 So Kirby is here, Stephanie Smith is here. She's going to have to duck out a little early. Emery Richardson is here. Thank you for the binder. Barb's here, and Ariane. Am I pronouncing your name right? OK. And I got an email or a text from John Adams saying he couldn't make it last minute. So this is it, which we do technically have a quorum. Is there still a quorum for meeting with us? There is a quorum. Yes. You're at the quorum. I get to vote at that point. Yeah. I always discount myself, so I forget that I count. You're here to add yourself back. Yeah. So all right. Well, if we're ready, we'll call the meeting to order, OK? So everyone, direct everyone's attention to the agenda. So I would like to adjust the agenda because we have absence of several people and in the interest of focusing our attention tonight on finishing up the zoning, kind of like the fixes, quote unquote fixes to our zoning going through that matrix. I would like to table the city plan kickoff item that's item eight until the next meeting. And with that being tabled, I think we can conclude tonight's meeting at 6.30, so assuming we don't have any big issues that pop up. And really, I have a great deal of interest in making sure that Mike can leave as soon as possible since he is ill and he's calling in nevertheless. And Stephanie needs to leave. So if anyone has any objection to that, we can change it, but OK. Any other modifications to the agenda? Have we not yet just considered December 10th minutes, or was this a correction on the 10th? They needed to be corrected. OK. Yeah. Yeah, I think there was some confusion about who made what motion. It was about there was two different items that were clumped together. They should have been separate motion. So I think Mike was going to modify that, and that's why they popped back up on the agenda. So OK, well, we'll deem the agenda with the tabling of item eight as approved by consensus. OK, so item, well, that's item two. So item three, annual election of chair and vice chair. So this is something that we're required to do every January every year. Like I said at the last meeting, Kirby and I are happy to continue serving, but we certainly don't need to. Nobody else has approached me. So and I think there's a lot of roles for people even without official title, but if anyone does want something, then you should let me know. But hearing none, do I have any nominations? Do I have to make a nomination? We should nominate Leslie, the chair, and do I have seconds for the nomination? Let's see. Any discussion about this? It'd be kind of awkward now. OK, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? OK, the motion carries. The motion to nominate, that's what we'll call it. All right, well, thank you. Another year, we'll see, has things progressed, we can reevaluate next year, whether we want to continue or we want to change it up. So I might not mind stepping down after this year. I'm surprised you're going to continue now, Leslie. Well, I mean, with the amount of new planning commissures we've had come on, it seemed to make sense that we would continue to do that. But yeah. A lot for you to take. Yes, I'm very, but Kirby has. We've talked about maybe I could leave some meetings here and there, just to kind of ease the burden on Leslie. You could expect that. Yes, I appreciate that. OK, so number four is comments from the chair. I don't want to spend too much time talking about comments, but I do just want to recognize that I am receiving emails with people interested in providing input on the city plan. And I know everybody here is chanting at the back to get going on that. So I'm looking for us to start delving into that, starting at the next meeting, and to spend the bulk of our time working on that. And the first part of that process will be sort of big picture thinking, which will be fun and overwhelming at once. But we'll be able to do it. So I'll go over some more detailed ideas about that at the next meeting. So for now, that's all I have, unless anyone else has any random. Leslie, is it possible that Dan Jones might be coming in at the next meeting? Well, I'll see if he's available. I don't know. It's pretty less than it. Yeah, I don't know if everyone knew that he offered to present the Bridges competition winner. It seems like a great place to start. It's definitely an overview that would be useful. Yeah, so hopefully it'll be. And I ask them to distribute the information to the planning commission directly, not just make everybody go on the site and read it. So I hope they'll have a hard copy available. Great, great. Thank you, Barb. OK, so general business is item five, which is when we invite members from the public to come up and present comments about items that aren't on the agenda. But there's no member of the public present. So we'll move on to item six, which is our punch list of zoning fixes. And I understand from Mike, we have one item that's highlighted in yellow that we have not voted on or we need to discuss. And then the remaining items will be deemed approved by consent unless somebody brings up an issue they want to discuss. So what I propose we do is we start with item four, have Mike walk us through the issue, and