Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

i think you're down there just to mess with us i'd like to call this meeting to order please rise for the pledge i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and

God and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Next item is roll call. Cheryl?

Orchini? Here. Burkett?

Here.

Fryhover? Here. Landreth? Here. Remy?

Here. Then next is approval of the agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda as presented.

I'll make that motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Got a motion and a second on the agenda. Is there any discussion? Let's proceed to vote.

Landreth? Yes. Orchini?

Aye.

Burkett.

Yes.

Reihover. Yes. Remy.

Yes. Next item then is the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Does anybody have any comments on any changes or anything or entertain a motion to approve the minutes?

I enter a motion to approve the minutes.

Is there a second to that? I'll second. Any discussion on any item? Let's proceed to vote.

Fryhofer? Yes. Burkitt?

Yes.

Landreth?

Yes.

Bertini?

Aye.

Rieming?

Yes. Next item is public participation. Individuals may comment on the items that are on the agenda. agenda during public participation time. We'll limit it to 3 minutes, but you may speak only once. Is there anybody wanting to speak on anything other than something that's listed on the agenda for public hearing? Seeing none, we'll move on to public hearings. Resolution number 6. Open the public hearing on that item.

Good evening commissioners. What you have before you tonight is kind of a big deal. It's a brand new office building on one of the few vacant lots. Located at 127 North Market Street. So it is a site plan for 2397 square foot, one story office building. Like I said, it's at 127 North. which I could make this work, is located, you can see there, it's just south of Montezuma Park, adjacent to Wild Edge, the vacant lot there. turn and just to explain a little bit i showed a little map of the central business district part of it this area is a weird little northern enclave it's the only part of the cbd that bulges north so it did confuse a few people that it was actually part of the central business district but for whatever reason and the people that are on staff now don't know what that reason was they did bulge the central business district all the way up to the park here This is a pretty bad picture of the site, but a totally vacant site right now. You can see the mural for Wild Edge there and the alley that separates the property from the park. I don't know if someone who's been here longer than me knows if something was removed from the site. Obviously there is some infrastructure. pedestrians built there that will probably have to be changed a little bit. so here's the site plan and in mostly in true central business district style it will mostly fill up the lot they're proposing a little bit of a gap between wild edge there and we'll show you that next and they are even though central business district does not require parking They are proposing five parking spaces for their employees, probably. Central Business District does not require setbacks, so on the northern and eastern property lines, it will basically be zero lot line. It will require, let's see, some improvements here. I can do this. to the side is not showing is it to the sidewalk out front but we'll go there next so here's some perspective elevations of the new building the one on top there would be as seen from the alley or the park looking at it and then the east elevation or the elevation from Market Street is on the bottom there Got the approval criteria for you there. I'm not gonna go over all of it. For the most part, it's whether it conforms with the comprehensive plan and all the dimensional and other requirements in the land use and development code. Put the standards up there. As you can see, there's not a whole lot of standards required. You're allowed to cover the site 100%, no setbacks, maximum height of 50 feet, and no parking or landscaping is required. And they're essentially exceeding all of those requirements or matching them exactly. The other thing that I discussed a little bit is comprehensive plan does have some design recommendations. They're not translated into the code, so they're essentially recommendations only. But it does, I put those in your staff report. and I highlighted one here which is ensure that building design and facade treatment reflect the historic character of downtown so I've got a photo here that's showing you the existing block of North Market the built environment there as you can see that it's sort of the Cortez Southwest style both built both of the buildings that are there now are one story so it does appear that as proposed with a somewhat of a territorial or Southwest style on the building and stucco exterior one story it should fit fairly well in there they're proposing to even tie in the design elements a little bit with a stucco type fence in there so it really I felt like it does do a good job of meeting the comprehensive plan I interesting enough it talked about the eclectic historic character of downtown which I thought was a nice description. And then I put all those policies in there. Most of those policies are talking about that you should develop design standards for downtown. Obviously that wasn't ever done, but it does appear that they did a nice job of ensuring that the building design facade treatment does reflect that character pretty nicely. Other things, there were a lot of comments from our agencies and staff. I think some of them, it's a little confusing because I wanted to put them in there right the way they stated them. And the applicants did address some of them before this final writing of the staff report. So let me know if you have any questions on that. I think maybe the most, uh important one there is on the sidewalk so the existing sidewalk in front of the building here it's a little patchy and there's some extra concrete but it's more of the standard five foot wide sidewalk down the central business district requires the nine foot sidewalk so their site plan they did amend that to show a the nine foot sidewalk i think we can see it on here as required so the idea is you know in front of buildings downtown that there's plenty of room for outdoor seating or what plenty of walking room for the the window shoppers although this will be an office building so not a lot of window shopping should happen let's see the employee parking area we talked about that a little bit they revised that that will be a concrete surface parking area there was also some concerns about drainage and as recently as today they've been working on addressing that so they're well on their way to addressing the comments but with all of that staff is recommending approval of the site plan we've got two conditions which are generally are pretty standard conditions but it covers everything which is to meet all requirements of utility providers city departments and all city codes specifically also the 2009 city Cortez construction design standards and specifications and then the second condition being that appropriate construction drawings and reports for the project revised as required by the city and engineer and fire department also shall be signed and stamped by a Colorado licensed architect or engineer and approved by the building department and city engineer before obtaining the building permit Are there any questions.

