Okay. Uh I think we can go ahead and get this uh work session started. Staff wants to uh take it away. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Daniel McKenna Foster from the planning department. Um I'll just be giving a quick overview kind of big picture of these two cases you're hearing tonight. I'm sorry I didn't put the case numbers on there. Um but this is just a work session. So, you know, the decisions being made here tonight. Um, so I'll provide a a brief overview and then I'll I'll um Sean is also here. We'll be talking about the subdivision case. There'll be some time to anybody to talk to the applicant or any questions for us. So, without with without further ado, let's get started. Um, so this case is about both the cup and the subdivision. And you know what? I better read in um what the case numbers are. I believe it's 2026 um 2026 005 and the subdivision case S12867. So this case um or both these cases are about the conditional use permit and the subdivision and staff recommend approval of both. Um so first to start off the Crow Creek area master plan was adopted by the assembly um back in 2006. It's the master plan if needed. That's AO2647. Um, and there's no expiration date in that AO. So, that master plan is still in force. Um, another thing is this has been a pretty long project for years. A lot of different steps in this. Um, there are some things the assembly has done when it comes to disposal of land. Um, and some of that is in a lot of that is included in AO 2023137. So, that's the disposal and development agreement. And that whole AO that is in the assembly's purview and in force for as long as that is valid. So, we're at a lower level than the assembly and the planning and zoning commission. Um, and the assembly is the legislative body. They sort of adopt the rule. So, what they decide is sort of the final um decision. So, we can't really get into any of the specifics of that or something decided here tonight. Can't really abregate what's in uh AO 2023. Fortunately, we have um some real lawyers here tonight. I'm not a lawyer, so we can ask more questions about that later. Um and so as I mentioned because the development agreement is part of AO 20223137 PCC can't really get into it uh without stepping on the toes of a higher level body. >> Daniel just to put a little bit of a finer point on that before we move on. Is it fair to say that the leasing provisions that are in our packet are entirely within the purview of the assembly and not this commission? And so, um, no amendments or really discussion about those would be appropriate today. >> I'll kick that to the our legal team if we could or HLB. >> This is Quincy Arms through the chair. Um, that's correct. There you shouldn't be discussing them tonight, but you will have an opportunity later. Every time when when the actual HOA terms are passed, they're they're coming back to the commission. And that will be a future case before the commission or it'll be anformational item in the packet or could you explain a little bit about more about how we'll see those? >> Yeah, maybe I'll speak to that first and then I'll uh defer to my colleagues. So the the code says that the commission shall review um the HOA bylaws and articles of incorporation. Um understanding that this is you know it's a subdivision. It's more about putting the parcels together and not necessarily doing the building yet. It's it's a little too complicated, I think, to bring those forward now when those pieces haven't really been decided yet. So, we put in one of our conditions and we'll you'll see that in the staff report that they have to be presented. Um the code isn't really clear about whether they come presented as a case. It just says the PCC shall review them. Um so, our thinking was that we just make sure that they come to you maybe as anformational item. Um but I don't know if there's any other discussion on that. >> Nope, nothing to add. I I do think that I want to just um wrap this up with a strong understanding of exactly which parts of the leasing provisions and HOA um documents are actually able to be discussed or amended by this body um if any. >> Yeah, I think we will get into that especially when we look at the specifics of a PUD. Unfortunately, just the way the PUD has written it again, it says um the commission the mandatory home owners association are similar shall submit for review by commission by the commission the articles of incorporation bylaws of such association prior to the sale of any property subject to the association. I think in a in a maybe a a different type of case where this was a single private party, no, you know, interaction with the assembly or the municipality, it would be a lot simpler to do that. What's complicated here is that the assembly has sort of already made the decision about that development agreement. So that's why it becomes a little bit more complicated than normal. I think if this was just some um private company just working on private land that hadn't been in MOA ownership, it would be a little bit simpler to look at those and and sort of weigh in on