All right. This is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated Wednesday, December 17th, 2025, 6 p.m. First item, pledge of allegiance. Uh, Mr. Foster, please lead us off. >> United States of America. stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. >> A2 roll call. Madame clerk. >> Commissioner Jockman >> here. >> Commissioner Williams >> here. >> Commissioner Bera is absent. Commissioner Delvi >> present. >> Commissioner Gfianini >> here. >> Commissioner Roire is absent. Commissioner Belto >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Item A3, public comments. Madame clerk, >> it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Uh, we did receive correspondence for this item that was logged into the public record and forwarded to the commission. Um, with that, I don't have any requests to speak cards in chambers and we do not have any attendees on Zoom. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. and you will have additional opportunities to speak under each agenda item tonight. We'll move on to item A4, approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting. Can I get a motion to approve? >> Commissioner Williams, motion to approve. >> And a second. >> Commissioner Delvr second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Item A5. So motion carries unanimously. Item A5, approval of minutes from our November 20th, 2025 meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes? >> Commissioner Williams. Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Delvr second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to item B, staff announcements. >> Uh, we have not had any council action on any planning items since our last meeting, so no announcements. >> Thank you, Mr. We will move forward into public hearings. Item C1, staff report for possible action. This is case number LDC 26-000026, Stan Lucas Mortonson Ranch time extension. Uh we will first hear a presentation from staff, Mr. Foster. Please take it away. >> Thank you, Chair Jockman. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. This evening, the first case I am bringing you um is the LDC26-26, the time extension for the Stan Lucas Mortonson Ranch tenative map. Uh so there's an approved tenative map uh that was approved uh finally in January of 2022. There's kind of a long and sorted history um that is described in the staff report involving various planning commission and city council denials that was followed by a legal process. Uh eventually on January 27th of 2022 uh a tenative map or sorry a decision letter was issued for a 632 uh single family lot subdivision. Um, NRS has a 4-year period in which the uh first final map can be recorded and that ext uh period expires on January 27th of 2026. Um, the details of the process up to this point are included in the staff report. I did want to note that the property owner, Stan Lucas, who was the sole member of Lucas Verdi LLC, passed away on January 10th of this year. development activity was actively in the process prior to his passing and that's also detailed in the staff report. Uh issues associated with the passing of Mr. Lucas have adversely impacted the project schedule and recordation of the initial final map. Uh staff believes that additional time is warranted for the new property owner to decide on the next steps for the property. Uh since the initial final map will not be recorded within the four-year uh time frame uh allowed by state law, uh the applicant is requesting a tenative map extension for the project in accordance with the provisions of NRS 278.360 subsection 1C as shown on the screen. Um the recommended motion is uh on the screen. In essence, uh, if you approve it, you are moving to approve a two-year time extension on the Stan Lucas Mortonson Ranch tenative map subject to the original conditions of approval that are detailed in the January 27th, 2022 decision letter. Uh, that is a part of your packet. Um, that's all I have for you. The applicant's representative is here, will not be making a presentation, but is available for questions. >> Thank you very much. Hearing that there will not be an applicant presentation, we will now move forward with disclosures and then to public comments. So, we'll start with Commissioner Delvr, go down the line and then go online. >> Received and read all of the materials and familiar with the site. >> Uh, Commissioner Gonini read and received all materials. >> Commissioner Jockman, phone call with Pam McNeel with uh concerns about the original project. >> Commissioner Williams uh read and reviewed all material. also had a phone call with Pam and Ken McNeel and familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Valto. >> Yeah, Commissioner Velto. Uh I was on the planning commission when this first came through the planning commission. I believe uh I spoke with uh an individual who is representing a party associated with the development and I received and reviewed correspondence. >> That concludes uh disclosures from the commission. We will now move to public comment. Madame Clerk, >> I do not have any public comment cards in person. We do have two attendees on Zoom, uh, but they do not have their hand raised. >> Do we have any requests to speak in chambers on this item? Hearing none, we will now move to questions from the commission of staff andor applicant representative if there is one. Okay. Yep. So, we'll move to questions. Uh, chair, I have a few questions. >> Please proceed. >> Uh, my questions are for for Jeff. >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, first I can't see. Are you wearing a Chicago Bears Christmas sweater? >> No, this is the San Francisco Giants, Commissioner Belvelt. >> Oh, nice. That's awesome. There we go. Now I can