 You're like, oh, I'm going to have one of these. It's coming. When did you wait for it? There it is. You have this month? Yeah. All right. So are you, like, in Nile, or? I guess. I mean, I was. I was like, oh. It's never going to happen. We're going to have a few more minutes. You won't know what it's going to mean. Yeah. Oh. I think I'll serve you. Yeah, I mean, you're really prepared. No matter how much people tell you, you won't be ready. No. Just let us know we can come bring food over. That's all right. I thought maybe Caroline already had. I asked him how the baby's doing. He said she's still inside her belly apparently, so. Well, for doing well in there? Yeah. Good. The baby's doing well. Yeah, it's fed up. Yeah. I bet she is. Oh, really cute. When is this over? Yeah, the end is pretty rough. New Door James. Yeah. Oh. Oh. Oh. So they share a name and a birthday. Oh, nice. I did not mention that system. I feel like talking about a 35-year-old's birthday. Just the next generation. So I told Stephanie to take all the time she needed. We would assume she'd be out until we hear otherwise. So it makes it even more critical that anybody who can't attend gives advance notice so that we know if we're going to record them. Everyone's all ready. We'll start. Well, yeah, you're also. So once John and Stephanie are both out, we're going to all have to rally and make sure we're all here. Can we have a performance? So we still have five members. That's right. Before we go back, go on. Any sense of, you probably don't have any sense of how many meetings. We'll see what happens. Have you quickly put this off another day? Kirby was right in right away when his second was born. But Katie does everything. I'm saying a double standard. I wasn't going to say anything. But yeah, Stephanie gets as much time as she wants. We need to know right now when you open up. All right. Everyone ready? Okay. If you're ready over there, we'll call the meeting to order. Any adjustments to the agenda? Whatever. Okay. All right. We're done. We'll deem the agenda approved by consensus. Third item on the agenda is comments from the chair. Last meeting, we did not have a quorum. So we had a working session and we discussed ideas for moving the city plan process forward. John came up with some good ideas and we'll get into some more details when we get to the city plan item on. But I just want to kind of highlight from a high level some of the ideas we kicked around. One of the big one I think is we need to be working off a map at this point in time. It'll be the most productive way to kind of figure out how we want to drill down here and there. But first we'll look at a big map and seek input on what the public and other members of the commission want to evolve, maintain, or transform. And so we have some capabilities of being able to do this with layers that is not available quite yet, but it's probably coming in the near future. So we haven't ironed out all the details. But the basic gist is we're going to want to be able to distribute this map with clear instructions, which we have to figure out what they are. And in the meantime, Mike is going to start just depositing materials into the Google Drive. And you're going to try to roughly categorize them so that they're easier to sort through. I'm pulling them forward in my hard drive. I just haven't started to drag them over yet. I'm just going to organize them in one place and then I can pull them all over. Okay. So. Will we go into different files? I don't know. I'll probably work with John to figure out how best to organize the box. And once you have it down, probably walk through it. I mean, people should feel free to play around with it. But we could probably just do a walk through at one of the meetings later. Yeah. So then the other comments I have is just that, you know, as you see on our agenda, we have some last final items for dealing with the zoning fixes. I'd really like if we could finish them today. So we can move on to the master of the city plan. Catch myself. So, so that's good. That's my plan is like, let's really focused on these, these zoning rewrite. Let's get done with some of the less interesting stuff, but very necessary and important. And then we can move into the more exciting development of the city plan. So fourth item of the agenda is when we invite members from the public who are present to come up and give comments and something not on the agenda, but we have new members of the public here. So we'll move on to item five, which is the final punch list items for zoning fixes. Mike. You had the four numbers there, 15, 8384 and 131. So we'll just start at the top. Can I look around with someone? Because I could not find my copy of this for some reason. This is the channel. Right. This is the channel. City council adopted the zoning. And one of the last meetings coming up, they decided they would insert. So they decided they would insert into the zoning requirement. Because we had a requirement that had, we actually were allowing balconies and things to overhang the waters, especially on the north branch, because there already are on Elm Street. So the first thing they did was remove that, and then they wanted to see more green space. If I remove that, what do you mean? Remove that requirement out of the zone. So it went to a zero setback. And then the question came in, there was a push from basically one person who really wanted to push to see that there was more green space, more riparian vegetation along the corridor, even through the downtown. And so the compromise that came out was that there was a determination that if something was already channelized, then it wouldn't have to meet that requirement. It could still be zero setback, or 10 foot, whatever the requirement is for that district. But if it's unchannelized, then you would have to meet the riparian setback requirements. And it was going to have to be, I think, a 15 foot riparian. That turned out to be a little bit challenging because we didn't have a definition of what channelized is, and we didn't have any rules. So what you have on the map is basically, I went through and looked at where we have river walls, and I colored them in orange. And then there's a couple of spots near the confluence, which have some green dots. Those are areas where the DRB has already kind of made a determination because they didn't have rules and there were projects going on. The DRB had to make a determination, is this channelized, or is it not channelized? And they determined those were already channelized. So we could make rules that overrule that, but that's basically the back parking lot of the Jacobs lot and on the other side of the river. And then down near Confluence Park that's proposed, there's also a small section that's not. That actually hasn't been going through DRB for channelization, but it's very similar to the other one. The only spot that I could find that really was not, river wall channelized was kind of that state portion from the railroad bridge down to Bailey. That's about the only stretch that's not. It doesn't have river walls. Does it have any other kind of retainage at all? I'm sure it's got buried something in there to keep the river from eroding in, but there's nothing really formal that's there. So the couple options we have are to eliminate the channelized and kick it back to the council to go through and say, we think you made, you aired on the last time by including it. The other option would be to adopt this map or to adopt some reference to this, because really what the DRB needs is some clarity of what's channelized, what's not channelized. And if this is the only thing that we can find that's not channelized, then let's just say that's not channelized and adjust the regulations. And where is this in the regulations? B-0-0-5, I believe. Oh, yeah. Well, in this case, where number 15 is noting it is in figure 2-0-1, which is Urban Center 1. Yeah, that didn't line up. Oh, the channel requirement that was passed only applies to Urban Center? Urban Center, yeah, because we had exempted riparian buffers in Urban 1, 2, and 3. Okay. They went through and said... This is a compromise. Yeah, we'll add it into 1, 2, and 3, but only where the stream isn't channelized. Okay. So we never intended for there to... We never did, no. What I'm getting at is for outside the Urban Center, though, we did intend for there to be riparian buffers. Yes, there are. Yeah. And you're looking at Urban Center 2? You didn't see that. The second part I had. I remember, I was the one who went to see the kids. I know! So is that why you're... Yeah. Yeah, you don't remember what you did, which is sometimes true, but yeah, I do remember. Well, I... There's technically no 2 under those... I was there, too. Thank you. Thank you. Except the channelized sections. Well, we did together. That's all right, Kirby. So 2-0-1 is the Urban Center 1 dimensional standard, so I think it's just an incorrect citation. It is technically there, because it's under water setbacks. Oh, okay. Oh, I see. So it's 20 feet or as per note... No 2... Except the channelized sections where the river setback will be setback. Sorry, I missed that. Yeah, so the 2 sections kind of work together. Okay. And then 3-0-0-5-E-1 talks about