that. But because of this extra piece where the assembly was sort of a party to the development agreement and made a binding decision about that and passed it through legislation, it becomes a bit um more complicated. But maybe we can when we get back to the PUB discussion and the CUP discussion, maybe we could touch on that again. >> Thank you. >> Um so just moving on project history. This project goes back um 20 years 2026 now. Um started with the assembly adopting the Crow Creek plan via AO 200647 as an element of the comprehensive plan back in 2006. Um Heritage Land Bank did do a subdivision plat for 40 lots in 2009. There was a water transmission uh line done in 2010. The HLB issued an RFP for land disposal in 2021. Then there was more stream um wetland mapping 2021. In 2024 January, the assembly adopted AO23137 approving the disposal of Heritage Land Bank. That's where the development agreement is. Um and that ordinance includes other additional conditions. Um in May 2024, the Holton Hill subdivision track plot was recorded. And in March 2025, the assembly adopted AO 20224114S, updating the Gerwood comprehensive plan. So that provided some um pretty fresh guidance um to sort of the big picture needs and desires and and future of the community in Gerwood. So looking at that big picture um you know in planning we're we we live and die by the plans basically. And so looking at the plans, this area has always been designated for housing. So on the left here you see that's the 1995 plan and the light yellow designation was an area for single family residential. So there was always an idea that you know for those who aren't too familiar with the way these land use plan maps this is sort of the future planned land use thinking 10 20 years from now this is probably more or less what it's going to look like. So this map on the left was was adopted in 1995. So in 1995 people were thinking yes this area which is outlined with the uh the dots and says Holton Hills area there this area will be housing eventually. Um and then in the 2025 plan which was adopted just earlier la at the beginning of last year um you can see that it's still identified for housing but now it's no longer the single family which in the new plan became uh low inensity residential u but now it's moderate intensity residential. So the plan which is sort of the the the set of of agreements for the community has said you know there's always going to be housing but also in the future we expect it to be even more different types of housing. Um now this the new plan it moves a little bit away from the precision of of past planning documents used to talk about dwellings per acre and this sort of thing. Uh the community was really u pretty focused on this and they said we you know we we don't want that specificity but we're we're we want this area to be about moderate intensity as opposed to multif family allows for a more broad types of housing developments along with some mixeduse opportunities. So this is really fresh plan guidance. This is, you know, was just adopted last year, years. I think the Gerwood plan took maybe 5 years to do. So, this is really good, strong support for just saying this is going to be housing and there's going to be a variety of types of housing there. Um, and then the part in blue is a little bit more uh detailed and even some stuff about uh mixed use, although this development um is only residential. So, one thing that's um also worthwhile including from the Gerwood comprehensive plan is a lot of their housing analysis. So, at the time when it was adopted, they found that Gerwood needed about 303 total housing units. That includes both new and rehab. And they also broke it down looking at um sort of income category. So, this is uh I believe 39 units or 39 lots. And some of those lots might have one or two, you know, more units on them, but just this sort of bridge shows that there's a need for all types of housing in all sorts of income spectrums all across Kurdwood. Um and so no matter where those units went, if they went on the left of this bridge or the right of this bridge, it's still meeting the need of Gerwood. So Gerwood does need a lot of housing and this is um you know some of the more accurate data we have um anywhere in the municipality. So it's pretty clear that Gerwood needs housing and and this sort of aligns with that. So now to speak quickly to uh the cases S12867 and PCC case 2026005. it it's a little bit confusing because what what you're seeing here is a plan unit development but it's going through a conditional use process um which that's what the code says it says to do a planned unit development you have to go through a cup process cup is usually for a type of use in a zone that goes through a little bit extra scrutiny through the planning and zoning commission and they they look at that and say well maybe it you know be should be cited here or there should be some extra um sort of stipulations on that use so it's a little bit irregular or strange that the PUB is going through the CP process, but that's what code um says. And so that's why we're