see it. It looks great. U, thank you for for coming up. I have a couple questions for you and I apologize I'm not in person. I'm not feeling so great tonight. Um my first question is uh in the past when we've evaluated these extension requests, what test has the planning commission applied when assessing whether to grant extension? >> So this is my first uh tenative map time extension um that I have brought forward. I did uh speak on behalf of Daniel Martoma on a previous one. He was not available the night of the planning commission. So I did deliver his presentation that evening. Um but my understanding the general test if you to use your terminology is whether or not um there has been a good faith effort in meeting uh the intent of NRS in terms of the time frame and the process. Uh, another way to say that is if an applicant had simply um, you know, kind of sat on things for 3 point something years and came to the city at the 11th hour asking for an extension, a two-year time extension. I could see that the planning commission might be hesitant in affording that two-year time extension because nothing was done, you know, kind of until the last minute. Um however in this case um as noted in the staff report uh and as detailed in my presentation the applicant um had made progress um uh had submitted an initial final map in October of 2024 um had submitted other permit applications and um then uh Stan Lucas Mr. Lucas passed away in January of this year and that kind of threw everything into turmoil. Um, and they've been trying to figure out things since then. So, um, it's that test of whether or not they have been making a good faith effort and in this case, staff believes that they have. >> Great. Thank you so much, >> Commissioner Williams. >> Yeah, I got one for you. Thanks, Joe. Um, speaking of that, I'll just kind of follow up with that. the the original plan for this was going to be built in like I I think I saw roughly 16 different phases was the according to some the packet it says that the final map was filled with 31 homes as as they're describing as a placeholder >> the initial final map. Yes. >> Yes. The additional final maps we're kind of using as a >> the the party is you know moving forward with stuff. Is that 31 homes? Was that just a random 31 homes? Was that a specific development like it was supposed to be originally planned a part of the 16, you know, separate areas that were going to be built? >> Let me take a stab at that, but then I can also, if Donald Smith is available that he might be able to afford some more uh shed some more light on that. Tenative maps are often uh you know several hundred homes and are often phased over multiple neighborhoods or or phases. Um I am not 100% certain of whether or not the 31 homes is, you know, was specifically shown as phase one on the initial application, but it was the first phase or the initial final map that was submitted in October of last year. So it was ostensibly one part of you know 116th of I guess to use the number that you used the uh initial or sorry the overall phasing for the 632 homes. >> Okay. And I mean you kind of see where I'm going with that. The the idea of just putting 31 homes as a placeholder to make this appear that it's moving forward. I just want to see if there's a narrative to say that this really wasn't just stabbing 31 homes on a on a final map so that we could show pro forward progress. This is actually part of the project and and is being done in I guess in good faith. >> Yes, I would say so if I can chime in, it's it's not that unusual to have a smaller number of of lots on an initial phase because a lot of the initial phase will include backbone infrastructure improvements that get done with that phase. Um, and also this was submitted um, you know, well before Mr. Lucas passed away. So I think that was an unexpected >> Okay. >> turn. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. That's all I got at the moment. Did the applicant want to he's indicating he might want to I appreciate you. >> Uh, I would agree with Mr. that it's customary because we do a lot of these to have an initial phase but the initial phase of this is also impacted by a thing called the Kinder Morgan line and that Kinder Morgan line until that issue is resolved it's a major pipeline distributing uh petroleum as far as as Fallon to the east to the naval base that runs through the property the 31 lots goes up to that point where so that the Kinder Morgan uh line and the issues associated iated with it could be dealt with at a future time and allowing it to move up the hill from there. So that was another reason for the 31 uh lots. And I would also say that upon Mr. Lucas's passing, they were within days of being able to submit and he was not only the sole member, he was the sole financer. And then uh three one three very uh good people were appointed trustees. They found out they were trustees upon his death and none of them have a background in development and they're dealing with 3600 acres and 52 projects of Mr. Lucases in Northern Nevada. They are overwhelmed. So, thank you. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. >> Thank you. I'm good for now. >> Commissioner Delvier. >> Um, yeah, I have a couple of questions and it's pro probably for you. Sorry. Come come on back up. Um, I should have told you don't sit down. Um, so I'm I'm just because I wasn't here for, you know, obviously a lot of this. Um, and obviously there's some mitigating circumstances here. Um, my question though is I I haven't seen the third the tenative map for 31 homes. That might be helpful for me to sort of see what that looks like. Um, because to to other people's points, it's hard for me to understand how far along this is. and um really sort of understand like why why more time is is needed like how and and if they were ready to submit the tenative map but now they have to go back and get financing I guess and or figure out what >> the tenative map is a function of you have a tenative map for the whole thing what we would have been submitting is a final map for the first phase of 31 lots as and the the the placeholders when that kind of sets the tone for the rest of the development. It removes the requirements of a tenative map and then you you go to a series of uh final maps. Uh financing uh it really wasn't an issue. Uh we don't have any financing on any of our projects. So when the the person that provides all the f financing is no longer around and then you have three individuals that are trying to sort out how that financing will move forward. And to give you an idea to uh to apply for the final map, there was between 25 and $30 million required. So it's put the trustees in a a precarious position on where do we take that from? They have the responsibility to give money to beneficiaries. It it's a very long drawn out complicated process on their side and they are working diligently to come to resolve. We they need two years in order to probably sell the property, work out maybe some of the conditions with Kinder Morgan. It's it's it's a complex project and I only became involved uh three months before Mr. Lucas. I have all the other stuff and then now I have this with Mr. Grady who's now the new manager for Lucas Verdai and he is one of the trustees. >> Okay, awesome. And uh can I ask you a question Jeff please? Thank you. >> So >> sorry just to this is Jasmine Ma just to have the last speaker state his name for the record. >> Oh state your name for the record. I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Donald Smith. >> Thank you. So, I guess the question that I have is we're all we're doing right now is approving a two-year extension on the tenative map and that gives them time to sell it the property but the tenative map would stay. I know the SCP will stay with the property, but the tenative map that's there now with the original conditions could go away. >> No, the tenative map is also an entitlement that uh entitles the land to a 632 single family lot subdivision. >> Got it. >> That runs with the land just like the SUP. >> Okay. >> Uh sorry, the SUPs that were part of the overall entitlement process at that time. the uh 2-year period um would ex extend the shot clock from January 27th of 2026 to January 27th of 2028 >> for a for a final map an an initial final map to be submitted and approved >> by whoever >> by whoever whether it's the current owners or someone that they sell it to but after January 27th of 2028 if that doesn't happen this project goes away >> got it okay thank you >> if I can provide just a Little further clarification, tonight is simply a time extension. We we're not looking at the map itself. That that decision has been made and in this case through the through a legal action. >> Um we're not altering anything that's already been approved. It's just extending that that timeline. >> Understood. I'm just trying to understand why we should approve the extension if it was this far along, but it sounds like there's just a lot of other things potentially happening. So, >> uh, Commissioner Jockman, I have a question. I'll direct this at the city attorney's office if that's all right. So, the, um, we don't see a lot of these that are specific to time extension requests, and we're typically looking at making findings, identifying this and that. Um, is I'm going to say this and ask if this is correct. Is it correct that I should be making this evaluation on the basis of whether or not there were extenduating circumstances that led to this request and to if if progress has been made regarding the initial entitlement? Is there anything else I should be looking at? >> No, I think you're spot on. You know, I think the issue is whether or not there's good cause for the extension in this case with the passing of Mr. Lucas, the fact that they have been working diligently to uh get the u application through the process, uh I think votes in favor of an extension. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Williams. >> Uh Commissioner Williams, for the record, this project was highly contentious. it ended up in legal proceedings and so while I understand what Chair Jockman's trying to to get across to probably us and um everybody else here is what we're trying to look towards but feel like this is a very rare opportunity for a very contentious project now that we know that the most likely it's going to be sold to to make sure that we are you know dotting our eyes here. So, I guess in in you know what um Commissioner Delvr was saying, this is going to follow the property outside like what other conditions if somebody else acquires this property um through just a basic city application like what variances could we see or could the city approve without it coming back to this planning commission? What we are ordered to accept or the city was ordered to accept is this plan. Are there any allowable variances if it's sold to a new person that the planning commission wouldn't see? >> So, uh, let me try and answer. And Mike, you may think of something else to say as well, but um, Commissioner Williams. So, the the the I think there's 32 conditions or something like that. All just simply fast forward to through the two-year time extension to the current owners or a subsequent owner. So all of those same conditions apply just as just as they do to right now. Um what you're using the term variance and that's a very specific term in code for certain things. Yeah. >> I think what I'm