorry. I misspoke. Or yes, sorry. Adding pervious area. That's correct. Where would that be? Is it now paved and you're adding, you're taking the pavement out? Just due to this sidewalk over here, in order to meet grades, there were a few parking stalls in that area. We took out about seven to ten parking stalls there so that we could make that sidewalk as flat as possible in order to make it work. That's where we added a majority of the pervious area. We did add some more over here in these islands that we had to extend or modify to add the sidewalk there. So those two locations were adding pervious area there. I would feel far happier evaluating this if I had a plan that I could actually see and read and know where these things are. It is impossible to tell where anything is with a plan of this scale, in my opinion. Yeah, okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Yes, sir, Mr. McLaren. In your discussions before it came before us today, and maybe some of these were discussed in subdivision, I'm not sure, but did you discuss any of these iterations with the green the green space and tree planting with staff prior to today? Did we discuss what exactly? You've kind of mentioned a few small improvements that are options that you're sort of presenting. I'm just curious, were they discussed prior to this hearing? No, they were not. There were just locations and the designs that we could potentially accommodate. That's all. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. All right, is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this waiver request? Seeing none, do we have any final commission comments, questions? I've got one. Would it be possible to get a comment from the green space planner? Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eve Miller, open space planner, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the regulations or this plan in particular? Well, I'm just curious because we have an existing, like, built-up site. And unless I'm not, unless I'm mistaken, this is the first one we've had where we're asked to grant a waiver where at least on what the application was indicating and in the staff presentation, no improvement was made towards meeting any other requirements. I guess part of my question is, have we done that before? And does that change how your evaluation was made in this and how you all came to that recommendation, I guess? That is correct. But since I've been doing this review for about two years, this is the first plan that has not made an effort to meet the minimum requirements. However, I will let the applicant speak to that hardship and details to that. But yes, I'm not sure before that two-year time period if any came in not making an effort. And this may be a question that's maybe to the broader staff. maybe you can answer it. I'm not sure. We had a few options presented to make small improvements. I'm not sure if those were discussed prior to this hearing or not. The proposal the applicant mentioned I had not heard of before this meeting. I'm curious, do we have time if we were to make a postponement motion today? Is there still time on that or with the waiver process, is that permitted since it's hard to evaluate, I think as Commissioner Davis was saying, when it's not drawn on the plan? What date was this waiver request formally filed? July 31st? Okay. So by ordinance, the Planning Commission has 90 days to approve or disapprove a waiver from the date it's formally filed. So if it was filed July 31st, then we have some time. Okay, thank you. I guess people may have questions. I guess I'll just go ahead and say, you know, my thoughts are that it would be beneficial if we postponed until he has time to get those improvements on the plan. Okay. Well, if there are no other comments or questions, the floor is open for a motion. If you'd like to make one, Mr. Mickler. i would like to move to postpone pln wav 26-2022 south farm marketplace to the september 10th meeting i believe it actually would be a continuance because you've already opened oh thank you i would like to do a continuance to the september 10th meeting okay thank you mr mickler we have a second from commissioner davis is there any commissioner comment to that motion if not just for logistical purposes applicant is september 10th a time frame you can work within to come back okay all right okay if there's no other comment on that we can go ahead and put that motion to a vote Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda today is a public facilities review. PFR 2026-2, Kentucky American Water. We're getting set up for that. This is a request to staff. we were here working on our own memories about these kind of situations and we've sort of established a precedent here so i'm requesting is there some way for us to capture this decision and the basis on which we made this decision so we don't have to repeat the rationale between how do you understand what i'm asking i don't know how to do that but that's my request. I'm not sure what we're asking, but what are you asking for? To do what? Jeremy's nodding, but he reports to me, so I don't know what you're asking him to do. We went through. About the open space? Yes. and the change that we made asking somebody, essentially your grandfather's employee, to do something where it's a little different than we did from previous days. And so this looks to me like we set a precedent here, and I just want to make sure that we capture that for our own memory when we come up with a case like this and then some of your members said we did this. Well, waivers are done on a case-by-case basis, so it can be difficult for there to be a precedent. But are you saying you don't want to approve open space? Waivers? I think the way I understand it is that you would like to have some more context as far as when we present this to say, okay, these are some similar situations. They may not be exactly like what we're seeing, but this is how we've handled