And you want to have any questions for Nancy.

The applicants also here.

So they should be of the is this solely going to be an Edward Jones. Office or they're going to be other tenants or other activities going on inside of the bill.

There is a also right now is there be 3 office suites. The means to the largest suite that would be access directly off Market Street is proposed to be an Edward Jones office at this moment and then there would be 2 more suites working West that would be at their doors to be facing the park. But both of the other 2 office suites. Yeah, you can kind of see the on on the top picture there that 2 doors that would be as you're looking from the park toward the building. Those 2 doors kind of more in the western side of the building would be office use.

Do all of the suites. Are they all handicap accessible from the door to the suite.

Yes. That that that kind of ramp in that one picture that had the yellow around it from from the street that battle work straight up and it'll be concrete out in front of all those to be handicapped says.

This is just a one story building correct.

And then this is this is my fault and I I'm sorry Nancy I should have caught it because you did send me the agenda and I believe this was also in the agenda so I I apologize, but just one correction. The 2397 square feet that is the square footage of sweet one that the total building should be closer to 4800 square feet. The other 2 suites are an additional combined 2500 so with the with the almost 2300 in the 2500 behind should be closer to 4800 square feet approximately. And I'm sorry I should have caught that earlier.

So is this building go all the way to the West. The other street.

And not quite because of the parking in the back.

And Nancy was a comment about drainage was that from the parking in the back or.

if you look through ian's comments public works there are concerns about because that alley is grabbed if it were proposed to drain to the alley whether or not that might affect the alley adversely and require some paving of the alley they have since submitted and shown that it will drain to the south through that patio area out to market street So it probably won't require that, but given the way we wrote that suggested condition, it will cover it regardless.

Will the city require a legal maintenance agreement recommended by the engineering department for the alley or any other structure?

That that was one of the recommendations from public works and we do have that conditions he'll have to work with the city attorney and make sure that that.

What is that encompass. Is that just the alleyway.

This means he's speaking about the alleyway in this. Yes.

I mean, could the improvement of the alleyway be a part of the project right now? Is it gravel right now?

Right now, the alley is gravel, yes. No, it's city-owned land.

Yeah, we the city doesn't ever require or allow public private maintenance of public right of way.

There could be a lot more increased usage and I'm a little bit concerned about that.

And that would be the city's obligation to improve it if necessary to accommodate increased usage of the alleyway.

Well, I'm looking at correctly the tenants would probably Park on the West side. People would enter the building on the East side would be. So there probably wouldn't be much traffic through the hour actually less.

Was there going to be a dumpster.

Yes. There's currently a dumpster there anyway for wild edge.

The dumpster shown on the site plan in the Southwest corner.

Back in the alley.

Is that going to allow enough space for a.

Any other questions for the presenters or Nancy before open up for.

You do you have any issues with the 9 foot. Sidewalk they're saying is going to be required.

I don't think so it's going to fit into our plan and we're going to be able to Lance you know landscape it should look really nice.