this. I guess as far as the city planning that we're going to be doing goes, I think we're going to have a conversation about what we will do about maybe making the city more river oriented. Is the small stretch that we're talking about that's not channelized as this would apply to, is it something that we would maybe plan long term to have as park or green anyway? It's mostly state land except for the last parcel, which I believe is owned by the credit union. So I think the bigger challenge for doing anything with that is that it's mostly... So the bike path is, right? The bike path is on the other side. Oh, right, right. Oh, it's the parking lot, yep. Yeah, it's the little state parking lots that kind of tuck in there. I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of things we would like to do, like to see changed in that area, but I think a lot of that is going to come down to the negotiations with BGS. I don't think we'd be forcing things through regulations on the state. Okay, I mean, in some ways you answered what I was kind of getting at was like to what extent is it moved? Yeah, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot whatever we decide to do, and probably should be explicit about it and the plan and what about the direction of where we're offering to stand. So Mike, will there be an effect on the Confluence Park development given our determination that it's channelized? It actually helps it if it's channelized because if it's un-channelized then you have to meet the buffer in the setback and then you wouldn't be able to put in a number of the things that people want because it's a measurement from the top of banks. So if you went to one Taylor Street and said you had to meet a 15-foot setback then you can't have any of those different seating structures because it's supposed to be a natural riparian buffer. Okay, so we don't have any other requirements for a channelized section of the river in non-development of those areas then there's nothing in the zoning ordinance. Not in the zoning ordinance for that specific because it's setback of zero. So if it's channelized and has a hard wall then it's a zero setback. I mean the hard wall along there is not continuous. No, there are a couple of gaps in there. But the river can't really meander with that little gap, those gaps. Yeah, if you're at any of this area it's not like it's gonna, but yeah. So is there, I'm sorry if I missed this but is there a urgency to making this decision or is this something we can kind of kick until after we've worked on this section in the city plan? Well it certainly counts as a fix in that the council said to have a channelized, you know to regulate differently between channelized and un-channelized. The DRB has had to basically make a case-by-case basis for each one of these as to whether something is channelized or un-channelized because it's not really defined. And a map would be the best way to resolve it to kind of go and identify which areas are channelized and which areas aren't. And according to the engineers who came up and testified for both projects on the east and the west of the North Branch they both said, you know according to Army Corps of Engineers even though those don't have river walls those are still channelized based on engineering standards. I would probably guess almost all of this would probably meet that same definition all the way through which basically means we would go back to the city council and say none of this is un-channelized. And if that's the argument we want to make we can go back and see what city council does. Why don't we do that or just say consider this area channelized and this map. Including the area that's designated with your green line currently would we say that was not part of the channelized section. Come on here. So that's not considered channelized then. Well it's up to us at this point if you want to or not. It hasn't yet been determined to be. It's not obviously channelized. It hasn't been determined to be channelized but we could hear. We could determine that it is. I think if we determined that it is channelized then we would just go to city council and make recommendations to remove that addition that they put in. Which addition do you mean? The addition that they added this the city council added this language in due to Steve Ceases. So we'd be essentially finding everything within the urban core as channelized and therefore this would be superfluous language which we would just ask them to remove rather. Well if we do that I think we need a memo because or some maybe not in written form we should explain because we did recommend that there was no setback in the urban center after hearing testimony the city council made this decision to have a channelized determination and I think Kirby and I were there for that and I think we probably figured well everything in urban center is channelized so it's effectively the same. I just know at the time that the compromise they ended up with was pretty much giving us exactly what we wanted. The DRB could have seen this and taken testimony and said no when we took testimony on the Jacob's lot and took testimony on the Heaney lot projects that both of those were going to find they had found both those to be channelized despite testimony then we would be having a different conversation for the fact that I think what Steve was thinking of was those areas should be considered channelized but even those that the RV found should be channelized. Well I think just from my conversations with him my understanding was he was thinking about backyards so that wouldn't have been these spots here. It would be further up where he would have been concerned. Yeah and a number of those I looked and you could see the river wall it was still there along the upper part you could probably see from your porch you can still see it's kind of pushed in there but it's there. You can also see everyone dumping their snow in the river from that porch too. Yes. I thought they weren't doing that. Nobody's supposed to do it. Municipality can't. Here's the stretch we're talking about the river there. Right so you kind of show everyone here. I mean it's not a backyard where aesthetic value is going to be high. I mean I think I just think we need to be thoughtful about how we present this change if we're going to do it. I think we should mention that we didn't know at the time that we now realize that the compromise solution means that there's essentially no un-channelized sections and then we asked it to be removed I think from a law perspective which should be removed if we're going there shouldn't be a moot rule or a pointless rule in there that should be removed because that could create legal trouble later. But then we need to present something that indicates all of that area un-channelized or generally just say the language that un-channelized sections in the urban core too is that what you're looking for? Well I'll draft a memo if the decision is that we're going to consider all of this channelized was that going to be your thought John? Was that even this section is channelized? I'm not hearing strong concerns to the contrary. I mean how do people feel about making a determination that all of this area is indeed channelized and that there should be no water set back? I think that's one way to deal with that. The other is to say that if we do want to pull something out it's not channelized and what might be done is fine. And I wanted just this background I know that Aaron definitely wasn't here for this discussion I can't remember if you were but we kind of went around about it and settled on a determination that water quality is not really going to be you're not going to have any sort of purifying or water quality benefits to a riparian buffer in this particular area the river has been channelized like this for so long and we built up on it that it just this is sort of a policy decision that we made ago and it would be really it would wreak a lot of havoc to change that now it's not to say that we don't care about the river it's just that when John and I met with Sasha Peeler from A&R she recommended that we focus our efforts on ensuring that the river had meander room in the north branch you know up past the downtown that that would help with flooding that would help with water quality and that as far as the downtown is concerned we can deal with water quality a little bit more comprehensively with storm water storm water system and we haven't we need to move forward on that but we haven't yet but that's sort of the thought is we need more comprehensive there and if we only have like a patch here or there of riparian buffer then everything's going to get sheet flow there everything's going to get what? it's going to get funneled funneled so that's thought yeah essentially that there's not very much to be gained in terms of water quality with that regulation in that a non-regulatory approach would probably yield a lot more develop 15p from here even though it's already all developed I think it's a good practice but we have to be thoughtful about where we're at that rule any structures in that area would be very severely limited because that area is all in the flood hazard area yeah so they have to build up up up