Planning and Zoning Commission - Work Session Holtan Hills - 1/5/2026

Okay, I think we can go ahead and get this work session started. Staff wants to take it away.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Daniel McKenna Foster from the Planning Department. 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.

But this is just a work session, so, you know, no decisions being made here tonight. So I'll provide a brief overview, and then I'll— Sean is also here. We'll be talking about the subdivision case. There'll be some time for anybody to talk to the applicant or any questions for us. So without further ado, let's get started.

So this case is about both the CUP and the subdivision. And you know what, I'd better read in what the case numbers are. I believe it's 2026.

2026-005 And the subdivision case S-12-867. So this case or both these cases are about the conditional use permit and the subdivision and staff recommend approval of both. So first to start off, the Crow Creek Area Master Plan was adopted by the Assembly back in 2006. It's the master plan if needed. That's AO-2647.

And there's no expiration date in that AO. So that master plan is still in force.

Another thing is this has been a pretty long project for years, a lot of different steps in this. There are some things the Assembly has done when it comes to disposal of land. And some of that is in— a lot of that is included in AO-2023-137. So that's the Disposal and Development Agreement. And that whole AO, that is in the Assembly's purview and enforced for as long as that is valid.

So we are at a lower level than the Assembly and the Planning and Zoning Commission. And the Assembly is the legislative body. They sort of adopt the rules. So what they decide is sort of the final decision. Provision.

So we can't really get into any of the specifics of that, or something decided here tonight can't really abrogate what's in AO-2023. Fortunately, we have some real lawyers here tonight. I'm not a lawyer, so we can ask more questions about that later. And so as I mentioned, because the development agreement is part of AO-2023-137, PCC can't really get into it 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 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 to the Chair. 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 coming back to the Commission.

And that will be a future case before the Commission, or it'll be an informational 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 defer to my colleagues. So the code says that the Commission shall review HOA bylaws and articles of incorporation. 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 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 you'll see that in the staff report, that they have to be presented. The code isn't really clear about whether they come presented as a case. It just says the PCC shall review them. So our thinking was that we just make sure that they come to you maybe as an informational item. 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 wrap this up with a strong understanding of exactly which parts of the leasing provisions and HOA documents are actually able to be discussed or amended by this body. 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 is written, it again, it says, um, the commission— the mandatory homeowners association or 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 an maybe a different type of case where this was a single private party, no 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 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 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, passed it through legislation, it becomes a bit more complicated. But maybe we can— when we get back to the PUD discussion and the CUP discussion, maybe we could touch on that again. Thank you.

So just moving on, project history. This project goes back 20 years, 2026 now. Started with the Assembly adopting the Crow Creek Plan via AO-2006-47 as an element of the Comprehensive Plan back in 2006. Heritage Land Bank did do a subdivision plat for 40 lots in 2009. There was a water transmission line done in 2010.

The HLB issued an RFP for land disposal in 2021. Then there was more stream and wetland mapping 2021. In 2024 January, the assembly adopted AO-223-137 approving the disposal of Heritage Land Bank. That's where the development agreement is. And that ordinance includes other additional conditions.

In May 2024, the Holton Hill subdivision tract plat was recorded. And in March 2025, the Assembly adopted AO-2024-114S, updating the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. So that provided some pretty fresh guidance to sort of the big picture needs and desires and future of the community in Girdwood. So looking at that big picture, you know, in planning, 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 adopted in 1995. So in 1995, people were thinking, yes, this area, which is outlined with the dots and says Holton Hills area there, This area will be housing eventually.

And then in the 2025 plan, which was adopted just earlier at the beginning of last year, 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 low-intensity residential. But now it's moderate-intensity residential. So the plan, which is sort of the set 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. Now, this— the new plan, it moves a little bit away from the precision of past planning documents. Used to talk about dwellings per acre and this sort of thing.

The community was really pretty focused on this and they said, we, you know, we don't want that specificity, but we're— we want this area to be about moderate intensity as opposed to multifamily. Allows for more broad types of housing developments along with some mixed-use opportunities. So this is really fresh plan guidance. This is, you know, it was just adopted last year. Years.