understanding you to say is could could a new owner who didn't go through all the whole process, you know, over years come in and all of a sudden do something that wasn't entitled? Um uh if if reducing homes, adding homes, changing streets. >> You can always reduce. You can always reduce. Uh you can't you cannot you cannot add that's not an option. Okay. And Jeff, I don't mean to interrupt you, but this this is >> has a condition on it. Condition number 27, which is >> something that I've never seen in 30 years. And I'm going to read you that condition. >> Okay. Um, prior to submitting each final map, the applicant shall participate in a staffcoordinated and staff-led stakeholder engagement process to review the proposed final subdivision designs and the measures proposed to address conditions of approval for a final map. This is not a new subdivision review process, but rather a participatory approach to verifying that the final map is in substantial conformance with the tenative map approval, including conditions of approval. And then it goes on. So this This map is very specific that it needs to be in conformance with the tenant map that was approved. So any real deviation from that would be an amendment to that map that would have to come back before this board. >> Okay, fair enough. And then I would also add that any um new issue, you know, whether it was grading that exceeded thresholds that was not anticipated at that time or, you know, some, you know, major drainage wave that was all of a sudden, you know, anything that would normally be a code, you know, required entitlement would also have to be addressed were had it been missed, you know, during the entitlement process at that time. So, okay. >> If something new came about, they would still have to address that uh you know, just as any other applicant would. >> Great. If if the commission doesn't mind, I had one more. There is one of our correspondents um into the commission was that one of the conditions had expired. It seemed like some sort of right-of-way turnabout um that was expired in April. >> I don't think it was a condition. I think it was permit. It was a uh an access easement uh of some sort. I I believe that was the >> um subject of that email >> and said permit uh staff report refer to a building permit for a left turn pocket on Highway 40. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> What will we do in that case if that is truly expired? So that just basically So when the uh uh initial final map was submitted in October of 2024, there were other mapping slashpermit applications that were submitted. One of which is the permit that is referenced there. Um so that was submitted. There may have been one or two rounds of review. Uh but then ultimately they did not uh you know finish the review process and the permit expired. So it was never issued. Okay. Um that's very common in the building permit world where permits expire, we can reactivate them, you know, at some future point in time, they can reapply. Um it it's just it it doesn't it doesn't undo anything. But in fact, what it does do is it shows that they were actually going through the process to try and perfect this tenative map, you know, and and keep it alive. Um but then as we've talked about, Mr. Lucas passed away and everything else has happened. >> All right, great. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Any other questions from the commission? If not, we will move into deliberations. >> Okay. Deliberations. >> This is Commissioner Velto. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Someone else want to go first? >> Yeah, let's go with Nope. Okay, we'll go with Commissioner Alto first. >> Um, yeah. So I I you know I was on the planning commission when this was denied. Uh I I voted against it. I think it was unanimously denied. I do think that given that there's a court order directing that directed the city to allow them to develop. It kind of changes my analysis. uh really I've seen the planning commission when we've evaluated these extensions in the past really just to look at is there any reason uh for giving an extension and has the developer been acting in good faith to try to complete the project on the timeline. So my focus is solely looking at whether in the record there's evidence of that and and I think I'm satisfied on that question. I understand the concerns raised by Commissioner Williams about generally the project and that someone may be buying this in the future. Um I know we can't make decisions on extensions in an arbitrary and capriccious manner. So, you know, for me, I just keep going back to how have we evaluated these in the past? And in my mind, in my experience on this, it seems like they're very formulaic as long as there's a a reason and there's been a good faith effort to to comply with with the law. So, that's where I'm at with this. Um, but happy to hear all of your comments. >> Commissioner Delvr, >> uh, Commissioner Devr, I I I agree, Al, uh, Commissioner Valto. Um I I just wanted and I appreciate everybody's input. Again, this is my first time sort of going through this particular um process and development and I feel uh comfortable uh I can make the findings and I'm happy to make a motion when everybody's ready. If there are no further deliberations, yeah, Commissioner Jockman, I'll just say um this is probably the one that feels the most legal as far as the items that we have reviewed since I have joined this body and I appreciate your thoughts there, Commissioner Valto, with regard to how we should look at this one given the legal nature of the item before us. So, thank you for that. And um anything else from the commission? >> It's up there. >> It's up there. >> Y >> I can see it. >> It's