going through this process. And so all of this is generally for, you know, a development with a special site, special conditions or special characteristics. It allows that sort of fine-tuning uh the specifics of the site here. And I won't go too much into the subdivision. Sean's the expert on that. But here's just a quick overview. Again, this is uh 39 lots. Really not that many in the scheme of things. Not a huge development. um great to have that much housing, but as as we saw, there's a much bigger need for even a lot more housing than that. So, in the end of the day, just a modest development, but been planned for, you know, 20 years at this point. Um, and really just lining up with here's what the plan said. The plan always expected that that there was going to be some type of housing here. Um, and over time, they went from saying this is going to be lower intensity to now moderate intensity. So from from our perspective, from a planning perspective, and just is the plan being implemented, it seems that yes, this is uh definitely in line with the plan. So looking really quickly, um you know, Gerwood has chapter 219, which is a its own chapter, um has specifics about master plans and master planning criteria, and just comparing those with conditional use criteria. So as we mentioned, the COR creek plan is still in effect. So the master plan is there, but the conditional use process actually involves even more a higher level of scrutiny of that. um provides that. So um and and a piece of this, you know, in the PUD, it's it says notwithstanding subsection, the planning zoning commission may exempt PD from any special limitations of the zoning district, but again, Cro Creek is still an adopted master plan still applies in this area. So looking at those two, um you can see on the left, that's the criteria for Gerwood master planning. There are six items and the criteria for conditional use are there are nine items. And so we just did a quick comparison thinking about well does a conditional use process really hit a lot of the you know all the same things a master plan and looking at it it does and and it does even more. So in in this process we look at um even more things that a master plan would look at. Um and now thinking again this sort of complicated process where it's a PUD but done through conditional use. Let's just look at what we planning department look at what the approval looks like. Can we make an approval recommendation? Um quick version. And these are sort of the cliffnotes um of what a PUB approval looks like. One, is it at least 1 acre? Yes. Does a project have at least 15% open space or access to public open space? Yes. Um and the code says that can be you know balconies and apartments. It can be yards. Um and so this this development has I think it's tract A which sets aside a lot of space. Also access to existing public open space. And then there are also going to be yards um on the properties. Um is there any non-residential? If so, is it compatible to residential? Not applicable. There's no residential on this on this project. Does it comply with 21107060, transportation connectivity? Yes. Will all new utilities be underground? Yes. Um will there be an HOA and will PCCA be able to review it? This kind of goes back to Commissioner Krishna's comment um and question about well, you know, the code does say that um the commission should shall review the bylaws and um articles of incorporation. And and again, this this is a bit tricky because if this was a a a sort of a regular POD, let's say, where it was just a private property owner, um PCC might have a little more flexibility in what they looked like um looked at. Um in general, you know, HOA agreements are are contracts between two private parties and getting too into that gets a little bit complicated when the municipality is doing that. And I'll let the the legal team jump in if I'm if I'm getting too far a field here. Um but a lot of stuff like that. Another thing that a question that came up was about um ownership and occupancy and you know the MUN used to have uh ADU home owner or owner occupancy requirements. Those were problematic even when we had them because it it's really difficult to enforce. It's not totally certain what happens if a bank takes ownership of a property but there's an owner occupancy requirement. And when the municipality had when the planning department had that that was for accessory dwelling in its ADUs and we had this special affidavit system where people had to come in and sign and swear that they were living there and and that did go away and part of that was in because it's it's a bit problematic. Um I don't know if legal wants to jump in and speak to Commissioner Krishna's questions at all if there anything I missed or >> and I can just clarify a little bit. What I'm really looking for is guidance about what is appropriate to discuss today. If there's going to be a future case and opportunity for review and discussion of that HOA, then that might be a important guidance to the commission that today is not the moment to dig into that. Um but because I