I think the Girdwood 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. And then the part in blue is a little bit more detailed, even some stuff about mixed use, although this development is only residential. So one thing that's also worthwhile including from the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan is a lot of their housing analysis. So at the time when it was adopted, they found that Girdwood needed about 303 total housing units.

That includes both new and rehab. And they also broke it down looking at sort of income category. So this is, I believe, 39 units or 39 lots, and some of those lots might have 1 or 2, 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 Kirkwood. 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 Girdwood.

So Girdwood does need a lot of housing. And this is, you know, some of the more accurate data we have anywhere in the municipality. So it's pretty clear that Girdwood needs housing, and this sort of aligns with that. So now to speak quickly to the cases S-12-867 and PCC case 2026-005.

It's a little bit confusing because what you're seeing here is a plan unit development. But it's going through a conditional use process, 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 look at that and say, well, maybe it, you know, should be cited here, or there should be some extra sort of stipulations on that use.

So it's a little bit irregular or strange that the PUD is going through the CUP process, but that's what code 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 the specifics of the site. Here, and I won't go too much into the subdivision, Shawn's the expert on that, but here's just a quick overview.

Again, this is 39 lots, really not that many in the scheme of things, not a huge development. 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. And really just lining up with here's what the plan said. The plan always expected that there was going to be some type of housing here.

And over time, they went from saying there's going to be lower intensity to now moderate intensity. So from our perspective, from a planning perspective, and just is the plan being implemented, it seems that yes, this is definitely in line with the plan. So looking really quickly, you know, Gerwood— it has Chapter 2109, which is its own chapter, has specifics about master plans and master planning criteria and just comparing those with conditional use criteria. So as we mentioned, the Crook 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, provides that.

So— and a piece of this, you know, in the PUD, it says, notwithstanding subsection, the Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt PUD from any special limitations of the zoning district. Crow Creek is still an adopted master plan, still applies in this area. So looking at those two, you can see on the left, that's the criteria for Gridwood Master Planning. There are 6 items. And the criteria for conditional use, there are 9 items.

And so we just did a quick comparison thinking about, well, does a conditional use process really hit a lot of the same things the master plan? And looking at it, it does. And it does even more. So in this process, we look at even more things than a master plan would look at. And now thinking again about, again, the sort of complicated process where it's a PUD but done through conditional use.

Let's just look at what we from the Planning Department look at, what the approval looks like. Can we make an approval recommendation? Quick version, these are sort of the Cliff Notes of what a PUD 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. And the code says that can be, you know, balconies on apartments. It can be yards. 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 on the properties. Is there any non-residential? If so, is it compatible residential? Not applicable. There's no residential on this, on this project.

Does it comply with 2107.06 Transportation Connectivity? Yes. Will all new utilities be underground? Yes. Will there be an HOA and will PZCA be able to review it?

This kind of goes back to Commissioner Krishna's comment and question about, well, you know, the code does say that the Commission should— shall review the bylaws and articles of incorporation. And again, this is a bit tricky because if this was a sort of a regular PUD, let's say, where it was just a private property owner, BCC might have a little more flexibility in what they looked like— looked at. In general, You know, HOA agreements are contracts between two private parties and getting two into that gets a little bit complicated when the municipality is doing that. And I'll let the legal team jump in if I'm getting too far afield here. But a lot of stuff like that.

Another thing that— a question that came up was about ownership and occupancy. And, you know, the muni used to have ADU homeowner or owner occupancy requirements. Those were problematic even when we had them because 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 units, ADUs.

And we had this special affidavit system where people had to come in and sign and swear that they were living there. And that did go away. And part of that was because it's a bit problematic. I don't know if legal wants to jump in and speak to Commissioner Krishna's questions at all, if there's 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, an opportunity for review and discussion of that HOA, then that might be, uh, important guidance to the Commission that today is not the moment to dig into that. But because I see discussion in the public testimony and comments in our packet, I wanted to ask what level of either— what level of review is appropriate within the purview of this Commission and whether today is the appropriate time to do that, just in terms of process guidance. Thank you. Yes.

And I apologize for— not be more clear earlier. This is Quincy Arms through the chair. Um, so we just— we had to dig up the actual condition of the PUD, 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 I would advise you that today is not the time to talk about that. And yeah, but if you have questions that pertain to the plat, we're here for that.

Thank you. That's helpful.

