 One two three four one two three one two three four one two three one two three four one two three So Kirby is here Stephanie Smith is here. She's gonna have to duck out a little early Emory Richardson is here. Thank you for the binder Barb's here and Ariane. Am I pronouncing your name, right? Okay And I got an email or text from John Adams Saying he couldn't make it last minute So so this is it which we do technically have a quorum There there is a quorum. Yes. Yes, I get to vote at that point. Yeah, I always discount myself Yeah, so all right, well if we're ready, we'll call the meeting to order, okay 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 enter our attention tonight on finishing up the zoning read the kind of like the fixes quote-unquote fixes to our zoning Going through that matrix. I would like to table the 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's he is ill and he's calling in nevertheless so And Stephanie needs to leave so if anyone has any objection to that No, we can change it, but okay. Any other modifications to the agenda They needed to be corrected 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 motions. So I think Mike was gonna Modify that and that's why they pop back up on the agenda so Okay, well will deem the agenda with the tabling of item eight as Approved by consensus Okay, 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 giant at 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 Anyone does want something then you should let me know But hearing none do I have any Any nominations Okay, do I have seconds for the nomination? Any discussion about this Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye all those opposed Okay, the motion carries the motion to nominate That's what we'll call it All right. Well, thank you another year. We'll see you know Has things progressed we can you know reevaluate next year whether we want to continue or we want to change it up So I might not mind stepping down Well, I mean with the amount of new planning commissures we've had come on it seemed to make sense I Yes, I'm very but Kirby has Okay, so number four comments from the chair I don't want to spend too much time talking about comments, but I 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 champing 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 will be 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 Let's see as it's 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 Everyone knew that he offered to present the bridges Competition winner it seems like a great place to start. It's a very definitely an overview that would be yeah So and I asked them to distribute the information to the planning Commission directly Not just make everybody go on the site and read it. So Yeah, they'll have a hard copy Great. Thank you, Bart Okay, 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 There's no member the public presence. 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 But 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 Okay, okay Okay So Mike, can you walk us through number four the decision that needs to be made? Okay, and let me know if you can't hear me You're loud and clear. Okay So number four was just an issue that had come up on an application Where clear whether or not they we might point out the fact that they never actually could argue at both ways Is it possible to differentiate between? Parking and pathways or does that make it too complicated? Like if it's a gravel pathway, they can pave it without a permit, but if it's parking, they need to get a permit Um Is that the pathways to work the same way though they could be rather informal You know finding where people are walking and then deciding you're gonna pay. 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 and previous services that are popping up is a pretty good policy goal and So I'm gonna tend to not 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 track of purview 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 service 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 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 maybe I have an old So the recommendation is To just say to state that you wouldn't Require a permit for the paving repaying of already impervious surfaces, but 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 we voted in a different place on the matrix Remove land development and instead actually put the definition of land development in one zero zero four So what I would end up doing is just inserting it on one of those so I'm just gonna read it out loud for people who Don't have a copy immediately in front of them. So in one on page one dash one 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 a 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 yet. Yeah I'm just trying to Have one second and just look up a different way to get there here sure Because it's also mentioned in five one zero one L2 as the definition Development yeah Yeah, and then if we changed it could get changed in one location and none the other Well, the word land development is used throughout the applicability section so It makes sense to just have it clear mm-hmm as part because these informational notes are Really not part of the ordinance. Are they Well other than references yeah, so the the I wasn't so we removed that one and what I put in was And and I can get you the strikeout copy as soon as we're done today So in in my draft notes, I put together I have a one zero zero four point B that says development includes One the reconstruction the construction reconstruction conversion structural alteration relocation enlargement or demolition of any building to any earth work Including mining excavation a lot. So it's 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 semi-colons in between them here And then you've clarified the paving to To be part of that. Yeah, it's its own even though you Arguably could be interpreted as one of these issues on one of these types of development You've now create created its own provision. So it's a abundantly clear Yeah, I thought yeah, I went for the abundantly clear I'm okay with that proposal What others would you remove the definition then from Bit by one zero one L On the paving definition. No the land development definition. Yes, I would reference in the end because Just so everybody knows there's a you know 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 