then I'd like to hear if anyone has any specific items they want to talk about in here. And Stephanie, if you need to step out. OK, OK, OK. So Mike, can you walk us through number four, the decision that needs to be made? OK, and let me know if you can't hear me. You're loud and clear. OK, so number four was just an issue that had come up on an application where zoning permit to. Is it possible to differentiate between parking and pathways, or does that make it too complicated? If it's a gravel pathway, they can pave it without a permit. But if it's parking, they need to get a permit. Plays can work the same way, though. They could be rather informal. Yeah, that makes it messier, just a thought. Well, I mean, client, the same as Mike, where I mean, not to worked up over the issue, but I do think that regulating and tracking impervious services that are popping up is a pretty good policy goal. And so I tend to not want to see over-regulation, but I think this is one that's important enough and with water quality issues and things being on everyone's minds, I think keeping trapped in impervious services makes it all that more important to do. I would agree with that. And the other point to make is that gravel is a variable surface, even though they call it impermeable, but it really does drainage patterns change over time after freezing and thawing. So whereas pavement is pretty much set. And so if somebody then paves over a gravel surface and drains onto a neighbor's property, we better know about it. So I think it would be better just to be able to have some kind of overview. So what exactly is the proposal? I'm sorry if I missed it, but I can maybe have an old. So the recommendation is to just say, to state that you wouldn't require a permit for the paving or paving of already impervious surfaces. This pops up under, so I mean, in the exemption section of the zoning, it says that certain types of development are exempt. And I think for some reason this gets pulled in through the definition section. Is that right, Mike? Yeah, so we voted in a different place on the matrix development, and instead actually put the definition of lane development in 1004. So what I would end up doing is just inserting it on one of those. So I'm just going to read it out loud for people who don't have a copy immediately in front of them. So on page 1-1, there's this little i and this sentence in italics that says, land development means constructing, installing, demolishing, constructing, converting, structurally altering, relocating, or enlarging any structure, mining, excavating, filling, or grading land, removing natural woody vegetation from within riparian buffers, changing or extending the use of land or structure, adjusting or relocating the boundary between two lots or dividing a lot into two or more lots. So this one, this issue seems to come under converting, reconstructing, structurally altering. Is that right? Was the idea to strike i all together and then put the definition? I'm not clear on that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just trying to, if I have one second, I'm going to look up a different way to get there here. Sure. Because it's also mentioned in 5101-L2 as the definition. Development? Yeah, land development. Land development. Yeah, and then if we changed it, it could get changed in one location and not in the other. Well, the word land development is used throughout the applicability section. So it makes sense to just have it clear as part. Because these informational notes are really not part of the ordinance, are they? Well, other than references. Yeah, so the i wasn't. So we removed that one. And what I put in was, and I can get you the strikeout copy as soon as we're done today. So in my 1004.b that says development includes the reconstruction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, enlargement, or demolition of it. So it's what we had here, except broken into subparts. It's actually written in the rags now with specific provisions for each of those types of development that are listed off with semicolons in between them here. And then you've clarified the paving to be part of that. It's its own. Even though you arguably could be interpreted as one of these issues, one of these types of development, you've now created its own provision so it's abundantly clear. Yeah, I thought, yeah, I went for the abundantly clear. I'm OK with that proposal. Well, what others? Would you remove the definition then from by 101L? The paving definition? No, the land development definition. Yes, I would reference in the end because just so everybody knows, there's a rule of thumb for writing regulations that says, say it once. You never say something twice because you'll always get it different. So what I would probably have in the definition section, E. Yeah. OK, not everything that was in 5101L2 was in the definition that you just read to us. So we have a couple of other issues that are here, like the adjustment or relocation to the boundary between two lots or the division of a lot into two or more lots. Yeah, that was in my subdivision blah, blah, blah. Oh, subdivision blah. OK, all right, that sounds good. Just as long as we don't lose