I'll just finish. Can I—. Sorry. Yep. Just a quick follow-up, I think related question.

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 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 guess So whatever we approve today is the thought that whatever those provisions are, that will be included in what comes back later 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 accepting the short-term rental requirements as laid out in this application, even though that's kind of included within the approval for today.

I see quizzical faces. So yeah. I was questioning whether it was a good question for Legal or probably for Planning, but I'm happy to chime in after Melissa. Through the Chair to Commissioner Gardner, that is correct. You will have a chance to revisit those later.

Any decision on the PUD today in regard to that aspect of this is something that will hold for when you're going to review the HOA bylaws. Everything later. Thanks. And I'd follow up and just say the, you know, with any Planning and Zoning Commission case, it's just whether it meets the criteria, uh, the specific. And in this case, it is a bit odd, but 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 7 or 8, no, so number 7 in the PUD criteria or rules, was the development reviewed for changes in density, lot size, dimensions, and meet density restrictions? In the table, it says, you know, in this zone, you can have a PUD that reaches this density, DUA. For the Girdwood code, it just says whatever can be supported by water and sewer infrastructure. And then number 8 is the PUD in the Eternity and Armistice District, so no, not applicable.

So, again, these— all these more detailed responses to those same criteria are in the staff report. Here is slightly more boring or less summarized. I will go next to 2103-080, which is the criteria for the conditional use permit, the 9 criteria. So is it consistent with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan? Yes, looking at that, the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan calls for, you know, more housing, housing that is sensitive to its environment.

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. GR-3 is a residential district. Is it consistent with any use-specific standards?

This also, yes. Both it meets any requirement for a Master Planning process, but also through the PUD process, you can— there's a way of addressing those needs as well. Is the site adequate? Yes. You know, a lot of that gets handled in a subdivision case where you have tons of staff poring over it, talking about drainage, weighing in and saying, well, we'd like to see this here.

Where does it make sense to put the road or the path? That sort of thing. Number 5, will the project alter the character of the surrounding area, prevent others from using their property? No. 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.

There is a lot of talk about extending the road in this area. You know, Girdwood has— there's been a lot of discussion because it is a valley and the needs for secondary access and connecting some of the network. That happens through development over time. And then finally, will the project have access to fire, water, police services, etc.? Yes.

And these also more specific responses can be found in the staff report or in here, and these slides will be posted at the end. So ultimately, staff has proposed 3 conditions of approval. One, that this— whatever is approved is subject to all standards for residential planned unit development, and it aligns with whatever the application says. That's the way it ends up. 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 electronically for review. So Planning and Zoning Commission has to see it. They'll see it later. But— and we did talk to the applicant this afternoon.

The applicant has some general sort of basic bylaws, but I think the specifics of that haven't been hammered out. So it would be premature to share them without having those be completed or really ready with what's likely to happen on the ground. And then number 3 is notice of zoning action and final approved site plan. Shall be filed with State Recorder's Office. Proof of such shall be submitted to the Planning Department.

So with that, I'll ask if there are 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 pretty specific question. This is on page 27 of the packet, which is part of the narrative. And for the multi-family lot design criteria that the first bullet there. It just jumped out at me, and 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 multi-family apartment, as well as single family style. And I wasn't— I guess my question was, what is— what is single family style look like for multi-family lots?

Through the chair to Commissioner Gardner, a single family style multifamily development. It's a little bit of a mouthful, but it is basically a sort of what you might call a cottage development, all on a single lot but styled as little single-family homes or cottages in, you know, individual structures rather 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.

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 the subdivision case. We could also potentially talk about any of the other cases if anybody's interested.

I have a comment, question I'm hesitant to ask, but I think it's going to come up no matter what we do. If everybody shows up and we get the comments about the process to acquire the land, the acquisition, the land use 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? That's a great question.

And, you know, it's a valid concern, of course. 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, Y, and Z, that was adopted by the Assembly, and the Assembly is the higher body. So they would say, well, we adopted this, and the AO is is still in 4. So it would be kind of an odd situation.

So I think the— and the other thing too is— and this is a real planner answer— is that, well, we deal in Title 21. Some of that stuff in other titles, there's not much we could hear or talk about anyway. So we're sort of— 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 what we talk about so that we're making sure to address the issue based on the criteria.