up yeah really or else they're going to build up to a flood plain which is something we don't want to do yeah we thought water quality is very important to me it's very dear issue to my heart so I see I saw that as kind of like wait we have to work through this and for the northern section that still has its river corridor that's in good shape I think we're one of the first communities in the state that have a river corridor regulation and we were also taking things in steps so prior to 2018 there were no riparian buffers as requirements at all there were no slope requirements no riparian buffer requirements so in the new zoning in a couple of places we went through to go through and say riparian buffers we're not going to worry about them in the downtown mostly because we're looking at the fact that we have just added regulations to all these other places and if in the future we want to take an incremental step about trying to figure out how to introduce that more in the downtown that was going to be a question for a later time so I've got a little bit so I will draft a memo when we've got our public hearing I'll go through and approve that that kind of just goes and determines it's all channelized and therefore we recommend you removing it is everyone comfortable with that? I really think that's slightly better to say that it's all channelized just because I think we're all seem to be in agreement that it's kind of pointless to call that one section out as not channelized and chances are the states is going to be able to preempt whatever we do but there could be a complication caused and to what end it wants to be gained so that's why I think it's slightly better cleaner just to call it channelized is our it feels more honest I guess yeah like the only reason we're leaving it is for some kind of politically it becomes more validable to have something included it becomes more complicated well I'll try to put something together that's probably short to the point on that thank you I'd be happy to give you comments if you want yeah I can circulate it so do we have a statement on 15 and move on? yeah Barbara and Ariane okay about okay art studio oh thank you was it a painting studio? yeah and I looked for that actually it was a painting not an art found it means a use of land or structure for the creation of art through the application of paint pigments colors or other medium on a solid surface all other art studios shall be considered light manufacturing painting was and that's what came up so does say other medium so it could be it's still only the application of paint that was really what we were more concerned about was that the other forms of art can sometimes be if it's creating metal sculptures yeah oh yeah for sure polishing granite or I guess my thought is just art yes marble college what Slytherin plays just Slytherin school but we did have a little bit of that conversation of once you have art you know when we were just talking about art generically not painting somebody could say I'm a band and therefore you know if we give too much of an exemption we would end up with you know that's art and therefore so my thought is it's more about the noise level than it is about the actual activity which is why we made it into light manufacturing light manufacturing tends to also have similar in certain districts it's permitted in those are districts that you'd probably have other noisy uses in other districts it's conditional and we can take a look at whether it's appropriate for that that particular art studio happens to be polishing granite or we'll flag this one for Glen on the council he'll probably pick up on it you can and it's still all loud as a home based occupation yeah it's home based it ends up in a different category this is for ones where people we had an application in the downtown somebody wanted to have a studio where they were doing painting here in the downtown on the second floor and we really didn't have a use to kind of put it into so that was why it came up for consideration in the fix it list and the decision was we should be able to exclude this one if it's a painting studio in your home it's going to probably be exempt altogether this definition seems fine to me I mean I would suggest we add photography in there too which seems similar to painting I could see that easily coming up in the same context the quiet arts this is right sounds like a movie title I'm sure people are going to come up with ones that they're just going to get us we're going to need public input we're going to get beat up this just happened to be the one that came out and I don't know how else to fix this one would it be trouble if we just said application of any media to a fixed surface is that what your definition is solid surface I'm just thinking that photography as Kirby said also fabric art all those kinds of things they're pretty photography now is just sitting in front of a computer and burning things it's not like it's a dark room I've got to get printed somehow right but I think most of those come under professional services it's going to be more of a service so how do galleries galleries are their own use this is strictly the artist in their media unless we have any other ideas let's put this out to the public and get some input sounds good so that means we're accepting it so change of views is that the next one I don't think we have to go through this one this actually was in regulations and I didn't know it the only change in change of use was to add change of use means an increase in the intensity of an existing use or an increase in intensity beyond a limit established under an existing permit including the addition of a dwelling unit so that was just added in there to reflect the fact that in our use table we had a single and two family in one line three and four family in another line and therefore and somebody had already made this argument because they were going from three units to four units they weren't actually needing to get a firm grouping those together so by putting this in it just kind of gives us that thing to go through and say no no no change of use may be that but you're adding units does this coincide with the building code or building code they determine some requirements based on change of use building code operates under its own set of rules we might just end up with a totally different definition and it happens in a lot of cases that the definitions are different between the various various ordinances depending on where they come from just like the definition of development is different for flood hazards than it is for zoning because the federal sets the rules for flood hazards development yeah and they're pretty specific alright everyone go with that looks good to me 131 the 131 was really just kind of the larger strikeout replace didn't make copies should have so what it was it came down to the enforcement rules I say I put in there that they were too restrictive and not organized well so our zoning administrator reviewed the river hazard area of provisions which followed the same state statutes to be much clearer so we just kind of transposed those over and I made a strikeout copy of that and that's in the bigger copy that you sent us yes where is that so this is in page 4-23 so it would no longer be in chapter 470 it's down to chapter 470 and it would remain there and really what the big issue that came up was in a lot of cases I I usually insert in regulations that I've written a provision that gives the administrative officer the right to negotiate settlements of ways of coming into compliance because the way this was written she didn't have any so we had a project on Court Street where somebody put something in the wrong place and in December we told them they had to move it it's buried under snow and they agreed we'll move it as soon as the snow melts well officially the way it's written she can't even write an agreement that goes through and say you agree to do this I agree to do this the notice of violation stays in effect but I'm not pursuing enforcement beyond that because we have an agreement that you're going to fix it and this could happen for landscaping or something else so this would just give her a little bit of the rights to go through and say you can write these agreements that go through and you know there are limits you know she can't allow things to happen any agreement shall be signed by the violator and the administrative officer shall establish a minimum reasonable timeline for curing the violation get written authorization to allow the administrative officer to inspect the premises upon completion or the agreed upon to ensure compliance where the property only fails blah blah blah it goes through it just gives us an amicable way to work with property owners without give a little typo in 4702 a7 just the second line should be administrative officer and just is missing the R says office it's interesting because I would argue that the ability to enter into agreements might be inherent in the authority the way statute is written as the administrative officer must literally follow the zoning that's the way it's actually in statute you must literally follow and therefore and this sometimes a lot of times will not do it anyways but if