for zero four point B. Yeah Okay, not everything that was in by one zero one L2 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 of 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. Okay Just as long as we don't lose it. No, no, it definitely had to be So by saying paving of unpaved surfaces, you're exempting something like a gravel path that would be paid by understanding that, right? No, no, so we're not exempting So you would need to get a permit for the paving of a gravel path. Okay So the first time the intention is to require permit the first time you pay to repave then you would not need a permit Is that acceptable? Yeah, everyone. Okay, Mike, we're going with your recommendation. Okay consensus Okay, thanks, Stephanie. We'll see you at the next meeting which will be That calendar doesn't show me February 11th, okay, and 25th. Okay. See you then Don't think one of those is a holiday No, I don't think so either Okay, so then I think we wanted to revisit number 125 as well I don't think we voted on that I was the only other yellow one. Okay, what about 62 Mike? That's still open, but oh 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 We thought we consider as part of the city plan That's the the question was whether we'd have just sort of a generic Pud to add to all the other puds and we decided let's 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 I agree Mike as long as it comes out as a minor site plan It seems like the number of sections that That are pertain to minor site plan are reasonable to ask for a new four-unit building Mike if someone is is modifying a existing say 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? That's a change of views To go to from one to four Yeah, I'm just trying to zoom down to the part where we have Because it's conditional on some Where the Requirements are for items that need Three and four dwelling units are conditional in some zones Some districts those those would automatically have a hearing anyways What are you looking for? All right. Um, so section 3 2 1 People are want to look that up that has a major site plan what needs a minor site plan Major site plans have the hearings minor site plans are administrative principal buildings Major renovation linked and we have a definition of major renovations, which means the building pretty much can't be occupied It's one of these full guttion That's what it's gonna ask By parking spaces Or just yeah major renovations that term is used there seems kind of vague to me It's it has a definition and we think it's got enough page five dash one two It is a little vague. We'll give we'll give you that but it is so it seems like One of its distinguishing characteristics is Alteration to the exterior shell of the building putting in a bunch of walls You're saying wouldn't quite wouldn't quite get you there But if you're going to put in a bunch of walls and you can't like three kitchens You know if you can't occupy the building for its original intent You know 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 that discussion so we can bring tweaks to the zoning to the city council at any time We can at any time. Yeah. Yeah Um, it's whatever vote you make tonight that this will just Make will it'll let me finish making the strikeout copy and then we can warn a public hearing and we still have Opportunities 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 and have that discussion There's nothing that's permanent at this point Well, we're just going to make a copy that we say this is our copy We're going to go to public hearing with and as you all remember or many of you who are on the last one remember We made a bunch of changes after the public hearings And so we may make a few more tweaks after our public hearing before we send it to 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 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 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 you want 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 in 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 at that scale they'd have to put sprinklers in I think they would yeah I'm just like I'm I'm thinking I'm just just thinking a lot about if we work on this later Thinking about that the focus on the exterior as opposed to regulating the interior as much It's not as much as their business Yeah, I mean it's it's one thing to change an existing building versus Construction and 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 would yeah, 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 yeah Yep, I mean it's 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 Okay, everyone go with that approach Okay So the numbers 56 through 130 Are the consent items Does anybody have any specific? Points they want to discuss I'm guessing will 56 through 130. Yes Remind me. Did we already do one through 55 except for the number four? Okay. Yeah 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 28th 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, right? Okay. So mike and 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 Okay So could we maybe see that next time? I mean we can 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 390 3009 Stormwater this was a decision we made but we can revisit it. Oh, I didn't have that as uh as approved Yeah, uh pc agrees to delete 3505 point a7 was the decision at the time Which number are we on 111 1111? Yeah, I have delete number seven of 3505 Written down under which end of your third column Never mind Yeah, so on one of them. It's my own note. Oh your note. Okay. It's my own Yeah, I wasn't seeing any notes under actions mic. So that's why I wasn't sure what we had decided to do Okay, just one other quick question on 127 On the campus pd and permits Yep recommended striking the last sentence um It seemed from reading it that after five the intent was that after five years the approval would expire But you said there seemed to be some confusion with that Is that was that not your interpretation? That was Last sentence is confusing does not apply. I'm just trying to get to it here 346 m1 Yeah, so Permits and amendments to the campus master pitch help the administrative Application but 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 on 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 the two above it? Yeah, there's talking about a couple of things above it So just so just strike strike the last sentence Yeah, have different sub sub provisions to handle just one Particular issue. I mean do you want to break one into two so that proposed development becomes uh item number two Or just not not 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 Okay, we'll probably revisit that sounds good Okay, so we're gonna have to come back to number 84 briefly I think that that was a good catch five I thought we were Yeah, let's see if there's anything else Yeah, I'm sorry. Could I I actually had that print? 