it. No, no, it definitely had to be in there. So by saying paving of unpaved surfaces, you're exempting something like a gravel path that would be paved. Am I understanding that right? No. So we're not exempting it. Not exempting it. So you would need to get a permit for the paving of a gravel path. OK. So that's kind of the development, right? So it says that the first time, the intention is to require a permit the first time you pave, but if you have to repave, then you would not need a permit. OK. Yes, if it's already paved, then it's considered maintenance. Is that acceptable? Yeah. To everyone? Sure. OK, Mike, we're going with your recommendation. OK. Consensus, that's what I said. OK, thanks, Stephanie. See you at the next meeting, which will be on that calendar. It doesn't even show me. It's just going to look so that it's all. February 11th and 25th. OK. See you then. Don't think one of those is a holiday? No, I don't think so either. OK, so then I think we wanted to revisit number 125 as well. I don't think we voted on that. That was the only other yellow one that was open. What about 62, Mike? That's still open, but did you just decide not to act on it? Yeah, we decided to hold off on that until after we have more of the city plan work underway and we understand whether that's going to fit within it. It's sort of an idea that we thought we'd consider as part of the city plan. That's the question was whether we'd have just sort of a generic PUD to add all the other PUDs and we decided let's work on our city plan and see whether that's something that we decide is necessary at that point. But let's hold off on it for now. So that was 62. So 125, let's see. And then we got kind of caught in a question of what accessory buildings would mean. So we would want to see a site plan. Yeah, I agree, Mike. As long as it comes out as a minor site plan, it seems like the number of sections that are pertained to minor site plan are reasonable to ask for a new four-unit building. Mike, if someone is modifying an existing Victorian to make it to turn it from one unit into four, would you say that it's always an administrative site plan review? Which of yous? Don't go from one to four. Yeah, I'm just trying to zoom down to the part where we have where the requirements are for items that need almost there. Three and four dwelling units are conditional in some zones, some districts. Those would automatically have a hearing anyways. What are you looking for? All right, so section 3201. People want to look at major site plan and what needs a minor site plan. Major site plans have the hearings. Minor site plans are administrative. So the following are major site principal buildings. Major renovations. The building pretty much can't be occupied. It's one of these full guttons. That's what it's going to ask. Five parking spaces or two. Yeah, major renovations. That term is used there. It seems kind of vague to me. It has a definition, and we think it's got enough. And if somebody disagrees with us, they can take it. But we think we've got a pretty good. Page five dash one, two. Yeah, I think the building can't be. So it seems like one of its distinguishing characteristics is alteration to the exterior shell of the building. So putting in a bunch of walls. You're saying it wouldn't quite get you there. But if you're going to put in a bunch of walls and you can't occupy the building. And like three kitchens. You know, if you can't occupy the building for its original intent, if it's a single family home and the people are living there, I suppose you could argue that it's not a major renovation. But I personally am really interested in pursuing this more. I mean, I don't feel like I'm well versed enough in the zoning to know all the potential scenarios. But I also feel like it would be really helpful to have John here to discuss it. Can we put this off or do we need to? I mean, I know we've been like slow on that. One thing I'm thinking about with this item is this is another great item to take up in the context of the city plan. Where we have some ideas of adjustments, tweaks we could make to the zoning in order to work towards certain goals, like increasing housing stock, for instance. So this could be a great item to hold off on for now and discuss again once we're in that discussion. So we can bring tweaks to the zoning to the city council at any time? We can at any time. Yeah. Yeah. And whatever vote you make tonight, this will just make, it'll let me finish making the strikeout copy. And then we can warn a public hearing. And we still have opportunity to make chances later. So if John shows up to the public hearing, he has the opportunity to go and say, I still want to revisit this. And it's permanent at this point. We're just going to make a copy that we say, this is our copy. We're going to go to public hearing. And as you all remember, many of you who were on the last one remember, we made a bunch of changes after the public hearing. And so we may, after our public hearing, before we send it to the city council, and they may make. Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely interested in this change as well. But I don't want to do it without talking through all of the potential consequences. And I have a feeling Stephanie would probably be interested too. So I think there's good reason to bring it up later. Just hold off for now. One point I just want to make in reviewing this, that the Section 3207 design and compatibility would not pertain to this if it was not a major site plan review. So and we're putting a lot of eggs in that basket to make sure that it's consistent with the neighborhood. There might be some other tweaks to make this area while we're at it too. I mean, part of the concept here is the city is invested in the exterior doing there. But things that are mostly internal, like we're talking about, where you're just increasing the number of units in a place. Yeah, they'd have to get a building permit, though, and they'd have to put sprinklers in. So at that scale, they'd have to put sprinklers in. They would, yeah. I'm just thinking a lot about if we work on this later, thinking about the focus on the exterior as opposed to regulating the interior as much. It's not as much of their business. Yeah, I mean, it's one thing to change an existing building versus constructing a new four unit building. It's going to be a different, potentially different set of criteria that we're going to be concerned about. So I wouldn't want to get rid of it right now. But so what you're suggesting, Leslie, is that we don't change it now, but potentially change it later. Look at it with the. Yes. Yeah, I mean, we're going to have a lot of opportunities to make recommendations as part of the city plan about changes that should be done. And then we could, I mean, if we decide this makes a lot of sense, we could, after we are done with the city plan, we could just take it up immediately and check something off the city plan checklist. OK, everyone go with that approach? OK. So the numbers 56 through 130 are the consent items. Does anybody have any specific points they want to discuss? Five. I'm guessing five. Will. 56 through 130? Yes. Remind me, did we already do one through 55 except for the number four? OK. Yep. I know it's sort of hard every two weeks to get in and out of the mindset. And find the right matrix. The right matrix is dated December 28, 2018, I believe. Yes. At least we're looking off the same copy. So under 84 we are going to add a definition of change of use, correct? OK, so Mike, Barb's directing us to number 84. Add a definition of change of use. Do we have that definition now? I do, but it's probably down in my office. OK. So could we maybe see that next time? I mean, certainly, we need to add a definition. Yes. I just want to see the wording, that's all. But that makes sense. That makes sense. I guess I had a question, but maybe not a problem. With 111, some conflict exists between 3505 lot arrangement 3903009 stormwater? So the decision we made, but we can revisit it. Oh, I didn't have that as approved. Yes. PC agrees to delete 3505.A7. Was the decision at the time? Which number are we on? 111. 111. 111. Yeah, I have delete number 7 of 3505 written down. Under which end of your third column? Never mind. Yeah, so on 111, it's my own note. Oh, your note. It's my own. Yeah, I wasn't seeing any notes under actions, Mike. So that's why I wasn't sure what we had decided to do. OK. Just one other quick question on 127, on the campus PV and permits. Yep. Recommend striking the last sentence. It seems from reading it that the intent was that after five years, the approval would expire. But you said there seemed to be some confusion with that. Was that not your interpretation? Last sentence is confusing. Does not apply. I get to it here. 346. M1. Yeah. So campus master plan. So if a development is going in for major site plan approval and has gotten it, they need to actually do the development within five years. It's not actually addressing anything regarding the master plan of the campus. Yeah, I think my confusion is on the last sentence. My notes in the matrix probably weren't as clear as they could have been. This provision shall not apply. Oh, is it the two above it? Yeah, there's talking about a couple of things above it. Right. A shared parking plan is a minor. So just strike the last sentence. Yeah, so my record. I have different subprovisions to handle just one particular issue. Yep. I mean, do you want to break one into two so that proposed development becomes item number two? Or just not in the end? I don't know what I would recommend for the parking plan or the sign plan. I think I would just follow what's going on above proposed development requiring major site plan shall occur within five years. We will probably revisit. OK. So we're going to have to come back to number 84 briefly. I think that was a good catch five. I thought we were. Yeah, let's see if there's anything else. Yeah, I'm sorry. I actually had that printed out and sitting on my debit. Seems like we've had trouble with that before trying to define what was a change of use and what wasn't. So it's be good to have a definition. Yeah, I've written them before for other communities. So I had one that I kind of worked and I thought it was going to fit pretty well. But I think it is an important definition that we should probably review. Yeah, yeah. Would you