you're in a case where you've got two neighbors who really don't get along you could be getting beaten up because we are required to find them $150 a day and somebody may just get their kicks out of the fact that they're going to push the city and box them into a corner that goes and says you have to find them $150 a day because you literally have to enforce the rules and that's what the rules say so giving a little bit of an out in a lot of cases people aren't complaining or we'll get a complaint and we just figure out yeah we've got an agreement they know to fix it and they're going to fix it as soon as the weather's there so nobody cares but for people who want to make a big deal about it any concerns with the enforcement provisions I only have one it's minor I just I sort of wonder about the appropriateness of the word mechabord because it means the result of violations it's an alternative resolution I just feel like it's all a character yeah just a resolution it's an alternative resolution I can just see somebody who violates doing this I'm not going to be friendly with that we don't have to sign an agreement it's just our way to be nice to you this is us to be nice to you right so where do we have here that is $47,000 as an alternative yeah it's a very minor so sounds like it's a proof with that minor change okay so let's talk about Kirby and Barb's memos I was wondering if that was is it a part of number six I don't have number six in front of me but oh item six no let's do it now um well yes let's start item six upcoming adoption process for zoning so let's first talk about the memo that Barb and Kirby drafted and revised and provided us I think the last one was emailed from Kirby he actually had two emails right yes and I have a printed copy here I think so if anyone doesn't have it I don't have it I think they're dated February 20th so that might have been the day that you emailed them I'm not sure last one do you have an extra printed copy I don't I just have I just have why don't run them through the printer out of the air oh yeah why don't we let's do people read copies or do you have them up on your screens already because we can go we can go copy them right now I look strange from this one this is only one of them Mike's holding the other Mike's holding it so the one with track changes is the one that I think you wrote Barb and Kirby edited is that accurate and then the other one is Kirby's standalone memo if we want to do it that way there's so from the email that I sent there's two attachments one says I said it's a joint council memo which would be to give the specifics of it I had written I think a couple of drafts and then Barb had altered one which I would consider Barb's version and then so this joint memo is me further editing Barb's memo but I actually generated another one after that after we met I generated another one that was a standalone memo which I thought take into consideration your issues did I work off of that one then I think the only thing that came back was you provided both and and I had a very minor like one word revision to one but it wasn't clear to me from your email if you were proposing to send both memos or not so I have a strong preference to send one memo and it seems like we're in a good position to do that and I believe that's the last I heard I think Barb said that she's fine with the joint memo which was my edits to one of her versions so I think that's where we are as far as I understand it nothing jumped out at me when I read it I mean I haven't read it since I prepared for the last meeting but I could tell you that it nothing jumped out at me or I would have she felt good and if the two of you are satisfied with it then I'm I still have a minor issue with one deletion but under advantages was deleted the wording was deleted deemed necessary so it eliminates administrative work deemed necessary by the panning office I'm not sure why that got deleted that was deleted because I want to make sure that the tone of what we send is one where we're taking Mike's word for what the issue was and so deemed necessary suggests that we're skeptical of the issue that was presented when I don't think that the city the planning commission as a whole was skeptical oh I don't think I mean deemed necessary by the planning office because they're the ones doing the work we're not necessarily making a judgment about that I I mean I have gotten questions from previous planning commission members saying I thought we knew I thought we did have a method for determining that fairly simply so anyway I just is there another way to word that so that it accomplishes what you're looking for without maybe triggering any sort of concern about skepticism I thought the meaning stayed the same by deleting it I thought it's still present the issue was so by deleting those two words it still says eliminates lengthy administrative work by the planning office yeah but who's making that determination that it's lengthy administrative work is a qualification is making it so now in this case we're making that determination right we're taking the planning office as word for it we're holding that face value we're not questioning that and that's I think what the point of that deletion is why don't we just take out lengthy and then we can say eliminate administrative work by the planning office and I'll be fine that way we're not making a determination ourselves on how lengthy it is without having seen it that sounds right yeah we can do that and Mike you can explain your concerns and how you presented that to us if you want yes does that sound good to everybody okay versus this and for disadvantages the change could allow for increased density on steep sites and or development on steep slopes I think density is just like a measure so I think what this could do is allow for an increase of housing units on parcels that have steep slopes or well it's not just housing units but maybe seeing increased buildings on steep slopes well density is not a measure of buildings but yeah but oh it is a number of households we're talking about is it strictly related to housing units that's what I'm talking about density so do you think we could change density to units placed on steep slopes well they would be on sites that contains because we're not changing the regulations around what you can actually do or not do we're just saying if a site has this then the maximum allowable residential units you can build on it go up so it doesn't mean that it'll necessarily be on that steep part of the slope it's just saying if a parcel has this so what this bullet point was trying to get to though was that it is possible that there's some construction on either the wetlands or the steep slopes because we had already suggested to make the change that some construction could be done with an engineering plan that's actually what this bullet is trying to get to is that it's feasible that there could be construction on steep slopes as a result of this change well it's actually the result of the added change the two in combination if you had five units you could even if we didn't change the billable area you could still with engineering build something on a steep slope and whether that five units becomes seven units I think it's irrelevant or I'm with you it is a word that people don't seem to understand well the bullet was just conceding that it's feasible that some construction could happen increased housing units so yeah considering you guys read it a little differently then maybe yeah we could be very clear about what that means so replace density with housing units yeah on parcels with steep slopes I don't know I think the main thing is density because that's just a metric so density is not a thing I think we could cut out the big actually looking at this again it kind of repeats itself this change could allow for development on steep slopes or we have already allowed for development on steep slopes this is really about how many units could be placed for additional development on steep slopes and if we want to specifically say that it's for housing probably we're most of that development it seems like the disadvantages are mostly just captured by the other parts the disadvantages in and of itself is not having more housing units yeah then I would object yeah I mean I think it's a valid point it's just a matter of how it's worded to to clearly point out that we're going to allow for additional housing units on steep sites so if just put the reference back in it's in combination with earlier changes to slopes yeah but you could develop these additional units without having to develop them on the steep slope so it is about developing additional and we've already accepted the potential development on steep parts of the site right it just doesn't seem like this is a disadvantage I mean you took out an inappropriate increase so I mean if we want to because I think the point is that it gets to whether the housing unit is appropriate on that site and we're just going to allow it with this change so if you're feeling that the second part of the sentence is a restatement of what we already did with the previous allowance for building a steep slope but it may be more clarifying to leave it in I guess I would agree with