In the access over here to the 3 exits on the North side is that concrete or is that other stones and a little bit of home.

That's just a sidewalk concrete to be all concrete.

The only other issue I have and I don't know. How to address it really there's a lot of events at the Montezuma Park right there and Sometimes they have to set up barriers Because of the Colorado law for alcohol and all this type of thing. I don't know if you guys were at the last Third Thursday, but the barricade was basically blocking this whole area so That's the only really other concern that I have if I your space might be blocked off if there's events and that might hinder access to your property.

We've been working closely with the 3rd Thursday group. That's the I think that's the biggest amount of traffic. Going in there, but we've talked with them about this and I think there's plenty of room with the alley and then on the other side of the lot to to coordinate that we were letting them use that entire lot for the event this entire time. But yeah, we'll we plan to stay in touch with them. On the 3rd Thursday.

Your hours of operation until 5PM is that correct.

Yeah, yeah, they'd be starting after business hours.

And so 3rd Thursday doesn't start till 5 or 6 or something could there be other tenants in the building that operate at later hours past 5PM.

More than likely not with our with with Edward Jones being in there. They're pretty restrictive themselves on the other tenants in the building having to be pretty much in the professional services industry.

Keep in mind the criteria for approval of the conditional use doesn't take into account the nature of the tenants. So whether it's Edward Jones or anything else, that's just an example. And your authority to approve or deny is not contingent upon the types of tenants. It's the type of building that you're looking at. Thank you.

the tenants would be restricted by the zone uses i just wanted to get a characterization um to see if they would i mean a business could a vape shop could open up and they could be open until you know whatever the latest hour 10 midnight i'm not sure but that's just an example that it could change well and they could be i mean the nature of the property if there was different a different type of non-professional tenants But we're not here to judge that.

Any other questions? Okay, then I'll open the public hearing for public participation. Anyone willing to speak for or against? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment section and continue on with the public hearing. I guess I'd entertain a motion to approve the plan unless there's no other questions.

As long as it's going to be conditional on the maintenance agreement with the engineering department? Or is that not a provision of it?

Well, the way that was written was if alley improvements are required, a maintenance agreement may be required. I was a little concerned, and I think Pat might want to speak to that.

The the alley is no different than a public street and we don't have we don't require maintenance agreements for public streets. That's the city's obligation. That's what the tax dollars pay for and and it would be a liability issue for the city to have private enterprises maintaining public right of way. So I would caution against that being a requirement now there there may be some requirement. Upgraded prior. To obtaining a building permit. Ongoing maintenance would be the obligation of the city. Snow plowing repair The surface whatever surface they end up. Putting on it that that would be a city obligation.

No different than it is already.

Yeah, exactly. I'm but it wouldn't be true though if they're if they're if they're drainage goes and this is the North side of the building that we're talking about ice buildup in the in the winter could be an issue sure that could be something that yeah, if there's a drainage problem that originates from the property then the public works would require the landowner to remedy that.

should we have that in place before we go forward.

I mean that's part of our regulations.

So if there's a drainage issue that affects wild edge. How is that resolved in the future.

Same way either through private litigation is there's no different than if the tenant on the South side of wild edge cause drainage problems that affected wild edge it it it's usually not part of a Special use permit requirement. We just had a litigation that went on for months on a property was in the industrial zone, but on the on the very issue and it was. The two property owners were involved in in litigation against each other regarding drainage and. They eventually resolved it and and the lawsuit was dismissed, but it. It's really a. unless the city approves a specific drainage plan that causes the problem, then it's not really the city's problem to deal with.

i'm glad that that space is going to be put to use and it looks like they have a pretty solid plan and um what is the construction timeline um do we have did they submit that to you guys or do we not really have an idea i used to go in front of city council first from uh

We can answer them in from tonight, you know, hopefully we we make it past. This evening from that point will be on the City Council here the end of the month and then from there as soon as we are issued a permit. I think the construction will start immediately as soon as possible. Darren's a little bit more on leading the charge there but we've already been in touch with the concrete contractor we already have a framer on board the trust package has been ordered obviously we're going to do everything we can to move that construction time as swiftly as possible for the way the weather gets too adverse and obviously we've got some people looking to move in so we'd like to get them in as soon as possible

I guess I'll make the motion to recommend that the city of Cortez approve the PNC resolution number 6 series 2026 resolution approving the site development plan for a new office building on properly located at one to 7 North Market Street Cortez Colorado in the central business district zone with the conditions applied to that as recommended.