there. Oh, it is. Commissioner Delvr, I'd like to recommend the motion in the matter of case LDC 2600026 based upon compliance with NRS278360 requirements for presentation of final map or a series of final maps extensions of time. I move to approve a two-year time extension on the Stan Lucas Mortonson Ranch tenative map subject to the original conditions of approval. Commissioner Gianiantini, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Uh motion carries unanimously. That concludes this item for tonight. We will now move on to item C2. This is a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-23. Qualichi Ranch Clubhouse. I hope I pronounced that correctly. >> Quy. Mr. Foster, please proceed. >> All right. Good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Uh the second case I am bringing you tonight, LDC 26-23, the Quilly Ranch Clubhouse. The project uh is an undeveloped 5.71 acre site that is a portion of a larger 19.89 acre parcel within Quilys Ranch located on the north side of Quilys Meadow Parkway. Uh the site is undeveloped if I didn't say that already. Um non-residential development adjacent to residentially zoned property requires approval of a minor site sorry of a well of a minor site plan review. The Mortonson Garson Overlay district or MGOD requires that development on any site with a slope greater than 15% is subject to a major site plan review. The project proposes fills greater than 10 feet in height uh which is also uh which also requires approval of a major site plan review. And finally, the subject site is within the multif family 14 zoning district which requires a conditional use permit for a private country club use. As a result, the entire application was elevated to a CUP. Uh as you can see not only the site but the entire surrounding area is currently undeveloped. The key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with future surrounding uses uh site design as well as compliance with the MGOD hillside development standards, grading and cuts and fills. The zoning district is multif family 14 and the master plan land use is multifamily neighborhood. There are seven goals and policies on the screen that are in support of the proposed request or that the proposed request uh is in compliance with turning to compatibility with surrounding land uses sorry sur yeah yeah surrounding land uses uh the planned land uses around the site include open space multifamily and single family. The proposed use and location were identified as a part of the approved tenative map. The proposed use is complementaryary to the planned residential uses that surround it. The future multif family village in the immediate area can be designed to include landscape and setback buffers as appropriate. The proposed hours of the uh clubhouse are from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Um, if development of the country club follows construction of those nearby residential uses, staff is including condition number five to restrict construction hours. Given all of the above, the proposed use is generally compatible with the planned land uses in the area. Turning to site design, uh the project has been designed to be compatible from both architectural and landscape perspectives with the overall theming of the Quilysy Ranch development. Two separate uh buildings are and supporting features and amenities are proposed to be developed in one phase. The first building is an approximately 6,000 square foot clubhouse with a social social lounge, multi-purpose room, and homeowners association offices. And the second building is an approximately 6,300 uh 6,400 foot fitness barn with a multi-purpose gym, a venue for special events, and a fitness center. The site design also includes amenities such as lighted outdoor pickleball courts, tennis courts, a natural turf sports field for general use and informal competition, and artificial turf event lawns. The dedicated parking lot takes access from the highest point on Quilys Meadow Parkway, situating that amenity above the roadway and future multif family uses. The parking lot includes sight lighting that is provided with down lighting fixtures that are oriented to avoid light spillover onto the future adjacent residential uses. Turning to the multi uh uh MGOD hillside development standards, a special use permit for hillside development and cuts and fills that encompassed the proposed amenities site um was approved as a part of the overall Santara Quilys Ranch entitlements since the project or sorry uh care was taken when the original land plan was prepared to define a location for the clubhouse that had minimal relief. Since the project is in the Mortonson Garson over overlay district, other submittals are required in place of the application requirements for hillside development in Reno Municipal Code. The applicant did prepare and submit all of the required submittals. Um, and those are in the record. The proposed development area has an average slope in excess of 15% for slightly over 30% of the site. And it should be noted that all areas with slopes in excess of 30% are a result of the grading that was performed to construct Quilys Meadow Parkway along the southern boundary. Continuing with grading and cuts and fills, the grading design uh provides a terrace site to help follow the natural topography and minimizes the amount of of disturbance required. Care was taken to match the grades along the eastern edge which will remain open space for the residential development and this is the most visually sensitive edge and was the focus of the grading design. The deepest cuts are about 16 ft. The maximum fills are about 32 feet. The project has been designed to meet code general grading standards including preservation of stable