changing density to housing units if you think that's more that's clear to John yeah density is not the sentence doesn't make sense structures and we're not and we're not well we're not talking about structures we're just talking about housing units that's like what the measure is right yeah so for increased housing units on steep sites so we need someone to write down with the changes and my copy's over with Barb so I say I don't know that's what I'm hearing and she's saying that she'll be on board the memo anymore if we do which this is a majority but this is essentially the majority of what my and Barb's conversation is about trying to drill down to figure out what the concerns are and what the dissents are in this area one thing we did discuss which I was kind of waiting for later but I could bring it up now since we're talking about this is in the change that we suggested previously we could try to give the DRB some more of a standard to apply when making a decision about engineering plans of a building on steeper slopes because through our conversation and I don't want to speak for you Barb so feel free to chime in but we got to a point where Barb would feel a lot better about all of this if we were making sure that the DRB was being responsible about what kinds of units and development that's happening on the slopes which I think we all do agree with that so like beefing up that area would be a way to do the safeguards in for this area that Barb's concerned with anything else to add to that well I think what we talked about was the fact that given engineering plans that people could choose to locate buildings or housing units on steep slopes in lieu of developing it on the flat side portion of the site but I think that really does kind of touch on a different issue maybe the previous section more than this one isn't it sort of an incentive to avoid the steep slope that you don't have to hire the engineer to prove that you can build on the steep slope well you still do you have to have an engineered plan and DRB approval I mean the biggest incentive I could think of is that you have less risk to your home honestly there's a practical matter there are a lot of people who choose to build on this deal even in Clist Street in town here there are houses hanging outside and undeveloped areas that are potentially subject to something like that the standard I was thinking of is just something like adding some language to that to the DRB allowance standard to the effect of if possible the the project will take advantage of slopes of less than 30 degrees so Mike where in the standards would that fit in page 316 okay we already have standards to limit the amount of disturbance clearing of existing natural vegetation in the surface and to minimize potential erosion stormwater runoff and flooding and water quality impairments not to create slopes deeper than or equal to 30% without an engine plan reserves distinctive natural features general topography of the site in existing natural vegetation maintain and reduce the preexisting rate or and retain the pattern of stormwater runoff that leaves the property produce final grade that is compatible with natural surroundings create a harmonious transition between graded slopes and natural terrain avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes contour graded slopes by varying the slope incremental reduced amount of grades just to interrupt you here I mean it seems like so everything you're reading is under 3007.h design standards in it it's all dealing with development on steep slopes so to the maximum extent feasible development on steep slopes shall be designed to and then all those factors that you just rattled off plus some more that I cut you off before you got to it almost seems like the kind of provision that we're talking about would be before that like maybe you know we'd move the h down to i and put it on new h that says I don't know I don't know the language but showing some sort of preference to the maximum extent feasible development should happen on the planter areas of the site I was thinking another way would be just add on the sub two there just to clarify it would be easier not create so steeper than or equal to 30% without an engineer plan development or with I don't know actually the gist of it would be that developing on flatter surfaces will be a priority just to add that there number one kind of caught that the maximum extent feasible limit the amount of disturbance clearing of existing natural vegetation in the previous surface I agree the one does but I mean real so John you have a broad brow what's about it I mean it feels like academic to think of in those terms when reality is not really how like building things work we have like the luxury here and a nice flat size for us to build things and like we'll choose the spot that's like less that's hanging off the side of the cliff and line up in a situation where this goes before the DRB it seems just seems like a tortured situation that it's just clumsy or it's a very we do give DRB other kinds of recommendations I think the biggest concern that Kirby and I were talking about was developing savings faster because that's an area that has both low slope and steep slopes so it would be very possible for someone to choose to develop steep slopes in advance of the lesser slopes it seems like there are just so many other provisions of the bylaw that would get at minimum setback you're talking about like one building rather than like a development of community no I think within developing probably within community I mean maybe splitting hairs here with that particular section and may have to find out I think we could write some language that kind of clarifies that and it reiterates mostly what's already there that there's a desire to not develop on these steep slopes but at the same time make it truly make it a standard on a rule but if Barb will be okay with that so what I'm proposing is not like any rigorous new rule or anything we're talking about aspirational language I think guiding language which Mike's not a big fan of in rules cause it's hard to know what to do with it it's fine to do as long as you've got guidelines too the regional plan has wording that on slopes over 25% for us we could say that we encourage building on the lower on the flatter areas of the site in preference to the steeper sections but I don't know if that just gets too cumbersome it's just like there are so many factors it may not make sense to build there right like we may all agree like oh no like don't put that building like right next to the road blocking the view of something that everyone loves as opposed to this totally different location that makes sense but we wrote this so like the only place someone could build is like one foot out of the flood plain cause that's the only flat part or something like that we're saying just preference it's not saying that they have to do it but at least they need to address it why they didn't choose to do that I mean preference is kind of a loose word which I know Mike doesn't like but they just wouldn't have any standing in the court I don't see like how the city benefits from understanding someone's preference oh no I guess but yeah I was interpreting preference with a little bit more scope than that but I don't know it's really up to you Kirby because you're the one who wants to insert that section again I think that I saw it as a way to to address what your concerns are in that bullet point because you're afraid of development on these slopes so instead of not doing what we want to do with buildable area let's get to the heart of it and address it here which is about developing on steep slopes but not strictly on steep slopes but alright it doesn't address all of your concerns but it addressed at least one, I thought it was a big one it addresses the part that we previously already accepted which is allowing development on steep slopes without an engineering can we pin down what the concern is that we're trying to fix here or address because I feel like I've lost it in all of the discussions so the most built of advantages and disadvantages is kind of the meat of it and the second bullet point under disadvantages is that the word right now is this change could allow for increased density on steep sites and or development on steep slopes with an engineered plan and DRB approval John pointed out how density is not used correctly there and that it really means residential units or units so this change could allow for increased units on those sites and this change is meaning it's the allowance of building on steep slopes, that's what we're talking about no, the change in the buildable area could increase the number of units built on the steep slopes on steep sites in combination with other things, not the change by itself so it's a difference between the steep sites and the steep slopes on parcels with steep slopes but then if we're saying you could build more housing units on places where we say it's okay for you to build one of our big goals is to increase the number of housing units and I'm with you I'm with you on that and Barb and I talked about that I think it's definitely subjective to call that a disadvantage the second part I think is less