I second the motion.

Got a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Let's proceed to vote.

Burkitt?

Yes.

Breyhover? Yes. Borchini?

Aye.

Landreth? Yes. Remy?

Yes. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Good luck. Next item is unfinished business and say none and go business Jason you flew us in on resolution number seven the draft form I

yeah tonight i bring before you a draft resolution number seven and what this really is is a formal recommendation from the planning and zoning commission to the cortez city council requesting that council adopt an ordinance authorizing the commission members to participate in meetings remotely via video conferencing or other electronic means this resolution was modeled on the electronic participation policy already adopted by City Council it's been adapted to fit this commission structure This resolution does not itself amend the municipal code. It initiates the process by which the city council will consider, and if it agrees, enact the necessary code amendments. this resolution like i said is in draft form so based on your discussion points this evening it'll either be dropped as an item for consideration or edits will need to be made for your further review at the next regularly scheduled meeting i provided a lot of information in my staff memo for you guys but There are really a few items that you should discuss specifically and there's a couple of decision items as well, but I think I Think one of the first things that you guys need to decide I guess is that I does this commission agree that this is a policy that you'd like to even carry forward it seemed like at the last meeting there was some disagreement potentially around whether or not remote participation should even be something you guys wanted to take on so maybe if you guys wanted to start there and then if you guys decide you want to proceed there's some items that need discussion that i can elaborate on and kind of walk you through

You know if the city has done any of this. They had a virtual. Participation in voting.

The question have we.

Not not so well. I take that back yes. Mayor Medina participate remotely a couple times but was she able to vote. Yes, it was subsequent because they adopted the the ordinance establishing the policy was in October, November. Yeah, last year yet. And so yeah that that allows for voting as well.

I remember she did participate in one of the workshops where we had land use code.

And she had participated previously to the adoption of the ordinance, but she didn't vote.

And the citizens did approve this ordinance. Is that correct for the electronic participation? Or was the city council approved it for themselves?

Yes for the City Council they they they amended the charter so that it didn't conflict with the ordinance that was previously adopted and there was some debate whether the ordinance actually in fact did conflict with the charter, but just to be sure. Council put that language to change the charter and it was approved but by the city.

So if we pass something on to them, they would still have to vote on whether or not to allow us to meet virtually, right?

Yes, because it it's it'll take some tweaks to the code, which only the council can kind of prove we're not able to set our own policy without their approval. If it has implications on the code, changing the code, then the council has to do it. You have the ability to adopt policies that have no impact on the land use code or the city code without council involvement.

And because they just passed it or they just approved it specifically for the City Council. That's why it has to go before them again.

Given some of our past history of sometimes not having a quorum when we need a meeting, obviously I brought this up and I'm in favor of us trying to get something accomplished to meet virtually. A lot of the boards that I'm on do meet virtually and the meetings we have are virtual so I'm kind of used to it but how do other people feel?

But as the chair, you would not be able to participate remotely.

I could participate, but I couldn't share the meeting, right? OK, correct.

That's that. I mean, the the the the contents of the policy is up to the Planning Commission to recommend. But that's the way the city council ordinance reads is that The chair can participate and vote remotely. But cannot run the meeting so. Vice chair here or the mayor pro tem in the terms of the Council would have to run the meeting and unless that person is also absent and then they would have to select somebody to be the. The person that runs the meeting.

So so the chair and the co-chair, one of them would have to be present.

Unless we select somebody.

Yeah. And if both of them are absent, then they would nominate somebody from the floor at that meeting to be the chair for for that meeting. So I guess in the somewhat unlikely event that both of them are absent, then the Planning Commission, based on this language, would have the authority to nominate somebody else to run the meeting in the absence of the other two. who would still be able to participate. But, I mean, certainly the language and the entire policy, even to the point of whether you want the policy or not, is something that... I think you you would need to decide and We can make whatever edits if you decide to go forward with a policy you can tell us what changes to the language you want and of course council would need to approve those changes as well, but I It's open for discussion.

