Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Apr 3, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/624 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission held a meeting where they approved several administrative items, including past meeting minutes and findings and conclusions for two subdivision cases. The main discussion centered on the proposed redevelopment of the Country Club Apartments, an existing 62-unit affordable housing complex, into an 84-unit complex. This project, owned by the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority, will involve renovating existing buildings and constructing new ones, maintaining its affordable housing status. The Commission unanimously approved the development plan for the Country Club Apartments, subject to staff conditions. They also received updates on the ongoing General Plan update process, including calls for applications to a Technical Working Group and upcoming public engagement events. Additionally, staff provided an update on the first phase of the Land Development Code revision, which is nearing completion and will be presented to the Commission for a study session before going to the City Council. == Key Decisions == - Approved minutes from the March 20, 2025 meeting. - Approved findings and conclusions for Case 2022-6013 Kaha del Oro subdivision. - Approved findings and conclusions for Case 2024-9585400 or 4,04200 Beckner Road Final Serial Subdivision. - Approved the development plan for Case 2025-9787 Country Club Apartments, allowing the redevelopment of a 62-unit multi-family complex into an 84-unit affordable housing complex, subject to staff conditions. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to postpone Case 2025-0100094 to the April 17th meeting — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the agenda for the April 3rd meeting — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the minutes of March 20th, 2025 — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the findings and conclusions for Case 2022-6013 Kaha del Oro Road — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the findings of facts and conclusions of law for Case 2024-9585 4,04200 Beckner Road — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority Country Club Apartments Development Plan (Case 2025-9707) subject to staff conditions — Passed unanimously (Commissioners Smith, McGee, Morando, Capon voted Yes). == Public Comment == No public comments were made during the public comment period. During the discussion of the General Plan update, a commissioner noted seeing an article about the update in the Santa Fe New Mexican and inquired about ensuring geographical diversity in the Technical Working Group, which staff confirmed was a consideration. Commissioners also requested a study session for the Land Development Code Phase One before it goes to the City Council. == Topics == - General Plan Update - Land Development Code Phase 1 - Country Club Apartments Redevelopment - Educational Retirement Building Case - Planning Commission Meeting Schedule - Kaha del Oro Subdivision - Beckner Road Subdivision == Full Transcript == Good evening. We'll call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of April 3rd, 2025, into session. Could we have a roll call, please? Present. Present. Present. He's sick. Excuse present. Even I'm not hearing anything from the microphone, but I think it's my turn to say I'm present. We can hear you loud and clear. Oh, too bad for you. Okay, so pledge of allegiance. Commissioner McGee, can you lead us? Thank you. Are there any changes to the amended agenda? Madam Chair, I just want to make sure that we approve the postponement to the 17th for the ERB case. So if you can postpone that to a date certain, that'd be great. We'll do that when we get to new business or do it now. It's part of the approval of the agenda. Okay. So, we're postponing case number 2025-0100094, which is 5211 Solaris Drive development plan, to April 17th. I think we may need a motion. Motion to postpone case 2025-0100094 to our April 17th meeting. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Mirando. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Madam President, the motion, Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Any other amendments to the agenda? No, Madam Chair. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the agenda for our April 3rd meeting. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Madam President, the motion has passed. And the next matter on the agenda is approval of the consent agenda, but there's no consent agenda. So we'll move on to the approval of the minutes of March 20th, 2025. Are there any changes to those minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Commissioner McGee, yes. Commissioner Morando, yes. Commissioner Capen. Commissioner Smith, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Next, we'll move on to the approval of findings and conclusions. The first findings and conclusions are case number 2022-6013 Kaha del Oro subdivision, final subdivision. Are there any changes to those findings and conclusions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the findings and conclusions for case 2022-6013 Kaja del Oro Road. Second. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Cape. Yes. Okay. And finally, we'll move on to findings of facts and conclusions of law in case number 2024-9585400 or 4,04200 Beckner Road Final Serial Subdivision. Any changes to those findings and conclusions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Oh, sorry. Got to make a motion first. I motion to go right ahead. A motion to approve the findings, effects, and conclusion of law for case 2024-9585 4,04200 Beckner Road. Second. Second. Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner McGee, yes. Commissioner Morando, yes. Commissioner Capen, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. There's no old business, so we'll move on to new business and call case number 2025-9787 Country Club Apartments. Daniel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see everybody. So this is case 2025-9707. It's an application for approval of a development plan for the redevelopment of an existing multi-family complex with 62 units currently. The redevelopment would result in a multi-family complex that will have 84 units totaling 84,396 square feet. The owners are Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority and the applicants are Jenkins Gavin. It's located at 599 Airport Road in an R29 zoning, and it is located within the Airport Road Overlay District. Okay, we can see everything. Great. So, just to give you some brief context, this project is called the Country Club Multi-Family Apartments because it is right next to the Country Club Manufactured Home Park. As you can see, this round circular development just to the north there. The current conditions are outlined in red here. As you can see, it has several multi-family units, as well as a kind of shared space in the center of the existing multi-family. And this is currently an affordable housing multi-family project or development, and it will remain so. This is just the case caption in case we need to refer to that. The recommendation from staff is approval of this development plan subject to conditions of technical corrections. So only one motion will be required: approval or denial of the development plan as usual, subject to conditions of approval approved by staff or recommended by staff. I will point out we did move things around in our staff reports this time around. Our conditions of approval and technical corrections are now consolidated in one table inside of the exhibits. We are no longer putting them in the staff report because they just kind of unnecessarily take up space and it seemed like a better place. So just want to point that out if that was confusing. So I'll briefly go over the project details and then let the applicant run through the project. But yeah, so it's an existing, it's the Country Club Apartment Complex, an existing 62-unit complex owned by the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has received tax increment or low-income housing tax credits to finance the renovations and the addition of 22 units. So the plan is to renovate nine of the 11 existing buildings. One of the buildings in the center will be demolished and replaced with two buildings as outlined here in dark orange. Additionally, there is an existing building here in the southeast corner of the project that is not going to be renovated and will remain in place. The new building, which will replace the existing building to be demolished, will include four new dwelling units as well as some residential amenities. Otherwise, the layout of the existing renovated buildings will remain the same. So with the renovations and the added buildings, the unit count will go up from 62 to 84 units. I'm realizing now that I said that the unit count will remain the same. I think that's incorrect. I'll let the applicant explain how they get from 62 to 84 with the new development. In addition, the development is required to have or will provide 112 parking spaces, including eight ADA spaces. And just want to point out that the renovations will be phased to prevent any tenants from needing to relocate or be evicted from the complex. So there will be no displacement as a result of this development or this renovation. So I won't go through everything here, but just to kind of re-outline the project details. Building one is the new building, is by far the largest with 29,000 square feet. Buildings 2 through 10, as outlined in the staff report, all remain the same at 3,400 square feet each. And then building 11 is 15,000 square feet and will remain the same. Yeah. And then let's see. So there is, as I mentioned, the Airport Road Overlay does apply in this case. However, because so many of the units are not being, are not new and are not adjacent to the Airport Road corridor, the overlay doesn't really apply to much of this development. The main one to keep in mind was the requirement for additional street setbacks, which is amply met by the proposed development. Otherwise, the development is fully in compliance with the R29 zoning requirements as proposed in the development plan. Let's see. So, this is the elevation of the new building. I think I must have had a typo before because I mentioned in here that there's only four new dwelling units in the new building. It's 26. I don't know where I got that. I apologize. So that doesn't make any sense because the new building is quite large. And so as you can see, there's several more units in this central building here. It is a significant departure from the existing architecture. However, it does meet our architectural points checklist. It is, I would say, more in line with the Santa Fe style than the existing structures, which is what we have here. These are the existing structures to be renovated. I'll let the applicants go into specifics about what exactly the renovations will achieve. But from my understanding, it's going to be freshening up the interiors, but not too much on the exterior. So, with that, let me, this is in my way. Okay. So with that, I'll just go through a few of the development plan approval criteria. We do find that the application does not adversely affect the public interest. It is permissible under R29. In fact, R29 is the densest zoning category that we have. So multi-family is quite compatible with that zoning. It's also permissive under the future land use designation of high-density residential. Therefore, it meets the goals of the zoning or the general plan and the codes and therefore is not adverse to the public interest. Criterion three, that the use of any associated building is compatible with adjacent uses. Again, there's a lot of different uses on Airport Road, but there is a significant amount of multi-family uses around there. Additionally, there's several other areas of single-family and retail opportunities. So, they're fairly well served by transit as well as services. And then I did mention that the development has taken into account the impacts of the transition of the renovations by making sure that any tenants will not be displaced as part of the renovation. So with that, I'll end my presentation and stand for questions. Thank you. Any questions? Questions? So, we'll move to Miss Jenkins. It's green. Name and address for the record. Jenkins, 130. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? I do, Madam Chair. The applicant is sworn. Evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin this evening on Santa Fe Singapore. I am just going to go over a few brief things in my presentation. Daniel covered it all very well. So, just a few introductions. As I mentioned, the property owner and manager of the community is the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority. Architecture services provided locally by Tom Gford here this evening. Engineering by ABQ Engineering, Landscape Architecture by the Plan Collaborative, and of course, Daniel Alvarado is our city staff. So from the Civic Housing Authority, I'm joined this evening by Edward Merrill and David Martinez here and any questions for them. So this is the location of the property on Airport Road. We're just west of the South Meadows Airport Road intersection. Properties was probably one of the first multi-family communities built in Santa Fe originally in the 60s and been there a long time. So as D point out is zoned R29 and as you can see by this, it looks like a beautiful quilt and this is the Airport Road corridor is very diverse in terms of its zoning, its land uses, everything. And so there is a lot of residential development along the corridor as well as institutional commercial, you name it. Where it's got, so zooming in, this is the existing conditions. So we have two access points, existing access on Airport Road, and then it's basically just kind of a loop drive that loops around. So the buildings are just surround. So I'm doing a little side by side here change, but what I have here in red at the back is one of these are all four-unit buildings, two down and two up. And so this building here in the back in the middle will be demolished. And then in the center here is kind of the amenity building, office, the laundry, you know, kind of a resident lounge area is in there. So that will also be, and so over to the right, what you see in red are the new buildings. So this is, it's really one building, but it reads as two because there is a wall posted here, bridges that connect two wings of the building, which architecturally created a lot of interest. And so that it's technically one building, but when you look at it, it's like two buildings. So in the, this new, this new building will comprise 26 new units. So we currently have 62, we're going to get rid of four and add 26, and that's how we get to the 84. So that's, that's the math. And we have this building down here in the right hand, the southeast corner. No changes are proposed. And as Daniel mentioned, there is a pretty robust renovation program for the existing buildings. And one of the things that we are doing, the missing buildings have standing seam metal pitch, great shape, and it's quite. Please make sure you talk into the mic. Some of the DRT members that are on Zoom are having a hard time hearing you. Rare anybody has a hard time hearing me. I try. So I will, I will do better. Thank you, Dan. And but with respect to the exterior, we are modifying the color. We're going to actually paint the brick to match the stucco of the new building. So everything is really, it's going to look so fresh and it's going to look really great, and everything's going to harmonize really well. So just zooming in on the site plan here, we have, we're proposing no changes to our access to Airport Road. We have one, one of our access points here on the, on the west is right in, right out, and then the other access point has left turning there. No changes are proposed. We did work with Public Works around the program and a traffic study, really wasn't warranted because the addition of 20, going from 62 to 84 units, didn't really create any kind of significant, and one other really great element about this redevelopment effort is we're creating some really wonderful usable outdoor space for the residents, and I'll show you that right now. So this is kind of just back at the center. This is kind of in the area where that building, that four-unit building that we're demolishing is. And so we have kind of a plaza area here with some hardscape and a lawn area. Then at the back, we have children's play equipment with the padded kind of play surface and mulch that's back there and some really nice landscape. This is really going to create a really sweet area for the residents just to enjoy the, enjoy some fresh air, the outdoors, and of course, having, having a place for play. So this just goes into the details. And the site is a little under six acres. And what I didn't touch on is the new building also, we're going to replace all those amenities. So the new office, the laundry, the resident lounge, all those elements will be on the ground, essentially on the ground floor, on that front part of the building. And so the unit mix is also really diverse. Everything from three-bedroom, two-bath down to one-bedroom, one-bath units. And I did want to point out that there was some inconsistency in the submittal about the parking. So 110 spaces are required, providing 112. So we're all good. And that also includes six EV spaces that we are including. And I did also want to point out that right here, we are proposing a new monument sign at this, this portion here. It was a little hard to see on the development plan, and because it's to scale, it's very tiny. So I did just want to point out that we are indeed proposing a monument sign there. And what is really special about this project is the level of, so this, so based upon the level of affordability, we already are deemed compliant with the Santa Fe Homes program. So there's not any additional compliance that is required of us. And I just quote that code section here. And as you can see at the bottom, we are, we are serving families that are below 30% AMI, 50%, 60%, and then we have a few units that will just bump up to more that kind of workforce housing level at 100% AMI. So we're serving a very diverse level of income ranges, and I'm proud of this project. It's an important project in our community, and we're really happy that we get to grow it so we can serve, serve more families. So with that, I'll be happy to stand for any questions. Any questions? Mr. Morando. Sure. Hi. Hi. So the charging stations, I just, I had a question in my notes from it. What level are they? Are they, I'm assuming they're level ones. They're level twos. Six level twos. Are they, is it just the infrastructure or? Please state your name and address for the record. Tom Gifford, 1709 Sayulita. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this island shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties? Excellent. Seaborg. Any other questions? I think somebody could zoom. I guess I, I, well, I think it's okay if you're asking clarifying questions. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. In the staff report, I see the requirement is 113 and the proposed is 112. We're down one from the required, and I just wanted to clarify what's going on there. It, it landed at 110. So, and we're going to, the requirement's 110. Okay. We're going to, we're going to submit a revision to Daniel just so it's all clear in the, my report will be amended and make sure that the development plan and everything aligns. Okay. Can I ask one more? Sure. Can you talk a little bit about the building that you're leaving existing and what the condition of it is, both kind of interior and why is it being left? Is it, are the units updated? It's not part of the LIHTC. So, we have low-income housing tax credit funding for this, and that particular building just isn't, isn't part of the funding, but that building is also going to be used to relocate residents while their home, their units are being renovated, and then they are going to get, and they'll be moved back. And so that is, we're utilizing that building as a, as a means so nobody is, is displaced. So we're gradually just through natural attrition, allowing that building to stay heat, and so that way we, we have that available, but it's just not part of the LIHTC funding that's funding the balance of. Okay. And then one more question about that building, if, as far as, I love seeing the whole project be affordable, as far as the breakdown of where the different units are going to be. Are they going to be interspersed between all of it? Are they going to be, are the lowest ones going to? No, not, not at all. Because it's really about the, the income level for a particular renter or a particular family, right? It's like, oh, you're at this, and so, yeah, nothing is sequestered because you can't really manage it or control it like that because, yeah. So everything is spread about. So Commissioner McGee, thank you. Hi, Jennifer. Hi. Hi. So I noticed in the E&N notes that some of the, the residents had questions about access to the Las Praos Park. Yes. But I don't see a response to it. Can you tell us if you all there, the access to Las Praos Park is going to be through? So they'll walk down to South Meadows. Boom. I mean, it's, it's not a very, it's not a very long. Sure. Okay. And then I noticed that there currently is, I think, a tennis court and a pool. Are you all eliminating those? And they're kind of already gone. Yeah, the pool was gone a long time ago. Gotcha. Okay. I think that's all. Thanks. We'll open this up to public comment. So if anyone here, anyone in the audience is present, that would like to come up and make public comment on this project, please come forward. So it appears that there's no one here from the public ready to make a comment. Is there anyone on Zoom? No hands are raised. Okay. Okay. So we'll go ahead and close the public comment section of this and move back to any comments by the commissioners before we move this to a vote. Commissioner Kean, this might be a question for Jennifer. Is the children's play area fenced in? Yes, it is. I couldn't tell on the, the drawing. And then this might be a question for staff. The part about, I just want to understand this, and I believe you obviously, but the part where the overlay has other regulations on it, and it's not applying in here when there's changes to the property. But I think the reasoning was because the buildings are set back a certain amount. Is that, am I understanding that correctly or? Yes, that's correct. Also, there, several of the Airport Road overlay requirements have to do with architectural design. And those are also, because they're existing structures, we don't, we don't apply it in this case, except for the new structure. I'd have to go back and go through each the list of all the design requirements, but you'll see in, in the report provided by the applicant, they did go through each requirement line by line, and staff concurred with their, their analysis. I was just, I guess surprised that renovation is happening on a property, it usually triggers, so like the whole thing, not that it would, I, yeah. So I guess I've never wanted to, so when an existing thing doesn't have to, when it's, when the property is being updated, it doesn't have to bring the whole property up to current standards. Again, I'd have to go back and look exactly what the standards were speaking about, but I think we found that the existing structures were in compliance, if not, and also because they're not really being changed. Member Capen, the those buildings were constructed prior to the adoption of the overlay, and so therefore, they're just being renovated, and so we're not going to make them do anything substantial to bring it up to the design standards. I mean, obviously, those probably would not even meet the void system as they are. So, but we would not make them just with a light touch renovation to change the design of the building. I, yeah, sorry. Heather, I, I do want to point out, they do meet the points, the architectural points checklist. We did that analysis. So, I, yeah, I think it