objective and that's it could lead to development on steep slopes so if we but that's mitigated if we maybe beep up the standards a little bit can we call that bullet and put it up in the description of I mean I'm just thinking maybe if we move it this change could allow for increased housing units on steep sites period yeah I mean you could just put it we do we do want to disclose that this change could happen right but we don't agree whether it's an advantage or disadvantage so let's disclose it in a section that's not listed under either can I ask why was bothering to characterize the rules in terms of wins and disadvantages and we could discuss these all as impact we're trying to be as clear as possible about the decision the crux of this debate here 20 minutes has been whether or not the inclusion of the bullet point if we characterize it as an advantage or a disadvantage nobody's nobody's denying that it has an impact it's how we characterize it yeah just to leave advantage and disadvantage and then rework that to say could allow for an increase in housing units on the parcels with steep with steep slopes steep sites well just as if it was already taken out right it wasn't that deleted that I mean there seems to be an elegant solution I mean if the commission can't agree upon what the property character has with any or disadvantage when outlining the impacts of the change I don't know how we expect the city council or anybody any other reader to not have that same problem what's the problem yeah because then maybe we're making determinations about it too if we see something as an advantage or a disadvantage so you're suggesting just put all the bullet points together as impact reader can robust debate will follow well I could certainly agree with that I don't I don't have that strong of feelings I do think that it's doesn't communicate as well what I'm thinking is that resolution means that we're just let's just be less clear about what we're saying that's not what I was going for but I also don't think the city council is going to put as much energy in it as we have so I don't know I think if we can if we can put them all under one header that says impacts and approve the memo we should because you're right we've spent a lot of time on this I really appreciate the extra effort that Kirby and Barb have done so if the two of you are comfortable with that you know it's comfortable with putting all of the bullet points together under one heading impacts and changing that one bullet in the manner John Adams described just to change density to housing units so from density to increased units on sites with steep slopes steep sites says the same thing you're going to change the word density to units to residential units residential units change density to residential units and leave the rest as it is you can or you could say parcels with steep slopes just to be really clear getting rid of the density and maybe the second half of that gets to what you wanted to do the development of steep slopes I just again I mean like my suggestions about the 30% standards for the DRB is just that was an area that I agree with Barb that I thought we'd all agree that we're not trying to make a change where all of a sudden it's like fair game to start building on the steepest slopes you can like that's not so adding in a little bit of clarifying language I thought would be a good way to resolve that and I thought that was out of that bullet point that was the part I would be concerned about because I agree with John that increasing density in and of itself is certainly not a disadvantage so appropriate housing units but well thank you next up under same item um let's talk about Mike's written report do any updates for anyone who's new who are required under state law to put together a zoning report that provides, gives a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment including the statement of purpose some findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan and finding regarding on how the proposal is compatible with the future land use and density of the municipal plan so I've put together a memo that really just kind of outlines what's there we certainly can make amendments if we need to at a later date too but we have to send the required report out with the warning which the statement just gets rid of is lawyers yes, personally so it's just one of these ones that they find little loopholes of well you didn't follow that one word so how did the last part about where you're referencing the master plan that comes as part of this report because all of these sections are being affected well the second one how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan that's the statutory requirement what I've got to talk about so the master plan adopted in 2017 identifies goals so 2F okay so it just identifies the particular goals that these address the zoning talked about some of these a couple of these I could have eliminated maybe for the amendment but the steep slopes does affect the earth extraction well this is going to be finalized after the public hearing right we could finalize it then so it looks fine to me now most of what I pulled from the zoning when we did the zoning adoption I'd like to just take some time I haven't had time to really look at this yeah so we can all take some time with it and then we can incorporate any other changes that we may make as a result of the public hearing so we'll just so this doesn't have to go to the council beforehand as an explanation of the changes no I believe it goes, it's a part of the package that goes all at once goes to ACCD, goes to neighboring towns it goes to the regional planning commission and it goes to the lawyers they'll find out which one it is so it's after approval by city council well no no no, it's after our public hearing and I need to send this with the public hearing notice to others oh you do others, okay yeah for the planning commission public hearing how much what's the timeline on that I think it's just 15 days okay if I got comments in the next 15 days we'll come but let me check because they conveniently made things just a little bit different so I'm confused this would be sent in and then to the council in 15 days so we're working against a suggested public hearing date of April and we need to give 15 days notice before that public hearing and we need to send this out as part of that notice so if we're calculating 15 days backwards from April 8th then that puts us at whatever the deadline is for getting this out the only purpose of this is because it's required by law to send along most towns just write like we're changing the zoning to make it better it makes sense to have this it's just a question because it says it's going to city council but I thought I heard Mike say it wasn't it is, it's just not the initial notice for the public hearing goes to the other guys this will go to city council once you guys are done so it's 15 days counting weekends or not it counts weekends, 15 actual days the old commercial days weren't public hearing not less than 15 days seem like we're not one of those lawyers but we're just doing a city plan we don't even know we don't even know how to see you so Sunday, March 24th so the 22nd Friday the 22nd 20 seconds would give us extra yeah if you don't mind why don't we each send comments that we have to Mike and he can compile them and send us a new draft I don't know within a week if everyone gets some comments by the end of this week I was the date the 15th and then Mike can get us a revised version a couple days later like on the 19th kind of like like on the 19th and assuming we won't have any issues then we can send it out on the 22nd did you send this out in PDF or back it was part of the I don't know which one I sent I could try to resend it I don't worry about it you just send it out yeah I don't remember I just hit frame that's not true except unless it's got color did you send it out in the last batch of stuff a couple days ago it was on Friday Friday sent it Friday it's in Word except it's maybe titled a little bit funny yeah unified development regulations blah blah blah it's in Word it's a Word version perfect it also references the proposed land use map is that a change that we're making we are making a change to the land use map this guy oh that's a change to the map but we haven't talked about that well yeah it's already been approved it's already approved on the matrix oh so which all right refresh our memories North Street okay that's part of it this was a there's the river actually if you were over here on Elm Street you can see a little house over here it was built on the hillside so these guys went and this property sold and had a new house built on it these guys knew each other and these guys always wanted to have more land so they did a boundary line adjustment to add more land to his property more room but because he had the parcel that was on the edge of the zoning map he now had a split parcel half of his parcel or two-thirds of his parcel or one zone and one third of his parcel is in another zone so we figured move the zoning boundary yeah thank you okay so I think we're we need to vote to set the date for the public hearing suggested date is April 8th do I have