mind distributing that by email when you get back to work and we can, that way, we shouldn't reply. But we can all consider it on our own and then talk about it the next meeting quickly. Anything else on this? OK. Well, we should talk about, I mean, the next item on the agenda is the adoption process. But before we get into those specifics, let's talk about Kirby's memos. Do we want to have a motion on the consent or are we just assuming that everybody else is good because it was a consent item? We are assuming everyone else is good because it was a consent item and everyone was duly warned as such. But I don't think we're ready to make a motion to pass on this packet yet until we discuss number 84, which is the change of use definition. Yep, and I have a couple others for anyone who's looked up and up above, whatever, 59. There were a couple of yellow areas where staff was going to develop a map or staff was going to develop. There were a couple of them that I had work to do. There weren't decisions you guys had to do. There was just some work I had to do. So I've got to put some stuff together to get those to you anyways. OK, we can consider all of those at the next meeting and then hopefully with those approved or modified and approved, we can then pass on a whole packet. I'll take a plan. So which ones are we excluding right now? We're excluding 62 and? Well, I mean, we made decisions on all of them except for 84. And some of the decisions were to just hold off. Yeah. I don't know the best way to go through it. Well, I just think it'd be helpful to identify the ones that we're holding off on. So otherwise, if we pass all of these, then it sounds as if we have approved the ones that are still in flux as well. So 62 was one of them. OK, so we need work from Mike on numbers 15, 18, 62, and we're going to do in the context of the city plan. Right, right. That would be the same. Oh, just that we're going to know that we're going to hold off on it. Right, OK. And so for that, it was 62. And I didn't make it know because I figured this. 84, which is the one you just brought up about change of use. And then 125. 125. 18, 2, Leslie. Yeah, that one staff to develop maps, develop new painting studio use. That's all I can see off-hand, but. Our resolution to the painting studio issue was to try to define it. Is that what you're saying, Mike? I don't remember. Yeah, there would be a new use for a painting studio. Otherwise, all of the art studios will be like manufacturing. So I just needed to come up with a definition. Yeah, that just sounds tricky. Defined. It's a very subjective one. What is it? When you cross the line out of a painting studio. When does it become sculpture? Well, we just need to make sure that we figure out how the art studios be allowed because right now, they're apparently not allowed. Art studios fall under light manufacturing. And the term art can be so broad. There's different mediums. Somebody could say it's, well, I'm an artist doing. We could revisit that if it seems. Yeah, certainly anyone can. OK, so we just have five items that we're excluding from our consent agenda, or our consent approval. Well, not all of them were consent approved. Just items 56 through 130 minus 125 and 84. Anything that hasn't been commented on is assumed to be approved at this point. I just want to be clear. We noted every other one that had either been approved or not approved. Yeah, we walked through all the other ones. OK, so let's talk about Kirby's memos. Because you, well, we kind of discussed how we wanted to do it at the last meeting. And I'm not sure if you've had an opportunity to modify them at all. I did. I sent everyone. I think I sent to the entire group. Yeah, I sent to the entire group. I think I remember that. I lose track of what I sent to you and my group. I sent everyone. I sent everyone in copies. They were lightly modified versions of what we had talked about before. Broke it out into two memos. We haven't done a thorough discussion of the more contentious issue about billable area. So I hadn't made any major changes there. Barb had provided a lot of feedback to us the last meeting about what she wanted to make there. And some of the stuff that's in the wordsmithing variety of things that Barb pointed out, I looked at and made some changes, maybe not all of them, along those lines. But anything substantive I just tell off on to see. Do we want to discuss it more? Or, I mean, one question is that Barb has a certain vision for it, but the memos from the group. So I mean, we could spend a lot of time to try to get to a place where, if we think it's worthwhile to try to make a version that everyone is totally happy with. Or we could just send it with a note that Barb doesn't think the memo or not is to present both sides of the issue. And here's why we're doing this. So my recollection of our vote approving the preparation of this memo was not to present two sides, but to provide the city council with a clear list or outline just identifying the concerns that were brought up as part of this vote and that could potentially have an impact that they should be considering as part of their consideration of this change. So it wasn't like this was said, and