see um discussion in the public testimony and comments in our packet, I I wanted to ask what level of either um what level of review is appropriate within the purview of this commission and whether today is the appropriate um time to do that just in terms of process guidance. Thank you. >> Yes. And I apologize for not being more clear earlier. This is Quincy arms through the chair. Um, so we just we had to dig up the actual condition of the PUB which is very clear that this will the formation documents of the homeowners association will come back to the commission and there will be an opportunity for the commission to require additional provisions then as long as they conform with code. So, I would uh advise you that today is not the time to talk about that. Um, and yeah, but if you if you have questions that pertain to the plat, we're here for that. >> Thank you. That's helpful. >> I'll just Sorry. >> Yep. >> Just a quick followup. I think related question. And I think that probably answers my question as well, but one of the things I wasn't sure of was to some degree exactly what we would be approving with this case that's in front of us and exactly what's kind of built into the P the PUD itself. And so specifically, I guess my question is to the extent that the application and the narrative does have language saying that they will have they will regulate short-term rentals of the lots and then they list those sample leasing provisions and some of those requirements. And so I I guess whatever we approve today is the thought that whatever those provisions are that will be included in what comes back later um that we'll have a chance to review and comment on. And that I guess just as a follow on to Commissioner Krishna's question that we're not necessarily um accepting the short-term rental requirements as laid out in this application even though that's kind of included within the approval for today >> through this. >> I see quizzical I see quizzical faces. on that. >> Yeah, I just I was questioning whether it was a good question for legal or probably for planning. Um but I'm I'm happy to chime in after me. Lisa through the chair to Commissioner Gardner. That is correct. Um you will have a chance to revisit those later. uh any decision on the PUD today in regard to that aspect of this is something that will hold when for when you're um going to review the HOA bylaws and everything later. >> Thanks. And I'd follow up and just say the you know with any planning zoning commission case it's just whether it meets the criteria uh this and in this case it is a bit odd but our our understanding is that those will come forward in the future and there that we will be able to or that you know that will be able to be met. Um so with that maybe I'll continue and please jump in if there are any other questions. Um so I think we are at number seven or eight. No. So number seven in the in the PUD u criteria or rules was a development reviewed for changes in density lot size dimensions and meet density restrictions in the table that it says it you know in this zone you can have a PUD that reaches this density uh DUA. Um for the Girdwood code, it just says whatever can be um supported by water and sewer infrastructure. And then number eight is the PUD in the attorney and Arman in district. So no, not applicable. Um again, these all these more detailed um responses to those same criteria are in the staff report. Here's slightly more um boring or less um summarized. Um I'll go next to 2110380, which is the criteria for the conditional use permit, the nine criteria. So, is it consistent with the Gerwood comprehensive plan? Um, yes. Looking at that, the Gerwood comprehensive plan calls for, you know, more housing, housing that's sensitive to its environment. Um, the land use plan map has been calling for future development here for 20 years, both in the new version and the old version. Is it consistent with the zoning district? Yes. Um, GR3 is um a residential district. Um, is it consistent with any use specific standards? This also yes. um both it meets the any requirement for a master planning process, but also um through the PUD process, you can um there's a way of of addressing those needs as well. Is the site adequate? Yes. Um you know, a lot of that gets handled in a subdivision case where you have tons of staff pouring over it, talking about drainage, weighing in and saying, "Well, we'd like to see this here. Where does it make sense put the road or the path?" That sort of thing. Um number five, will the project alter the the character of the surrounding area, prevent others from using their property? No. Um, will the project be compatible with surrounding properties uses? Yes. Will any impacts be mitigated? Yes. Is the project in the right place in terms of transportation? Yes. Um, there is a lot of talk about extending the road in this area. Um, you know, Gerwood has there's been a lot of discussion because it is a valley and the needs for secondary access and connecting connecting some of the network that happens through development over time. Um, and then finally, will