a motion to set April 8th as the date for the public hearing for the zoning changes to move okay any discussion about that are we going to have a quorum for that April so John Stephanie and Barbara are going to be gone we have to all be there so that's my best okay so that's do we have to be there for the public we need to have quorum to open it here oh to open it I mean it doesn't look good to your public we didn't have plans for this so John is going to have a public hearing 10 minutes well those who are working for the hearing the actual hearing that occurred there were only two actual hearings at the city council alright so hearing no more discussion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed okay motion carries and the meeting date is set for April 8th item number seven was kind of hitting both of those item seven is motion to warn a hearing on April 8th to consider the draft amendment to the unified development regulation so we set the hearing date but did we accomplish this mic I think we did that yeah I think that would technically follow that so we get a final copy of all the changes all the strikeout ones would you like a hard copy or do you want me to email you a digital copy he emailed the digital copy you can take mine hard copy yeah I guess we only made a few questions yeah Mike maybe would you mind making sure that we have a few copies printed for the actual hearing yes well I have to I have to have copies in downstairs and I have to have some copies the strikeout the strikeout ones yeah officially that's what we are going to be adopting we went through the matrix but officially what is in the strikeout copy with the changes we made today which were on 424 423 and 315 those three pages we made typo fixes oh ok well that's all just look at what you emailed yeah yeah so I will make those three changes yes that's right so as far as the hearing process we'll Mike do you are you up for giving a quick overview of kind of the approach that we took and the types of changes that we I will come prepared and we'll see who shows up and how many people show up and we can kind of take it from there if we don't get a lot of input from two people we can probably answer their questions if we get a bigger crowd then it makes sense to kind of do an overview of it if we don't get anybody then we can move on to the city planning ok do we typically get a draw usually well my experience here is that yes I think we can anticipate some really good comments is it typically just one hearing is that correct for the planning commission there's one required hearing we can have as many hearings as we want we had the last adoption multiple rounds of hearings so we moved to item 7 so item 8 is the city plan identify this year's mild stones toward completion discuss the presentation on sustainable Montpelier collision and next steps so like I mentioned we had a little bit of a working session at our last meeting since we didn't have a quorum and the big takeaways I had were that the sustainable Montpelier collision presentation was really valuable for giving us ideas about the potential for our city and the next step is to kind of start marking on a map which of those we feel we should pursue so a lot of information is going to go into that some is if we want to review various documents that Mike is going to be uploading under the Google Drive we're going to be seeking public comment that will also give us information on that of course we have the master plan that we can look to for ideas we don't have to just pull these out of thin air so but the I think the most comprehensive way to start the process is to actually pull up a map in one of our meetings look at it together and talk about various things so we can decide whether we want to talk about a portion of the city or if we want to talk about a transportation needs throughout the city and we can just have an organic discussion and since it was your idea John with the map do you want to give any more background or details yeah so we have this tool I guess that the Stern environmental is developing that will give us basically the ability to collect information in this way to probably make sense for when that's available for us to be the first to take it for a test drive and the idea of framing it with degrees of change what do we want to transform what do we want to improve and what do we want to maintain as like a productive way of capturing people's ideas around specific areas in the town but we'll sort of come up with something quickly but we probably just want to do this once but that's ready the other part of this is so we have the website that I started last year that everyone has access to as a place where we'll put some material and in that Barbara she gave me to do a format that could serve as a template for other communities for ourselves in terms of how do we want to break out do we want people to give us information so that it's useful and in a way that's consistent with other committees and other people and how we'll end up using it in the end so also so that it's going to be practical as opposed to a 300-page document that we feel relieved to be completed with it so in the folders there and I can send just a direct one which will be easier there's I don't know if you had a chance to look at it Barbara I didn't because I I guess I misunderstood when we were looking at it just on the last session it wasn't clear to me how much information was actually in there from the energy goals so you actually have incorporated at different levels I did and I boiled it down quite a bit from what was there and essentially has one vision statement and then goals and measures so basically measurable goals that I think the community have a lot of put those in there and then and then strategies and strategies could be policies or actions to accomplish those so there are three levels there's three levels vision, a single statement that talks about where we want to go goals that are actual measurable so like how do we know if we need to attain that we should be able to check off those measurable goals and then the strategies and in it I also have like a evaluation matrix that we may not want to get into now but I thought it would be worth bringing up as a where are we going with this and also as something to communicate for communities to think of can I just propose these where we can talk about what makes sense but to look at what is the effectiveness of the proposed strategy or action what is the effort of resources required what are the any existing programs or projects related to this what are the timelines what are the supporting documents like how fleshed out is this idea something will be already on their way and very developed others may just be high in the sky ideas and then responsible parties anticipated costs and partners that way when we bring all of these together we can look at where do we get the biggest bang for our buck and start to prioritize what the different strategies are and hopefully the people or the committee the folks who come up with these ideas can understand that we'll have to make some hard decisions or like that's the challenge of this is actually finding those strategies that are going to make it the biggest difference and try to have them work with us and looking at this rather than with the idea that everyone submits ideas and we'll accept all of them and it's easy to do so your suggestion we would prioritize not each individual group well they can fill out they can fill out the matrix if they like but that would maybe something we go back to them because it can be a lot to come up with all of that and then to evaluate it you probably want to get them all together and then evaluate them in context right but if they had at least had the evaluation matrix then it might give them a better idea of what areas to emphasize in terms of getting information if I'm reading this yeah or that we'll be going back to them and that this will be evaluated under this criteria right I mean so they could identify what resources there are each one of these line items but we don't have to do that work it's really up to them is it for us to work with some kind of a map prior to relying on the stone environmental map might be just a much simpler method as Leslie was saying you know maybe we look at a map and we address transportation throughout the city and then we look at another copy of the map and we address one of the other topics housing or something like that just to try and sort of put a graphic interface into this as a group we can also just actually have a map and start drawing it up at our meetings yeah that's what I mean that's what I mean yeah so if we could have large scale I mean a large map that we can all work on top of we don't always do it as overlays on a single map we could start that at the next meeting and we have a map that should be somewhere on the site that has a lot of the layers that you can talk about is it possible to print is it possible to print I wouldn't print on that I mean you could do you want paper copies or do you want to just get digital and project it up or if we have a paper one that we don't have the need to overlay everything on it we can access that other than looking at something we put too