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 gonna 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? Yeah, um when you 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 Okay Well, we should talk about um, 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 A motion on the consent or are we just assuming that everybody else is good because it was a consent item? Uh, we are assuming everyone else is good because it was a consent item and everyone was duly warned As such um, 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 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 painting studio definitions So I think there are a couple of them that Yeah, I had work to do there weren't decisions you guys had to do there is just some work I had to do so I've got to put some stuff together to get those to you anyways Okay, 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 Just like a plan Okay, 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 Um, and some of the decisions were to just hold off Yeah, so I don't I don't know the best way to go through it and Well, that was I just think it'd be good 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 Okay, so we need we need work from Um Mike on numbers 15 18 Um 62 what we're going to do in the context of the city plan, right? Right? Oh, just that we're going to know that we're going to hold off on it, right? Okay And so for that it was 62 and I didn't make a note because I figured this Four which is the one you just brought up about change of use and then 125 15 and 18 to Leslie Yeah, that one staff should develop map develop new painting studio use Then that's all I can see off hand, but Our resolution of the painting studio issue was to try to define it. Is that what you're saying, Mike? I don't remember. Yeah, so it'd be a new use for painting studio. Otherwise all of the art studios will be like manufacturing So I just needed to come up with a definition for painting studio and then to insert it onto Yeah, that just sounds tricky Very defined When you cross the line out of painting studio when does it become sculpture? Well, we just need to make sure that we figure out how they could be art studios be allowed because right now they're apparently not allowed Art studios fall under light manufacturing and can be so broad musicians There's different medium that somebody could say it's well, you know, I'm an artist doing performing my art We can revisit that if it seems Yeah, certainly anyone can can bring that up. We just needed a okay So we just have five items that we're excluding from our consent agenda or a consent approval Well, not all of them were consent approved just items 56 through 130 minus 125 in 84 Anything that hasn't been commented on this assumed to be approved at this point Just want to be clear. We actually walked through. Yeah, we walked through all the other ones Okay, so let's talk about Kirby's memos Because you Well, we we kind of discussed how we wanted to do it at the last meeting and Um, I'm not sure if you've had an opportunity to modify them at all I did I sent uh everyone. I think I sent just sent to the entire group. Yeah, I sent to the entire group I remember that. Yeah, I lose track of what I sent to you and my class and everyone I sent everyone copies. They were lightly modified versions of what we had talked about before broken out into two memos Uh, didn't you know, we haven't done a thorough discussion of the more contentious issue about billable area So I hadn't make any major changes there Um Barb had provided a lot of feedback uh to us the last meeting about she wanted to make there And some of the like stuff that's in the like the wordsmithing variety of things that Barb pointed out I looked at and made change some changes. Maybe not all of them along those lines But anything substantive I just tell off on to see It's like do we want to discuss it more or Um, I mean like one question is that you know Barb has a certain vision for it But the but the memos from the group so I mean We could spend a lot of time to make to try to get to like a place where If we think it's worthwhile to try to make make a version that everyone's totally happy with Or we could just send it with a note that Is that the intent of the memo or not? Is it to to you know present Both sides of the issue and here's why we're doing this. So, um 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 Wist or outline just identifying the The concerns that were 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, um, it wasn't like this was said and this was said and this it was more like I guess I read that as being the same. Okay That yeah that here are the issues that were brought up Yeah, and here are the advantages and here are the disadvantages, right? Yes clear cut that's listed as to either statements of fact or Yes, you know And trying to keep it as as clear as possible and then say, you know, 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 Yeah, I guess I would say that I didn't see the modifications It's kind of meeting what I was, you know, would like to have seen So I suggested to Kirby before the meeting tonight that maybe we could just sit down together I think it would be a lot faster process To do this In person and say, okay. How about this how you know and kind of work back and forth with some different verbiage Rather than send emails add 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 And I think it's not a message that I would want to send So then what are we so so what so we put both of them in the mission 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, it's kind of fun Barb comments Like like there's like a factual statement here where I had said that some residents 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 the tonal change there I think it's you know sending a different message than what I've intended to so You know things