this was said, and this was more like this is. I guess I read that as being the same. OK. Yeah, that here are the issues that were brought up. And here are the advantages and here are the disadvantages. Right. Just clear cut, listed as to either statements of fact or trying to keep it as clear as possible. And then basically, it's up to the city council. Right. And I thought you gave Kirby some excellent feedback about some of the items that looked a little bit subjective. And he made modifications to address that. Yeah, I guess I would say that I didn't see the modifications as kind of meeting what I would like to have seen. So I suggested to Kirby before the meeting tonight that maybe we could just sit down together because I think it would be a lot faster process to do this in person and say, OK, how about this? And kind of work back and forth with some different verbiage rather than send emails ad infinitum. Is that something that the two of you think you might be able to do before the next meeting? I'd be happy to. But so one thing we're going to run into, though, is that there'll be things we probably aren't going to agree on, that where I think it's a substantive change and I think it's not a message that I would want to send. So then what are we? So what? So we put both of them in. What the permission like us to do there. I think we have to put both of them in in a very subjective way. Do we have an example of that? I mean, that you've already run into. We can just discuss quickly. Yeah, I could have fun or comments. Like there's like a factual statement here where I had said that some presidents of popular have voiced disapproval of changes to density limits in the past and Barb wants to change it to disapproved multiple times of neighborhood densities. And I just it's a tonal change there. I think it's sending a different message than what I intended to. So things like that. Yeah. I mean, I think some of it is certainly an issue of emphasis. But I think I want to make sure that for those city counselors who were not here during that process, that they're clear about that this was not just one or two people and that there was some very significant disagreement with what we were doing. And so what we need to be able to do is to show to the public that this change makes sense and would, in fact, not significantly alter that. And so my point of view is that there were some very vocal people, but still compared with the entire population and all the residents of the city, they were still a tiny minority. So I don't want to give a few squeaky wills that kind of platform. That's trouble. Well, I mean, that is my view on it because I do view that I want to represent all the residents and not just them outspoken. Certainly. So like that balances. Yeah. I think that one of the things that we continually said to those people, and there became more and more people over time, it wasn't just one or two people, that we said to them, well, we hear your concern. However, we have these other policies in place that would keep any development consistent with what's in the neighborhood. So that was presented clearly to those people and to everyone. So anyone else who might have dissented may not have come forward because they said, oh, sure. Yeah, we're getting into trouble. So yeah. I mean, there's all, I mean, not that we're making many major, maybe as big changes, but we're making a lot of changes to zoning. And everyone in the city is not necessarily going to be aware that we're, I mean, I feel like we're giving a very, you know, expanse, which is fair given the contentiousness of this issue, but, you know, the Planning Commission also voted to move the recommendation forward. So I just share the concern about giving the city council Enhancing the platform of? Yeah, of something that the Planning Commission, by a majority, didn't vote for. So I don't know how to deal with the differences in Tom. That's very complex. Well, if you don't want to spend any more time on it, then I'm perfectly happy with just writing a dissenting opinion and sending it to the city council. Well, how about this? Why don't we, why don't the two of you, as you suggested, why don't you see if you can come to something? And I would urge you to think about factual corrections that need to be made and to identify when you have a stylistic discrepancy about the tone or the urgency of some, you know. Or opinions. Well, yeah, I mean, obviously, I mean, this memo is intended to represent that there are multiple opinions. So it's not meant to say, this is the one opinion of the city council, of the Planning Commission. It's meant to say that this is, there are a couple of different opinions. This is what the majority chose. But we understand that factually speaking, there are some drawbacks to moving forward with this recommendation. And so ensuring that those factual drawbacks are adequately and accurately captured, that's really important. And I think you are in the best position to do that. So that's what I'm really looking for. And obviously, you know, curvy's a human like anybody else and there can be moments where we've had it in something slightly subjective and it's helpful to have somebody just