much on it and then we can't figure out what we're looking at anymore yeah I guess I was thinking about doing it physically as overlays so you know we have a base map that has I don't know how much information we want to include and then look at each specific area but it might be useful to draw you know to pull up that those individual maps those layers you have to give us some background as we're looking at the whole thing but I think we need to be able to actually get at least I do get into it as a graphic tool so I don't see it on the actual on our little planning website yet I might have taken it down because we stopped talking about the city part so if you go to sland.monkp.city you can pull up our little website that John made so if I don't know if you want it's pretty great for a news website at this point you did a great job on it, you really did so if you could send us that link again John you sent it in a previous email right yeah I can send you the link to that and then also just the spreadsheet for the energy yeah that would be great yeah I'm sending it right now okay I'm pretty good because I tried pulling it up with sland like that city and I did not get it so speaking of overlays did you guys discuss the different buckets for areas well only generally nothing, no focus discussion on that we have the list of top chapters yeah yeah so Aaron there's a list of chapters and who would be responsible for those is that on that website I don't know I just don't think that's on the website it'll start to get over there because we've got to set up a folder for each one of them otherwise you're just going to end up with a giant library of unorganized documents so I kind of have to make folders yeah make an energy folder that I'll have some subfolders in that will have like resources either general resources or mountain clearing specific right so then they can start to populate that with their resources yeah because that's what I started to do on my own just to work through it first was to just set up different subfolders so under housing I would know where to start chucking things if I find them so so it seems like we have a good idea of how we're going to get feedback and information from the committees did you talk about how we'll incorporate the public feedback along the way the idea was with that that map the tool from the stone having actually having public hearings to get feedback well there will be certainly the discussion that we've been having in the past was that we have a plan that has a lot of visions and what we wanted to do is to start to make a more strategic plan so we were going to kind of reorganize the plan and kind of go back to the committees to kind of write plans for the historic chapter we would have something that's going to be worked out with the historic preservation committee and to try to make it more strategic and then and then kind of go to the public with after working with the committees because the committees are made up of members of the public too each one of those meetings would be open to the public and then just to start to work our way back to taking all the pieces into a plan and then getting back to having more public outreach on each one of these pieces which I think is where the Access Montpelier will be very helpful when that comes online the stone product Access Montpelier, that's the name of it and so if we get that all going we're going to have that multiple ways of reaching out and I think as with the zoning process you know we're going to this plan will be 200 pages but the zoning was 200 pages and we spent tons and tons of time discussing probably about 15 of them I think the city plan is going to be a lot the same where we're going to come up with a lot of goals, policies, recommendations and a lot of it people are going to kind of go and say well this is what we do and this is good and then a couple sections that we're going to break the friction there are going to be different groups it's just out there, you know we've got people who the merchants and folks very concerned about making sure there's enough parking for customers and another group that wants bike lanes and another group that wants no cars so apparently we're going to have to make a decision as to what our recommended policies are and somebody is not going to be happy with that the point is to put stuff out there for people to start to react to what committee is going to inform us the most on parking transportation committee I mean you're going to hear from the act because there's a portion of them that sees the cars as a conflict point for bikes and a limited of them that think parking cars are going to be a thing of the future or a thing of the past and they're not going to be here anymore and we don't have to be planning for them we shouldn't be building parking garages what about complete streets complete streets is going to be the parking it's going to be the transportation plan as you talk to the transportation committee they're going to be this transportation plan we're going to draw heavily on the complete streets plan because that's really the policy that the city has taken to identify where the bike lanes should be to identify where the on-street parking should be to establish a plan and a map and that'll probably tell us a lot about that our maintained, evolved transform is looking at where the gaps in that complete streets where we have streets that completely don't match what our ideal future is and that policy has been adopted by the city the complete streets plan we were looking at a number of different transportation plans we've got a long history of lots of transportation plans in the city there's a lot of things that will go into the transportation plan not just that there is the public transit just want to give us a quick there is a map on the website it probably needs to be updated because it's from August 2017 but there's an interactive map there there's a whole pile there we have some drafts down there so is that on our site it is I think it's sort of buried in there I was just looking for things to put on I just emailed the link to this page that would help and for us to maybe look at before the next meeting so Mike are you going to be able to provide some kind of hard copy are we looking for just one per meeting do we have one with like a specific ortho just with ortho and parcel lines or just one just one we could put on the table for the next meeting and then we could do tracing paper two by three tracing paper okay so bring that can you bring that that's when it gets fun colored sound good for the next meeting on that so I sent the link to the map if anyone wants to play around with it you can do that I sent it in your email so we have some meeting minutes we should blow through right now and try to get approved with January 28th I just had one question under the punch list for zoning fixes number four gravel to whether or not they would need permit to change from gravel to and I thought that we actually had voted on the matrix that they would need a permit but it looks like this discussion says they don't need a permit no I think I mean my read of it is that they do it says Mike recommended this is the second lesson that Mike recommended that if it's a new surface it requires permit repaving is oh I see but repaving a paved surface what does that mean yes it was a gravel surface being paved for example Mike do you recall what we I remember in our matrix discussion I guess I thought that meant repaving something that was not gravel but paved a gravel path and it says either material is an impervious surface so we could keep track of that impervious surface curvy if they got a permit so the decision PC agrees to regulate paving of unpaved surfaces okay so I guess that would mean that we changed our position from number four in a later date sorry can you read that again Mike PC agrees to regulate paving of unpaved surfaces I mean it doesn't matter that we changed that decision then and changed our decision later I'm just bringing it up as a point if somebody goes back and reads our minutes we didn't change our decision later I don't think I think that was the decision so we should make this clear so my proposal is that we change the last sentence from the consensus was an agreement with that recommendation to the consensus was an agreement to regulate paving of unpaved surfaces to regulate thank you for catching that anything else with these we have a motion to approve with that amendment second second any other discussion on this all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed okay January 28 meeting minutes are approved with that change we have a motion to approve these second any discussion this is our okay all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed okay February 11 meeting minutes approved February 25 you've got to be the one to second this one I do we already got a person there oh wait do we even have technically she wrote minutes anyways because she had a copy of the yeah we might as well approve I'm sure second all those in favor say aye I'll vote on that one okay they're approved okay I have a second okay all those in favor say aye all those in favor say aye okay and we are adjourned thanks everyone thank you