was just the, that the stuff that's being renovated and bring them up. What, I guess what is the renovation that's happening? It's primarily interior updates, you know, cosmetic, new appliances, probably some new plumbing fixtures that we're not, you know, moving walls around or doing any of that nature. And the exterior is, is more cosmetic. And like we're looking at the railings along the balconies, so they will match railings for the new building. Looking at painting the exterior to match the new building, so we create some architectural harmony. And but there were quite a few of the, of the standards and the overlay, like you, you can't have more than one row of parking adjacent to Airport Road. We're complying with that. But we did the additional street trees, which were required to do. We're, we're doing that as well. Also providing some seating, those in those areas along Airport. We're providing that as well. So there were a lot of things that were, were applicable, but as far as the, and, and the architecture of the new building has to meet those, those overlay standards. The existing buildings and the new building are compliant already with the setbacks. So there were, there were quite a few things that, that did apply, but there were just some that because either we're already compliant, so there really wasn't anything to do, or like I said, with those existing buildings, there's, you know, there's not a lot you can do to something that predates or kind of grandfathered. Yeah. In terms of that, I personally really like the brick, so I'd just see that staying. Now that I'm thinking about this, I think the building siding would have been the only one that we'd have questions about, but again, because they're existing, that would be asking them to tear down buildings, which is, I think, too much. I wasn't trying to imply that. I just understand how that works when part of a property is being updated like this and kept. I'm glad they're being reused, of course. If it was, you know, if they cleared the site doing a fresh design, yes, we would have to meet everything from the beginning. But yeah. Any other questions or comments? If not, can we have a motion? Chair Cloud: In the case of 2025-9707, the development plan for Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority Country Club Apartments, Country Club Apartments Development Plan, motion to approve subject to any conditions imposed by staff. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner McGee: Yes. Commissioner Morando: Yes. Commissioner Capon: Yes. Madam Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you, and thank you for your presentation. Really exciting. We'll move on to staff communications. We have an update with reference to the General Plan update. Currently, we are accepting applications for the TWIG, the Technical Working Group. We put the information out to the public and press releases and the like, and we've received quite a few applications. We did extend the application deadline to the 13th of April just to make sure we have a broad representation of different occupations and interests on the TWIG. So, with reference to the Community Partners Program, we also have been doing outreach for different organizations to encourage them to apply for the mini-grant program so that we can have those partnerships. Another thing that I have been working on with Counselor Castro is the Civic Assembly and working with her to have a parallel process that will be engaging individuals. So, for instance, the 501c3, when we pay for engagement, there's a certain structure. It's through the city. You can't pay an individual in this format. So, for those individuals, the Civic Assembly would be a good opportunity to engage that. We're also going to be doing a listening tour. We're going to be going out into the community, but we just established our first open house, and that date is June 14th. We will be meeting with the community, telling them about the project, about what the components of the General Plan are, and sort of launching into some of those beginning topics that will express. So, more to come on the June 14th open house. Prior to that, on, just making sure I have my right date, on June 6th, I believe, or possibly before, the Planning Commission will receive a copy of the assessment report. The assessment report reviews all existing conditions, including demographics, economic, you know, the economic framework, as well as functionality of lots of different aspects of city government. And the Planning Commission will be given the opportunity to review the assessment report and offer any comments. So, we'll be getting that to you hopefully about two or three weeks before a Planning Commission hearing in which you can provide us with those comments. So, we have a lot happening with the General Plan update. We are still hopefully getting to a finish line on the final review of Phase One of the Land Development Code. You should expect that to come back to this commission in the month of May. We're hoping to introduce the Phase One adoption of the Land Development Code to the City Council in May, starting with the introduction. There are several steps that it has to go through before it comes back to you. So, it might be end of May, beginning of June, but the intent is to launch directly into Phase Two of the Land Development Code so we can start with the engagement for that as well. And at the same time as the General Plan, just to sort of help, you know, have a more robust conversation on, you know, what is it at the 30,000-foot level and how are we going to do it in the Land Development Code. So, hopefully that'll help with that as well. We're improving the digital platform, which is part of the General Plan update project, but we will be expanding much further. So, we're developing the GIS platform, Geographic Information System platform, that people will be able to go on and be able to look up different things like a subdivision plat, a building permit, and the like. There's going to be a lot of work with scanning over files and all of that. So, we in