similar cases in the past. We looked at permeable space and permeable space. There was a factor that we looked in comparing those two cases, and that's pretty easy to look at. Yeah, I'm concerned, and we can talk with the law department, the planning commission needs to consider each case on its own merits, and if you internally want to compare it to another case, that's okay, but I don't think we should spend our time at the dais comparing to other approvals that you've made. That can be problematic. Okay, I'm going to ask our lawyer here. Because they aren't all the same. Until recently, our Supreme Court relied on precedent. Well, we rely on precedent all the time for things, not necessarily variances in waivers. That can be... Okay. What... Ms. Worth was directing a question. I'm not sure I got all the question. I heard the initial discussion so let me say this. I think what Ms. Wade is getting at and I would agree with this is that each one of these waivers and frankly all the decisions that you as a commission make are going to be heavily fact specific and just because you for example approved a waiver for a gas station does not mean in any way that you would be approving a waiver for open space on a different property and And including all those references suggests a certain consistency to be expected. But, again, there needs to be discretion in each case. And so if that was something that the Planning Commission, each member, had questions about when you got these packets, you could always ask the staff what we've previously done. But including it in a staff report as something to consider each time suggests that it's like a non-discretionary decision, and it's always discretionary on the part of this commission. I'm not suggesting it be included in the staff report. I'm just suggesting that somewhere we have a history. And I'm thinking about the people out here who watch us and who hear that in one case we did X based on this criteria. In another case, we've made a different decision talking about the same criterion. Do you all see what I'm talking about? It's a perception issue. And how do we do what you're suggesting but also make sure there's a consistency to what we do as well? And I don't have an answer to that. I'm just suggesting I'd like not to have to go through over and over again the same question that we've already covered in a different case. And you're telling me we can't. Well, I guess from my perspective, the consistency comes in the process and the ability to apply for an application, for them to submit their justification, and for the commission to consider all of those things during a public hearing. That's where I feel, again, the consistency is available to the applicant and to you all. But the details of each case are so specific, I don't necessarily want to send the message that each case isn't going to be considered fairly by the commission. Does that make sense? I think we're on two sides of the same coin in trying to figure out how to solve a problem that's a problem for me, probably not for you. and we can certainly have a longer conversation offline too maybe what i'm saying to staff is would as you all look at cases would you keep this in mind as you look at cases and when you present to us think about these issues when you bring them to us Mr. Penn. So, Tracy, let me phrase it this way. On a waiver, the applicant doesn't ask you. He or she asks you for the waiver. Ask the staff for the waiver. And he gives a reason why he's asking the staff for the waiver. Okay. And then you all consider that reason and bring it to us. Yes. And yet when it comes to us, we don't have reasons why you wanted to grant it. And if we'd have filed a staff recommendation, we would have granted and we wouldn't have postponed this hearing. Right. So you are following the process and you're giving due consideration to the request. And that is exactly what we expect for the commission to do. We don't expect you to always follow our recommendation. So I think from my perspective, the process is meeting the expectations for the staff, hopefully for you, and then hopefully for the public. Okay. I just wanted to understand that you all did hear that he asked for the waiver, and he didn't give you the reasons. He did provide reasons. Well, we didn't hear reasons from the applicants. It's on the back. Well, okay. I don't want to muddy this anymore than it is. Okay. If we have nothing else on that, we'll move on. Mr. Trunk, do you have anything? Mr. Chair, I was just going to offer, and not necessarily imminent, because we do have you all pretty well booked up for the next three work sessions, but perhaps this could be a session that we talk about in work session where we have an exchange. Staff can prepare some information. We can certainly provide the regulations that back this and talk to you all about what you're looking for in waivers as well. Okay. Just one final comment. If Mr. Mickler had not brought up the question of that previous case, we would not have had this conversation and gone down this road. And it was dependent on his remembering and bringing that up. And that's what I'm trying to. I don't know if that makes sense to anybody else. I think I can understand what's going on here in a sense because what their issue is is that one case does not set a precedent for the other. The fact that he brought it up was nice to know, but was not and should not have colored what we were doing here on this particular case. So you're operating on a case-by-case basis, and there is no such thing as precedent in that case. But I understand the other side of it, too. If we wouldn't have made this promotion here to have postponed it, and I guess the question is whether we should have, because that was information that none of us had. Mr. Chair, you all have already decided to continue this, and perhaps we should stop talking about this case unless we're wanting to open it back up again. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Ms. Wade? Our next item is a public facility review for Kentucky American Water. They have requested to construct a new building on their property on Richmond Road. That property is located at 2300 Richmond Road on the west side of Richmond Road inside of New Circle. And they are requesting to construct a 4,800 square foot maintenance building. For reference, this is the site outlined in kind of a light teal blue adjacent to, I believe this is Reservoir 1. as well as Henry Clay High School, and then has frontage along Richmond Road with Fire Station 9 out front. The property is in an agricultural urban zone, whereas the adjoining properties in this neighborhood, with the exception of the Fire Station, are all in either residential or business zones. and the applicant is asking or the public utility is asking to add their maintenance building to the rear of the property, actually to the south central location within their site, and their proposal is not going to be generally visible from Richmond Road. It may be visible from some of the adjoining properties to the south, but not from this public right-of-way. As you may be familiar with the site, there is an entrance from Richmond Road that allows access to their office building, but then the rest of their site is a gated facility, and that road that they use internally is called Water Company Drive. So Water Company Drive does come in circle through the property, and again, they are asking or letting the commission know that they propose a facility addition in the southern portion of the property. There is a site plan that you were provided, I believe, as well, and it does generally just show the site right adjacent to where the proposal is being made, so it doesn't provide the whole site, but you can see in the aerial photograph that the water, I don't even know really what term it is, but they're cleaning the water before it gets put into the system out of the reservoir. Those facilities are just adjacent to where the maintenance building is proposed. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the staff found that there were three really items that related to this request. Sorry, I'm pinch hitting for Daniel today, so there's the office building. And then a view from Richmond Road towards the back of the property. Again, because it's treed, it would be difficult to see. Oh, well, I apologize. The staff report reflects the goals and objectives and or policies that the staff considered. The first one was theme A, goal 2B, respect the context and design features of areas surrounding development and develop standards or guidelines to ensure compatibility with existing form. This proposal is not generally visible from the public right-of-way and is going to be incorporated into the site completely. And then equity policy 7, community facilities should be well integrated into the respective neighborhoods as well as stewardship policy number 8. ensure future development is economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable. And the staff found that this proposal is consistent with the goal, objective, and then the policies of the comprehensive plan. The facility is an expansion of an existing utility campus and allows the facility to be more effectively operated and does not require additional land. And so the staff found that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Happy to answer questions. All righty. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Wade, was Kentucky American required to have any kind of public input meeting for this? They do state on there's no known opposition. Yeah. I'm not aware that they held any kind of public meeting, and it wouldn't be required by local planning, and I'm not sure what the PSC requires. Okay. And will there be any, I guess we can't really know, but will there be any taxpayer rate increases by their building a maintenance facility? We can't know that either, I guess. I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, and then how about stormwater? Is it going to impact stormwater? I guess the point is it's kind of ironic that this company has refused to meet with citizens on other things, yet needs our help and support for making something happen in the community. Pretty ironic. Mr. Penn? And then Mr. Forrester. Well, it's facility's review, and how they pay for it is really not our concern. I don't know any other way to put it, and the reason for that is they answer the Public Service Commission. They don't answer to us. Okay. All righty. Okay. And then there's a representative from Banks Engineering. If you do have any questions about the stormwater, I'm sure he could maybe answer how they plan for that. Do you have any ideas, Greg? Okay. Do we have any other questions for Ms. Wade before she wraps up? If not, do we have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this today? Okay. Seeing none, do we have any commissioner comment or the floor is open for a motion on this public facilities review? Oh, we just have to recommend that it's in... Find it in... Incomprehensive? Correct. Correct. Okay. Was that a motion from Ms. Worth? All right. Let's see. We're looking at... I move that we find that PFR 2026 to Kentucky American Water Maintenance Building is in compliance with a comprehensive plan. Thank you, Commissioner. Second for Mr. Forrester. Is there any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and put that motion to a vote. Okay. Okay, that carries with one in the negative. I believe that takes us to the conclusion of our agenda. Are there any additional commissioner items? If not, we'll hear from Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll convene again one week from today, August 20th at 1.30 in the Phoenix Building for the Planning Commission work session. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And if we don't have anything else without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.