Do you know what software platform the city uses? Council uses?

It is, well, let's see. Darren in there. I think.

We'll call in the IT guy.

Yeah, call the IT, because there's numerous ones.

For the remote participation, what software do we use? We currently use a platform called Avaya.

Avaya. What's the name of it? Avaya. Avaya.

Avaya.

Avaya. So do we have to download that app on our computer then?

No, sir. You can use it within a web browser. I believe it is pre-installed on the laptops that you've got. No, I'm sorry. You guys aren't issued laptops. That's my fault. You can visit the site and use it in a web browser, though.

okay or on a mobile device i've had problems with webex and pueblo community college but somehow i worked through aaron um if they wanted if they knew ahead of time they were going to want that we can give them a link right like i

Absolutely yeah, we would send you a link via e-mail and you could just click that link and then open the meeting in a web browser or on your mobile device and attend the meeting that way.

Yeah, Microsoft meets I've had challenges with too, but okay.

The only question I have is I know that we're not have more than 3 unexcused absences. I assume if you appear remotely that would not count as a unexcused absence or I guess that's up for us to decide the policy.

Correct that based on the City Council format. And they I believe they have the limit is 6 right Jason. Yeah, that's good. So and since you have roughly half the number of meetings, the City Council. Jason suggesting 3, but you don't have to stick with that number. You can choose more or less. But I guess the idea would be that if they participate remotely. that would not be counted as an unexcused absence, that they would actually be attending the meeting.

What is an unexcused absence? Can any, who makes that judgment? Is that just no contact before the meeting and not showing up, or is there a criteria, I guess? I mean, not that I don't love coming here and participating, but just curious.

Yeah, I think generally if somebody's not gonna appear They in the past have either contacted the clerk and or the director and gave notice of their intent not to be there and that was considered excused. Certainly you can come up with language if you want to clarify that and give more concrete language for the...

I just want people to participate and I want people to... you know have a say in the future of Cortez and make a positive impact so people are of course we can't all appear remotely I guess that would be one of the conditions because you always have to have at least one person live to uh to be the cheer person could there be one person live and four remote I guess that's again that's for us to discuss I think the limit is too remote

Yep, OK, and it's first come first serve so. If if you. If you're the third person, you don't get to appear remotely and so your non-appearance is either excused or unexcused and presumably if you've contacted ahead, I don't think we've ever been in a position where the chair or the director or anybody else had to determine whether the absence was excused or unexcused.

Generally, I guess if they just don't show up without contacting anybody that that would be considered unexcused Yeah, I can't I can't think of a situation in the years I've been here that somebody didn't contact ahead of time and say, you know I wasn't gonna be able to make it or whatever and we just made sure we That's the biggest thing I can I think there's only been one time that maybe we didn't have a quorum and I mean I think we had to postpone the meeting till the next month then so it's not a it's very rare but I don't want to have to hold up some preceding because only well at that time we only had three people three commissioners here so yeah it helps to have five

Forgive my ignorance but in the pack of information that was sent one of the lines says that currently there's no provision that explicit explicitly authorizes or prohibits electronic participation So I mean this the citizens already voted on this. I feel like it's an issue It's already been discussed pretty thoroughly if it's alright for City Council I don't see why it can't be right for the P&Z Commission and I'm just curious if we really have to jump through all these hoops and

i agree 100 but i i think the city council might feel a little bit differently and i'm fine if we don't want to pursue it if i'm on a ship in the mediterranean on a cruise and don't have to be at a meeting yeah it works for me so pat if we don't if we don't go forward with us today participate remotely

I guess currently we don't have a policy that prohibits remote participation of the PNZ, but I think the language in the code says that you have to appear at at the meeting at City Hall.

The issue is changing the code and that's why that's what they're going to have their city council is going to have a say although I agree with you 100% Bruce.