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. And so 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 go ahead and go into some of the subdivision stuff? So yeah, so thanks, Daniel. A lot of that That is, you know, the conditional use is the majority of this. Because the code allows concurrent processing, that's why you're seeing the plat tonight with the conditional use. Much like just a few meetings ago, you saw with the rezone, the plat for the railroad.

So basically, yeah, it's, as Daniel mentioned, it's 39 lots, 2 tracks. One of those is going to be the private street and one of those is going to be the open space. Or all the variances are related to the private street, which has to kind of— it's the lot frontage and then all streets dedicated to the public and then the cul-de-sac length. And that's all kind of related due to the topography of the area and the layout. As you can see in the staff packet that we'll get into, it's supported due to all the issues with that.

You might have a question about the— there was some comments about the length of the cul-de-sac being 450 feet. It's kind of— so as Daniel mentioned, the Planned Unit Development conditional use, that falls under 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 set minimum lot sizes and things like that. So they're able to, um, adjust that development design standard to the 450 feet. However, because, uh, there's— this is a subdivision plat and Planning and Zoning is acting as the planning board, Chapter 8 of the subdivision standards still has to be met, which says cul-de-sac length is 600 feet.

And so that's why the variance to 600 feet 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 feet. Correct. A comment was made that it's 450 feet 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 waiving 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 design standards of Gerd Woods Chapter 9, which, which are being open to be— 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 feet. 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 to Crow Creek. Is that, 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 either the valley or, eventually there may be a connection. That was for Creek Road. Okay, part of the later one, okay. Thanks.

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, Mr. Spinelli. Hang on a sec. Well, I guess they would actually— I mean, if they were going to exempt themselves from it, it would be somewhere in their narrative of their conditional use, I would imagine. And 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 crux of that issue. 20-Foot width is, uh, pretty skinny in Girdwood considering snow storage. I haven't seen anything. We— that may be a question for the development team on their proposed driveway widths. And then I guess, Mr.

Chair Spinelli, the— a lot of the plat notes, you're kind of well-versed in plat notes.

Those are sort of set in stone, anything that's placed on there, and the municipality through the municipal surveyor always asks, how is this plat note relative to the boundary of the subdivision, meaning the survey instrument that the plat is that draws the line in the sand and creates the fee simple lots. We have seen on platting board, we have seen multiple, I believe the past almost a year, pretty much every case has some sort of plat note removal, every once in a while associated with it. And those have been previous in the past in the '50s and '60s and '70s before zoning. Sometimes plat notes you'll see were placed on plats that had to do with zoning, such as duplexes or triplexes or a multitude of things. And we've moved away with that because the zoning handles the— what's placed on the property, and the plat is just subject to basically just the boundary the subdivision.

And that's, that's why we don't place those on there, is now we're, we're having to come back and remove some of these plat notes, 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 some of the special plat notes that were placed on it. And now the framers are out there at 15 below 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 feet, we are not varying that, right? We're, we're putting the comment on them that they have to redesign to 150-foot curve through the Jeremy's post? 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 variance to the municipal engineer, not the planning board, or in this case.

Yeah, I read that part. I do remember that. You got it. Um, one more quick soapbox thing. I think I've said this twice before in some meetings.

I'm gonna say it one more time. 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 because here we are 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 soapbox. I'm done. They [SPEAKING SPANISH] 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 Polis, um, I believe that traffic did provide agency comment via a letter, an official letter with that content.

So we're just looking through the packet 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 2026-0005, that on page 4 it says that 3 resolutions from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors was— were received, and I'm only seeing 2 on page 80. 85 And 87. And 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.

Because if you go dark skies and there's no ped lighting, you know, I get it. It's a valid comment. That's all I got. I promise I'm done. Yeah, so Commissioner Polis, you're— there's no— I don't know if we have additional information to Maybe you could repeat your question.

So you're asking about the traffic impact analysis, is that correct? Yeah, I'm, 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. Okay, and then we'll see if we— 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 4, MOA Traffic Engineering determined 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 waived it willy-nilly? I'm saying the threshold that I'm aware of is 100 trips. Once you cause 100 trips Or maybe 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 Marcotte with Triad Engineering. For the record, M-A-R-C-O-T-T. 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. 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'd 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.