steep slopes, fill slopes, location of cut and fill slopes, noxious weed abatement and revitation and conditions six to eight which are typically recommended to address uh enhanced grading techniques including treatment of slopes, rip wrap and noxious weeds when we have projects with grading and cuts and fills that exceed thresholds as well as hillside development are included in the uh recommended conditions of approval. Here are the conditional use permit recommended findings. Staff can make all recommended findings. And even though the major site plan review was part of the conditional use permit request, I did uh include the recommended findings for the major site plan review because they are different than a standard CUP. Again, staff can make all recommended findings. Uh and here's the recommended motion. I am available for questions. The applicant's representative is also here. will not be making a presentation but is available for questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Foster. We will now move to disclosures and then any public comment. Commissioner Delvr. >> Uh Commissioner Delvr, I have read the materials and I am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Gonini, read materials, familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Jockman, read materials. >> Commissioner Williams, read materials and familiar with the site. Commissioner Valto saying disclosure. >> Okay, that concludes disclosures. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment under this item? >> I do not have any uh public comment registered in person and I do not have any attendees online with their hand raised. >> Do we have any request to speak in chambers on this item? Hearing none, we will now move to questions from the commission for the for staff and the applicant representative. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, Jeff, I have a couple questions. Can you because I saw this come up in a couple of the public comments. I think it was in at the NAB. Um, can you explain the open space and what that means? Because it's not like public park, but it's open space. I just want to kind of understand how it's defined and what the usage or public opportunity might be to leverage it. >> So, uh, can you, uh, pull my presentation back up? Thank you. Let me go back to the zoning and the master plan land use. So you can see the parcel in the middle and uh outlined in blue, right? And immediately to the east you see the green color, right? So that's PGOS zoning and then on the master plan it's PGOS land use. So that that area immediately to the east of the uh MF14 area. And keep in mind that the the U clubhouse site is just a small portion of that overall MF14 parcel, right? It's 5 point something acres out of almost 20. So a quarter of it roughly. So it and towards the bottom uh of that area. So the rest of the area around that to the north of that overall MF14 and to the east is PGOS. It's just open hillsides. It's not, you know, necessarily planned amenities or formal trails or anything like that. It's just the the portion of the area that was set aside probably as a result of of slopes. >> Okay, got it. Thank you so much. That clarifies a lot. And then uh I understand the word barn was different from what I was thinking. So I understand that as well. Thank you. >> Very nevo way of calling a gym fitness barn. the worst to go. >> That's the first um >> Commissioner. >> Yep. Yeah. If you wouldn't mind. Uh yeah, Commissioner Williams will for the record. I I don't have any comments. I'm just was going to say, you know, being the proposed use and location identified as part of the approved um tenative map. I can make all the findings. I'm happy to make a motion if the commission so wills. Do we have any other questions from the commission before that is uh done or any request for deliberation hearing? None. Uh Commissioner Williams, please proceed. >> Commissioner Williams, for the record, based on the uh in the matter of LDC 26-000023, uh based upon the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions left in the staff report and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Gfantini, I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C2. We will now move on to item D, business items. Do we have anything from staff under this item? >> Nothing this evening. >> Uh, moving on. Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. I do not believe we we just had our meeting canceled this week and there will be one in January. I am not yet aware of any of the agenda items under that. Commissioner Valto, uh are you any more aware of that meeting than I am? >> I I am not. >> Okay. So, that next meeting is in the middle of January. We will have an update with more detail at our next city planning commission meeting. Item F, future agenda items. Anything from staff under this? >> Nothing this evening. >> Any requests from commissioners for future agenda items? >> No, no requests, but at some point it would be good to get an update on some of the requests we've made in the past. >> We have been bringing, as you know, the last few meetings some of those trainings. So, we're we're working our way through those and they'll be coming up as as time. >> Thank you. Hearing no other qu uh requests from the commission, we'll move to public comment. Madame clerk G1, please proceed. >> Chair, I do not have any public comment for this item. >> Do we have any request to speak in chambers under this item hearing? None. Uh last item is adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> Commissioner WR, I would like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Williams second >> motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Meeting adjourned.