the project have access to fire, water, um, police services, etc. Uh and yes and these also more specific responses can be found in the staff report or on here and these slides will be posted um at the end. So ultimately staff has proposed three conditions of approval. Um one that this whatever is approved is subject to all standards for residential plan development and um it it aligns with whatever the application says. That's the way it ends up. Um the second is the one we said the applicant shall submit for review by the planning commission the articles of incorporation bylaws of any such association prior to the sale of any property subject to the association. This may occur at a later date to the planning department to forward on to the planning and zoning commission may submit it electronically for review. So planning and zoning commission has to see it. They'll see it later. But um we and we did talk to the applicant this afternoon. The applicant has some some general sort of basic bylaws but I think the specifics of that haven't been hammered out. So it'd be premature to share them without having those be completed or really ready with what what's likely to happen on the ground. Um and then number three is onus notice of zoning action and final approved site plan shall be filed with state recorders office. Proof of such shall be submitted to the planning department. Um so with that I'll ask if there any questions on the CIP CUP, excuse me. Other than that we'll go to Sean if there are any questions about the subdivision case or any specifics there. I guess while we're here, I had a a pretty specific question. This is on page 27 of the or the packet um which is part of the narrative and for the multif family lot design criteria. That first bullet there, it just jumped out at me and I don't I don't I wasn't sure exactly what it looks like, but it says that uh the request is that lots approved for multiple family development to include the following types, townhouse and multif family apartment as well as single family style. And I wasn't I guess my question was what is what does single family style look like for multi- uh family lots >> through the chair to Commissioner Gardner. Um a single family style multifamily development. Um it's a little bit of a mouthful but um it is basically a sort of what you might call a cottage development all um on a single lot but um styled as little um single family homes or cottages. um in you know individual um structures rather than than connected to each other. >> Perfect. Thank you. With that I I think um let's see we have about 25 minutes left in the work session. So any questions you could ask questions to the applicant through us. um the planning department will keep sort of facilitating the work session, but this is a time to ask any questions or bring any other information to light or any other information to bring up about either the CUP or um the subdivision case. We could also potentially talk about any of the other cases if anybody's interested. I I have a comment question I'm hesitant to ask, but I think it's going to come up no matter what we do. Um, if everybody shows up and we get the comments about the process to acquire the land, the acquisition, the land you study, I know we're not supposed to really talk about that, that doesn't apply to this process, but what is somebody going to tell them when they all ask that question? It's a great question and you know, it's a it it's a valid concern, of course. I I think it's just where we are in the process. All we can look at is conditional use and conditional use criteria and PUD and PUD criteria and subdivision and subdivision approval criteria. So that all that happened before I mean even if you did even if the commission did say you know X we z X Y and Z that was adopted by the assembly and the assembly is is the higher body. So they would say well we adopted this and the AO is still in four. So it would be kind of an odd situation. So I I think the and and the other thing too is and this is a real planner answer is that well we deal in title title 21 some of the stuff in other titles there's not much we could hear talk about anyway. So, we're sort of our our purview is limited to what the code allows us to. It doesn't mean those issues aren't important or people aren't interested in more information on it, but just here we have to have constraints on on what we talk about so that we're making sure to address the issue based on, you know, the criteria and and the information we have rather than dealing with other stuff that, you know, happened years ago before maybe any of us were involved in any of this. Um, and so, uh, with that, I don't know if legal or anybody else wants to weigh in on anything else on that. I think what you meant was we're the planning and zoning commission. We're hearing these two cases. Talk to the assembly. >> Scott, did you want to uh go ahead and go into the some of the subdivision stuff? So, yeah. So, I thanks Daniel. A lot of that is is, you know, the conditional use is the majority of this. Uh because the code allows