the background are going to be working on getting the data into the digital platform. We do have a map that's on the SantaFeforward.org website where people can comment on, for instance, an intersection. How does that work? It's related to a specific place. One of the comments was that there's a missing portion of a sidewalk, for instance, and that needs to be fixed. Everybody knows the city by living in that portion of the city that maybe I wouldn't or somebody else wouldn't. So, that's really interesting to read. You might want to go on the website because we have about 90 comments, and we're hoping to get more. So, we're really trying to also start the digital engagement process as well. SantaFeforward.org. And I think that's it for now. We're messaging all this stuff also on social media with the City of Santa Fe's social media pages and the like. But if you want to forward that out to your networks, it'd be great. Okay, go ahead. Thank you so much for that update. I actually saw the article in the Santa Fe New Mexican and forwarded it to lots of people. So, hopefully, we get some engagement. I'm curious for the TWIG Technical Committee. You mentioned that you are trying to get a diversity of occupations. Are you also looking at areas of the city that individuals live in to try to make it diverse that way? Chair Cloud: Commissioner McGee, that is correct. So, we're looking at a diverse group of people. So, we want people from District Three as well as people from the East Side, or in different sectors, for instance, healthcare or other aspects of, you know, representing different parts of the city and both work as well as lived experience. So, thank you. I have a question. So, I take it we're having a meeting April 17th. So, two meetings this month. Is it just the one matter that was postponed, or are there other matters? I think we posted that agenda. Let me give you a quick look, and I'll tell you. Mr. Chair Cloud: The reason that we postponed to April 17th, typically there's not a second meeting for the Planning Commission, but in this particular case, we're trying to work with the Educational Retirement Building. So, the building was constructed, and the city was never consulted as to health and safety matters and impacts on city infrastructure. And so, they developed a site plan there. Claudia, as a matter of fact, has been working with them to address all these issues. We just got a traffic impact analysis letter, and we're getting piece by piece the information that we need to present to you. It's what is expected of you. So, we've had site visits with the fire department, and we're really trying to expedite it. So, it hopefully will meet all of the standards when we bring it to you. But it is a quick process just to facilitate the state opening that facility. I think that's the only one, only matter, but if you have another question, I'll look it up real quick. Are you planning to, prior to bringing Phase One to a vote or a recommendation vote to the council, are you planning to have a study session with us? Chair Cloud: Certainly. So, the Planning Commission did review the lion's share of the document. It's the same. We just have input from the City Attorney's Office and some edits relating to that input. Some of it is in telecommunication. Marcos Martinez has been especially helpful in bringing things up to what is expected currently by the FCC. So, but a lot of the other edits were pretty, they were significant, but not changing any overall intent of things. I don't know, Rebecca, do you have anything to add? So, we are going to be trying to highlight the things that are substantive so that that should be easier to find them. We're going to be adding, let's see, a definition of micro-communities is another example of something that's being added since that's something that is kind of part of the city right now. We've also updated the signage section to make it consistent with the law. We've updated some sections regarding manufactured homes also. And I think that other than that, it's mostly looking for consistencies. I think there was one section in the appeals section that was a little unclear that had some inconsistent, like internal inconsistencies that we were working on. So, but the goal is to have also a disposition report that you should be able to follow to look for those substantive changes. So, it's not just a huge document with maybe some new changes buried in there, but some specific things highlighted for you to flag that might be different than what you looked at before. So, this has been really super helpful for us. And what we'll do is as part of our staff memo, we will specifically address the nature of those changes that have been made since the last time that you saw it. But we would be happy to do a study session, an extra study session if you wish. We only have the one case on the 17th. So, if you would like for us to prepare a study session after that, we'd be happy to do so, or if you feel like it's better heard at a different time. I think it'd be great if, especially if it's coming to us in May, if you can be prepared to do it. What does everyone else think? I think it would be good. Okay. And we also have a disposition report that's updated that generally outlines, and you may have received this a long time ago because we had a previous draft that came to you. So, what I'll do is I will send that out to you sooner rather than later. So, you can sort of get an orientation to what may have changed and then get the document in its current iteration to you for the 17th. And Commissioner McGee, you could, it'll be, you can watch it after, which I think would be, yeah, I think that'd be great. Okay. I'd feel much better rather than showing up. Thank you. Everything's coming up so quickly. It is, Dan. So, that'll be the only case. Okay. Because it was postponed from this meeting today that there's no agenda. So, that will be, so if we're going to show up, we might as well do something else. That's good. Okay. Anything from the commission? Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you. Thank you.