I just came from the historic preservation board meeting and we had an electronic participant. I don't think they've ever talked about this either. I just trying to make it simple, but I'm not I'm not in the legal field. So if we have to jump through this then that's fine. Otherwise, I just say everybody okay with it and let's move on with life.

Did in the historical did they vote? Yes.

That is the historical of preservation committee. The day approved this with the City Council or you're not familiar with.

No and I don't believe there's a code restriction. On on how they participate whether they have to be here or not. So that that would be the difference.

The only other issue is you know, I know we get a small amount for attending these meetings would you still get paid if you attended remotely. I guess that would be for us to decide yes.

Well, the assumption is that if you are just being remotely you're attending.

And that may be why we have to go through City Council to make the change because well, you guys yeah, I mean you

There's a lot of code in the city code that kind of dictates a lot of you know when you're supposed to be here and some language around being in person so that is why there's a need to change the code language to align with this electronic participation.

You're you're the only other body besides City Council that conducts quasi judicial hearings and Those are obviously more formal than what some of the other committees participate in so I guess having some more firm policies and guidelines as far as what's allowed and who runs the meeting and that sort of thing would be at least something to consider.

And I'm I'm not. You know, I go either way. If we want to do it or we don't want to do it having 5 commission helps versus the 3.

And can I say that we are the only other group that are reimbursed besides City Council. So that's probably why we have to make it a little more.

So do you say. But if we don't want to do it that some part of that.

I'm I'm good with doing it. I feel like the citizens are already spoken. They've approved it for City Council. I don't know what would be against the desires of the people of Cortez for the PNZ commission to do it.

We think we should try to be here if we can like without a limit with no limits. with no limits.

No, I thought limits with apps obviously with limits. So I think we're just trying to decide if we're going to move.

Yeah. Yeah. And I've got a couple of areas for you guys to talk about if you want to just proceed with.

I can tell you I'm I'm for it. We might as well. I mean, the city can. OK. I think is really about setting the parameters. You know, that's the key points that we're going to talk about, I think.

Yes. Well, I guess let's get down to the details.

Yes, so if you guys are looking at the actual ordinance starting on page 2 there's recommendation the City Council section and there's several items there that kind of line out some of the rules of engagement so to speak and again this was modeled roughly on the way City Council set their ordinance up. One of the well, there's a couple in here that need to be discussed. I think item number five So there's a maximum of two commission members may participate electronically at any meeting I don't know if you guys want that number to be different But that's what City Council landed on.

I Support to I think that's reasonable

Yeah, I think 2 is reasonable.

Okay. The next item is number 6 and you can see a left it blank so a commission member may participate electronically a maximum of number of times. So I wanted to see if you guys wanted to set. So each one of you can exercise your electronic participation. But do you want to limit how many times each person can do it? So it doesn't seem like there's just like one or two of you that are constantly gone.

The city council used six as the number. Obviously you me You're scheduled for half that half the number that City Council is but as we've seen And I don't know the exact numbers Cheryl or Jason might have to opine but Council at least one or two every year anyway, so You probably don't even have 12 meetings per year more like nine or ten or Cheryl and I looked it up right before we came in here just because I was curious so from August of last year until this meeting We've had seven.

Is that right?

Yeah so I guess I would suggest that you not allow

Six as the number like City Council did I mean because somebody might miss all the meetings in that case I mean, I don't really I'm not opposed to any type of limit as long as people are participating I mean, I don't plan on missing it and attending remotely every time but people if it's gonna let more people participate then I'm all for it and it's just The Commissioner has to judge for him or herself whether you know whether they want to show up or appear remotely.

And I would think that one would only appear remotely if they weren't in town. I mean, if I'm here, I'm coming to City Hall. If I'm out of town, I'm in Phoenix enjoying the weather.

I feel like once again the citizens voted on to approve what happened for City Council So if we have half the amount of meetings and three seems like a reasonable number to me I know we don't actually have all those meetings, but I'd be good with three.