concurrent processing. That's why you're seeing the plat tonight with the uh conditional use much like uh just a few meetings ago, you saw with a reszone, the plat for uh the railroad. Uh so basically yeah it's as Daniel mentioned it's 39 lots two tracks one of those is going to be the private street and one of those is going to be the open space um the the major or all the variances are related to the private street which has to uh kind of it's the lot frontage and then all all streets uh dedicated to the public and then the culde-sac length um and that's all kind of related due to the topography of the area and the layout um as as you can see in the staff packet that we'll get into um it's it's supported uh due to all the um issues with that. Uh you might have a question about the uh there was some comments about uh the length of the culde-sac being 450 ft is kind of so as Daniel mentioned the the planned unit development conditional use um that's that falls under of some of the chapter 9 standards for development design standards. the 450 feet is a development design standard and with the PUD they're allowed to kind of uh set minimum lot sizes and things like that. So they're able to um adjust that development design standard to the 450 ft. However, because uh there's this is a subdivision plat and plan and zoning is acting as the platting board, chapter 8 of the subdivision standard still has to be met which says culde-sac length is 600 ft. And so that's why the variance to 600 ft is happening. Does that kind of make sense? Go ahead, Scott. >> When I read through this packet, I read that we were saying it's 600 ft. >> Correct. A comment was made that it's 450 ft per the Girdwood standards, not you know the Anchorage standards. Pretty much that was the way I thought to interpret that. I thought we were waving the 450 to 670. That doesn't really change much in my mind, but that's the way I was reading this. >> Correct. The 450 is under the development and design standards of Girdwood's chapter 9 which which are being open to be uh they can kind of set things due to this planned unit development but they're still held at the chapter 8 which is the 600 ft. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um I thought I remembered reading somewhere in the packet but I couldn't find it and just wanted to confirm that there was a plan to build an alternate I guess exit uh to Kro Creek. Is that did I am I recalling that correctly? for fire safety or some other purpose. >> I believe as Daniel had mentioned future expansion of the tracks eventually and we see this with all plats as they're kind of phased out and as they advance up up either the valley or um eventually there may there may be a connection part of the later one. Okay, thanks. And I may have missed it, but is the Girdwood Chapter 9 requirement for 20 foot maximum width driveways going to be applicable to this? >> That's a traffic question there. Uh, Mr. Spinelli, hang on a sec. >> Well, I guess it would actually I mean it would if they were going to exempt themselves from it, it would be somewhere in their narrative of their conditional use, I would imagine. >> And I you correct? And I think with slopes and they're going to have to meet the minimum driveway standards. So I believe the 20 foot would still apply. >> Yeah, it's the the maximum that's the really the the the crux of that issue. 20 foot width is uh pretty skinny in Gerwood considering snow storage. I haven't seen anything. We that may be a question for um the development team. on their proposed driveway widths and then um I guess uh Mr. Mr. Uh, Cher Spinelli, the a lot of the platin notes, you're kind of well verssed in platotes, those are sort of uh those are sort of set in stone. Anything that's placed on there and uh the municipality through the municipal surveyor always asks how is this uh plat relative to the boundary of the subdivision meaning the survey instrument that the plaid is that that's draws the line in the sand and creates the fe simple lots. Um we have seen on platting board we've seen multiple I believe the past uh almost a year pretty much every case has some sort of platin note removal uh every once associated with it and those have been previous in the past in the ' 50s and 60s and 70s before zoning. Uh sometimes plat notes you'll see were placed on plats that had to do with zoning such as u duplexes or triplexes or a multitude of things. And we've moved away with that because the zoning handles the what's what's what's placed on the property and the plat is just subject to basically just the boundary of the subdivision. Um, and that that's that's why we we don't place those on there is now we're we're having to come back and remove some of these plates and it's a rather lengthy process for the applicant. There's there's Midtown there. There's a couple triplexes being built that they had to go back and remove uh some of the special platinos that were placed on it. And now the framers are out there at 15 below uh where they could have been working in the fall. >> All right. Is there any other questions? I just got a