check, make sure everything's, yeah. Let's, you know. Objective. If it's possible. And the document I distributed in the first place was really a first draft. Yeah, no, I understand, yeah. So the fact that there's a lot of feedback is totally expected and welcome. And if ultimately you feel like checking the factual accuracy is not sufficient when you wanna have a separate dissenting opinion that has more of the tone that you're looking for, then you certainly can do that too. So I mean, I think the more we can speak with one voice, the better our credibility as a commission is. That's why I'm looking to maintain it if we can. But if we can't, I'm not gonna force it. I mean, I think we should have a dissenting opinion if needed. So, all right, so we will meet outside and see what we can draft. Okay, very good. And then we'll all look at that as much as we can. I think we'll have a quick discussion about that and we'll move on, cause we haven't discussed it quite a lot. So should we just try and circulate that before the next meeting? Try to circulate it before the next meeting. Just give us a couple of days. Just no discussion. Right, great. Okay, and then, Mike, are there any quick details about the adoption process that you wanna discuss? No, when we get there, we'll talk about it. It's pretty straightforward. I just wanted to give the two people a chance to ask any questions and to understand the process. But I will go over it at the next meeting when we... So we'll look at 15, 18, 84, and Kirby's memo. Okay. Is that right? 62 and 125 we're holding off on. Yes. Okay. Until the city plan. So we're not taking any action on those. No action. Right. 15, 18, 84, Kirby's memo. Okay. Kirby's memo is really the planning commission's memo and Kirby has graciously drafted it. I'm just calling it Kirby's memo for ease of reference. This is fine. Okay. So that brings us to item nine, which is the minutes from December 10th in January 14th. So first let's look at December 10th, meeting minutes, meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve these minutes? We could discuss. Can we make sure that it's just changed before we can take any action on it? Okay. Does this get changed, Mike? Didn't make a strikeout version, but the minutes are changed on page, it's on the back. I don't have them in front of me. Yeah. Page two. I just mean, was it corrected from the original December 10th that we had? Yes. I was asked to review. I think there's just confusion about what the vote was on. Yeah. The motion passed in a five zero vote with Erin obtaining that. The engineered and slope section would be forwarded. So is that what we voted on? And we didn't vote on the buildable areas question. Correct. That's why we're working on the memo. But we did vote on it a couple of times. I guess we just didn't have an official vote on this date. If you reviewed the video, then I trust you, but I... Yeah, what happened on the 10th was we needed the wards next. So maybe we, I think maybe Kirby's memo identifies a vote on this date, so maybe it could be corrected to a straw, a poll. That's what I'm gonna have to do. What I'm thinking is that if we're gonna discuss the memo, we should just vote in. Okay. Mm-hmm. And that will be the... Yeah, if we didn't have an actual vote. I really thought that on the 10th we had two votes, but it doesn't, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. We can vote next time, and I'll draft the memo. Yeah, if it didn't happen then. Reflect that date, even though it's the future. In the future. Yeah, we had a motion in the second. We never technically withdrew it. We also never technically voted on the first one and then ended up voting on the second one. I usually try to pay attention to that, but okay. And I think that was where we missed it, and that's what confused. Well, fair enough. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from December 10th? I'm moved. I'll second. All those, any discussion? Further discussion? No, all those in favor say aye. Aye. And I'll vote aye, since I have to vote right now. Okay, December 10th, meeting minutes are approved. Let's turn quickly to January 14th, meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve these minutes? Do I have a second? No second. Okay, any discussion? Barbara, you ready for a vote? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, meeting minutes from January 14th are approved. Okay, so next meeting we're gonna start with, before we adjourn, I just wanna sum up what we're gonna start with. We're gonna take up the last of the matrix, numbers 15, 18, 84. We're gonna also vote on the buildable area question, which I don't know what number it is off hand, but I'll find it. And- Well, we voted on that already. It was just the memo that was gonna go. It's voted on five one multiple times. Okay. Well, it wasn't on the chance. I'll review my notes about that and see what I can find. Well, we'll vote next time just for the sake of the memo. Yeah. That's what we were talking about. And then we'll vote for the sake of the memo. Okay. All right, do I have a motion to adjourn? I'll second. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And we are adjourned. We'll see you on February 11th.