I think I could move with three agreement

Okay. I think the only other area that I thought you guys might want to talk about beyond those would be so right now item 11 explicitly permits electronic participation in quasi-judicial functions and so i just wanted to give you guys an opportunity to think through um if there's actually a you know a public hearing a quasi-judicial proceeding in a meeting are you guys okay with um restricting the electronic participation for those particular items on an agenda or are you guys pretty comfortable with basically self-certifying that when you show up for electronic participation you're basically saying to everybody in the community that you've read the packet you're ready to go I don't know it's just an area that I thought was kind of interesting and you guys might want to think about what happens if the connection is lost that is one of those items there um i believe it is so they're number two and number three specifically kind of address that but basically number three is stating that the chair or other presiding officer if it's not the chair um If it just keeps getting lost if the yeah, the connection gets lost.

That is reasonable. We got to make sure we have good Internet and we can stay connected. I mean, yeah, in the far out chance that it happened from this and obviously we wouldn't need to make sure you're in a good spot where you can stay connected.

Robert, I don't know what the internet connectivity on the Carnival Cruise Lines is, but something to consider.

Sorry, I'm going to miss it anyway. I'm putting in my written notice now that come September, I'm gone. I've already talked to Richard about chairing the meeting as the vice chair.

Pat, I have a question.

So let's say, for instance, everybody's here and maybe it's not They didn't want voting members on quasi-judicial matters. Could they just abstain from that vote as long as there was a quorum? Or would you just recommend they make a choice one way or the other?

I would recommend if you're going to allow remote participation that it's participation for all purposes. And quite frankly, part of the reason that I think we're suggesting this is we... Charles, I think I had to kind of call you and say, hey, if you don't show up, we don't have a quorum. And you showed up and you had a... a potential conflict but you were questioning whether you should participate because of the conflict and I said we will have a quorum if you don't and the statute specifically allows participation even in the event of a conflict if it's necessary to maintain a quorum but If they're participating for all other purposes but not in a quasi-judicial hearing, there could be instances where the quorum is defeated for arguably the most important hearing of the evening, the quasi-judicial hearing. And the council specifically allows full participation even in executive session as well.

the easiest way is to mirror the city council's language with the exception of the number of absences allowed and you know they might not have any trouble with that and i think that's what you put together that's pretty much what we did we just yeah i didn't have anything else for you guys i just need you to decide on a few of those numbers and if you're comfortable with it overall what we'll do is uh and I will clean it up and we'll bring it back to you guys at the next regular meeting and you can vote on the resolution to move it forward and yeah we'll bring it to council after that.

On number seven you had a couple of a variable for a number two member and number of meeting limitations so I'll not apply to meetings which

Which one are we looking at?

Number seven.

The two-member and annual meeting caps?

So in other words, that says no more than two members.

Oh yeah, yeah, the two-member and meeting limitations, yeah. So basically we'll take that three meetings number and move it down to that, the two-member and three meeting limitations.

So then number six also says three?

Yeah, I'll fill those blanks in with the you know that.

And then you you all be able to vote on it next week.

Okay, the best is it best to try to move something for an hour there does be a lot of cleanup. I guess.

I guess. We could.

What do you think that yeah, I guess I would recommend that you have an actual resolution that. That has the blanks filled in OK before you vote on it. I mean, I don't know that there's a big hurry. Robert, you may be gone anyway, but you said you're not going to participate remotely at the next meeting.

No, but in October I could participate.

And I think we could still get it approved by Council and by October.

OK, yeah. I just know that we had when we only had three of us. You know the slow things down is not what the public wants to see when they're. Doing their presentations and that sort of stuff. They want to see things moving forward and there's already enough of a. Way later trying to get things done so.

Well, right now, Cheryl and I don't have anything necessarily for the next meeting anyway for you guys, so you're excused.

Okay, thank you, Jason. Yeah, I'll come to put something together for whenever we meet again.

You betcha. All right, thank you guys. Appreciate that.

Let's see, next item then. Any other items of business administrative approvals? Did you need to present something on that?

No, those are just for your information.

And if you had any questions and could see the list of the permits issued any other items for discussion? second oh need to make we make a motion make a motion to adjourn the meeting I'll second the motion had a second hearing no discussion proceed to vote I'm gonna have to get in a race or if you guys continue that Landreth yes Orchini aye Burkitt yes Fryhover yes Ramey yes meeting adjourned

Thank you.

That's how we like it.

No controversy.