confirmation. So page 9 um D3 regarding the horizontal curve radius of 150 ft. We are not varying that right. We're we're putting the comment on them that they have to redesign to 150 ft curve >> through the J Mr. Pulse. Yeah, that's correct. And if if they don't then they have to apply to the municipal engineer, right? which which is not a uh that wouldn't be a it would be a varance to the municipal engineer, not the planning board or in this case. >> Yeah, I read that part. I do remember that part. >> You got it. >> Um, one more quick soapbox thing. I said I think I've said this twice before in some meetings. I'm going say it one more time. Um, we always say the traffic department and everybody does this and everybody does that. I would like to see a letter from them like other departments once in a while, you know, just cuz here we're claiming 600 trips and all that stuff. And to my knowledge, 100 trips is where you start talking about traffic analysis and I see that traffic said it's fine, but I don't know where that came from other than somebody wrote that in this packet. So, I'm going to leave it alone. I'm not pushing anything. I'm just saying it again. I've kicked my soap box. I'm done. >> They did. I'll take a look. Take a look here. It may be in the POD. We can take a look >> through the chair to Commissioner Polus. Um I believe that traffic did provide um agency comment um via a letter, an official letter with that content. So, we're just looking through the packet to to find it. In the meantime, if there are any other questions, maybe we can revisit that. Um very maybe a question where I've gotten lost in my packet, but I see on for case 2026-00005 that on page 4, it says that three resolutions from the Gerwood Board of Supervisors was were received. And I'm only seeing two on page 85 and 87. Um, could you point me towards the third one? Yeah, I'll see if I can find it. One, it's a I think it's a couple pages below. It's about the dark skies, I believe. >> Never mind. It's at page 105. Thank you, Commissioner Gardner. >> You guys just triggered my memory on one more thought I had. Um, we talk about ped lighting and dark skies and stuff, but there was a DOT recommendation to provide ped lighting. And that's probably a question for the design team if they have some type of ped lighting involved or not, cuz if you go dark skies and there's no ped lighting, you know, I I get it. It's a valid comment. That's all I got. I I promise I'm done. >> Yeah. So, Commissioner Pulis, you're uh we there's no I don't know if we have additional information to maybe you could repeat your question because you were asking about the traffic impact analysis. Is that correct? >> Yeah, you know, I'm trying to figure out where the Now that you're going to make me point it out. Um, it talks about 600 trips and we don't need to do a traffic study basically. And to my knowledge, the threshold is 100 and I just see a paragraph that says traffic said it was fine. And so I'm not debating that. I know enough about the area and what's going on and you know the the size of 600 trips. It's not a huge thing for what's going on there. But, you know, all I'm saying is if we're going to say stuff like that, I'd like to see that come from traffic and not just slipped into the the body of our reports just like we do with all the other departments. >> Got it. Understood. >> That's all I'm saying. >> Okay. And then we'll see if we'll keep flipping through to see if we have anything additional to respond to to that question. Uh, I just wanted to point out there's it's 6:15, so we have about 15 minutes before the the regular meeting starts if there's any other questions or comments for the work session. >> Top of page four, MOA traffic engineering determine the trip gen from this development approximately 600 trips per day would not trigger the need for TIA. It would not be a requirement. Blah blah blah blah blah. You know, it would be nice if that came from traffic is all I'm saying. I'm done. >> Are you suggesting that code does require it and that traffic just waved it willy-nilly? >> I'm saying the threshold that I'm aware of is 100 trips. Once you cause 100 trips um or it's peak hour, that's where, you know, that's where it all falls apart is if you don't have that information, how do you evaluate that? >> Maybe the petitioner's engineer might want to speak to it. >> I don't know if they have a TIA already or what that's all about. I see some nodding. So, >> Brandon Marott with Trig Engineering. Um, for the record, M A R C O TT and yes, Scott, you're right. It's 100 trips in the peak hour. So, it is different from the 600 trips per day, but yes, I would agree. I was looking for that traffic letter as well. Um, I couldn't find it either, but I do recall seeing some discussion with the traffic engineer about that. >> Thank you. And that's all I'm saying is it just be nice to see traffic readiness some of that stuff, too. Agreed. Thank you. >> Okay. Final questions for staff or the petitioner before we take an adjournment before the meeting. Anything else from staff? Okay, we'll resume at 6:30.