like that Yeah, I mean I and I think you know some of it is certainly an issue of emphasis But I think you know I want to make sure that you know I for those city counselors who We're 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 will it would in fact not Significantly alter that and so in my point of view is that there were some very vocal people But still compared with the entire population all the residents of the city. They were still Tiny minority So I don't want to give a few squeaky wills that kind of platform That's trouble. So, you know, well, I mean that that is my view on it because I because I do view that I want to represent all the residents and not just Spoken certainly so so like that balances. Yeah 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, you know, one or two people that that we said to them Well, you know, we hear your concern However, we have these other Policies in place That would keep our 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 descended Make not have come forward because they said, oh, sure. Yeah, we're getting into trouble I mean, there's there's all I mean, not that we're making many major, you know, 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, we're we're giving I feel like we're giving a very You know Expans, you know, which is fair given the contentiousness of this issue But, you know, the planning commission also voted to move the recommendation forward. So I I just share the concern about giving Enhancing the platform of Yeah, of something that the city, you know, the planning commission By a majority didn't vote for so I don't and I don't know how to deal with the differences in tome. That's very complex If you, you know, 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 sit down as you suggested? Why don't you see if you can come to something and and I would Urge you to think about factual corrections that need to be made and identify when you have a stylistic discrepancy About the tone or the urgency of something Well, yeah, I mean obviously, I mean this memo isn't is intended to represent that there are multiple opinions So it's not meant to say this is the one opinion of the city count of the planning commission It's meant to say they're they 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 I'm really looking for And obviously You know Kirby's a human like anybody else and 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 possible The document I distributed in the first place is really a first draft. So no, I understand. Yeah So the fact that there's a lot of feedback is totally expected and welcome. Um, and if ultimately you feel like checking the factual Accuracy is not sufficient. You want to have a separate dissenting opinion that has more of the tone that you're looking for than I mean you certainly can do that too. So I mean, I I think The bet the more we can speak with one voice The 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 going to force it. I mean, I think there should have a dissenting opinion if needed So all right, so we will meet. Um outside and see what we can draft Okay Very good And then we'll we'll all look at that as as much as we can I think we'll have a quick discussion about that and we'll move on because we have discussed it quite a lot 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. Yeah Okay, and then Mike are there any quick details about the adoption process that you want to discuss? No, when we're when we get there, we'll talk about it. It's it's pretty straightforward I just wanted to get the two people a chance to ask any questions and to understand the process But I will go over it. Uh the next meeting when we So we'll look at 15 18 84 And curvy's memo Okay, is that right by 62 and 125 we're holding off on Yes, okay till the city plan Yes So we're not taking any action on those No action, right 15 18 84 curvy's memo. Okay Curvy's memo is really the planning commission's memo and curvy is Graciously drafted it. I'm just calling it curvy's memo for ease of reference This is fine. Okay um So that brings us to item nine, which is the minutes from december 10th and 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 even take any action on it Okay, get changed Mike Didn't make a strikeout version, but the the minutes are changed on page. It's on the back I don't have them in front of me Yeah, page two No, I just mean was it corrected from the original december 10th that we Yes, I was asked To there's just confusion about what the vote was on The motion passed in a five zero vote with erin abstaining that um 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 what happened on the 10th was we We needed towards december 10th that said well, we'll just wait So maybe we I think maybe curvy's memo identifies a vote on this date So maybe it could be corrected to a straw poll. I'm gonna have to do What I'm thinking is that if we're going to discuss the memo we should but just vote then And that will be the If we didn't have an actual vote, I really thought that on the 10th we had two votes, but I mean it doesn't at the end of the day doesn't really matter what you vote next time and I'll Yeah, if it didn't happen then reflect that date even though it's Future in the future. Yeah, we had a motion in a 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 we missed it. And that's what confused Tam doing the minutes. Yep Well fair enough Do I have a motion to approve the meeting moment meeting minutes from december 10th? All those any discussion further discussion No, all those in favor say 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? Okay, any discussion barbie ready for a vote? Okay all those in favor say aye Aye Okay, any minutes from january 14th are approved Okay, so Next meeting we're going to start with before we adjourn. I just want to sum up what we're going to start with We're going to take up the last of the matrix numbers 15 18 84 We're going to also vote on the buildable area question Which I don't know what number it is off hand, but I'll find it And we voted on that already it was just a memo that was going to go. It's voted on five one multiple times Okay, well, I'll review wasn't on the 10th I'll review my my notes about that and see what I can find. We'll vote next time just for the sake of the memo Yeah, that's 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. We are adjourned. We'll see you on february 11th