Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

. . do do Thank you. you

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the June 23rd, 2026 Westminster Planning Commission meeting. Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Kinnear?

Excused.

Commissioner Tomachek?

Excused.

Commissioner Dunn?

Here.

Chair Bosher?

Here. Vice chair Carpenter here commissioners young excused commissioner paying Commissioner calling here Commissioner Morris here Okay We have Full Commission tonight, but we won't be voting on any official business this is strictly an informational meeting and Tonight's workshop is a little different than a typical meeting. Instead of considering land use cases and holding a public hearing, tonight's meeting will be an informal workshop to receive a presentation and share ideas to the proposed unified development code. If time allows, comments from the audience will be allowed after the commission has had a chance to engage in a discussion with staff. Do we have a staff member for a presentation here? I'm sorry, Andrew, I didn't realize you were doing it.

Vice Chair, Planning Commissioners, thanks for allowing me to present to you again. It's a little weird being over here instead of over there, but it's all good. I'm Andrew Spurgeon, Long Range Planner in the Community Services Department. Tonight's presentation will recap some of the content from our five prior workshops with the Planning Commission, and then talk about some of the thoughts that went into the draft that you all reviewed. Just to state the obvious, the UDC is a consensus document. It has input from staff, from residents, from prior check-ins with City Council, the Planning Commission, and we've even had check-ins with the Inclusivity Board and the Environmental Advisory Board. So lots of points of input coming from different places, different points of view. As a consensus document, it does not carry out any one person's agenda or it doesn't always present the ideal solution for every situation, but we've tried to memorialize points of consensus reached through this process. I know there's things in there I don't personally agree with, but it was the consensus and there it is. All that to say is if this commission does not agree with something in there, When we bring it to you for action, you can propose an amendment. I did a little history three years ago when I was here with the comprehensive plan. The commission actually made 11 amendments for things they wanted to see changed. And those 11 passed with, four members or more of the commission. So if you have something you don't agree with or something you wanna see changed, if you can get three commissioners to support your point of view, then absolutely make a motion and make that part of your recommendation to city council. I will say with this last draft, the commission had about 60 something comments. Our city staff had over 1400 comments. So I'll be sorting through those in the coming weeks and months. You all have seen this before, but I'm gonna repeat some of this just for the benefit of anyone out there watching. The UDC is not a policy document, it's a technical document. It helps implement other policies, policies that have been put in place by City Council through the Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainability Plan, the Transportation Plan, Housing Needs Assessment, Adaptive Reuse Toolkit. And really this is the first major overhaul since 1997. And so a lot of the existing provisions or the design standards don't really align with these recent plans and policies. So as I mentioned, we had five workshops with you. We appreciate you all making the time for this and understanding that it's important. We first talked about the potential zoning districts with the UDC and how they align with the comprehensive plan land uses. So there's more symmetry between those. That's not something we have today. In the June, I guess about a year ago, we were talking about development standards, the differences between standards and guidelines, differentiating urban and suburban development patterns, and creating provisions for infill redevelopment and adaptive reuse. Then in July, we talked about procedures, avenues to bring about greater flexibility within the code, getting away from the exception process, that I know some commissioners have expressed some angst about. In November, we put out the first public draft. We reviewed some of the inputs to that, the document organization. And then in March of this year, we were back talking more generally about planning in Westminster and then transitioning to a more specific UDC discussion at the end of that presentation, thinking about infill, redevelopment and adaptive reuse, which will be the primary forms of development in the future of Westminster. So the technical inputs for the Unified Development Code, we currently use eight separate documents. There's Westminster Municipal Code, WMC, as you often see it abbreviated. There are standalone landscape regulations, and then there's six different design standards, design guidelines that are applicable. What we're trying to do is combine all these into a one-stop shop to be more transparent and reduce any confusion associated with it. The current WMC, as I mentioned, was put in place in 1997. That was the result of a nine-year effort that began in 1988. So if you think about it, the world has changed a lot since then, and so it's really time we update our standards in consideration of that. Our existing zoning, and I know I talked about this before, but just to reemphasize, most of the city is zoned plan unit development, PUD. It's over two thirds of our city and it's growing. Every time there's a rezoning, it's to PUD. So it's always growing. PUD in concept is write your own zoning. If used properly, it's supposed to be tailored to a site and the conditions of a site and the context. Each PUD lays out allowed uses, building placement, amenities, they're very customized. So staff's recommended approach with the UDC is that we would leave the existing PUDs in place for existing neighborhoods and business districts and not try to rezone all of those properties. But the focus would really be on new development. That's where the new UDC would apply. If you look at our specific plan district and then our open district, which is usually used for open space or agriculture use is very limited, what you can do with it. Those combined are about 88% of the city's land area. So it only leaves 12%. with more traditional zoning districts that you'd see in other cities, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and those are primarily south of 92nd Avenue, generally. This slide just shows how land planning and other initial project design start with the UDC and then you move on to other technical regulations as you go through the development process. With design and construction advancing, it would go to the city's engineering standards and then the building codes when you start to go vertical. And then depending on the use and the activities, then other potential municipal code sections may apply, like short-term rentals or alcohol sales, utility regulations, that kind of thing. The next three slides sort of take the proposed UDC chapters in the left column and try to correlate it to existing content so you can understand where that came in from. And this was provided as attachment one to the agenda memo with the packet tonight. But you'll see most of the content comes from either existing code or existing design documents. And then on the far right is where new content has been added to supplement what's in there to fill in the gaps as things have changed since 1997. The stuff that's been carried over, that was a very deliberate process. Staff sort of did an audit and we went through trying to determine what should be kept, what should be kept but updated, and then what could just be dropped. So it was very intentional how that transpired. These are just the other chapters here. The comprehensive plan is really the driving force behind the UDC as well as the other master plans I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. But the plan gives a citywide framework for the physical development of the city. It's organized around four planned cornerstones, which are guiding principles, if you will, thriving city, healthy places, great neighborhoods, and managed growth. And if you ever read the comp plan, those words are printed in the header of every page, because it's sort of this overarching framework for the plan. This exhibit that's on the slide is actually a very helpful map that's in the comprehensive plan. This is not the land use map, but this is what we call the city structure map. And this helps identify the parts of the city that are generally suburban in character, locations where employment development is encouraged, mixed use opportunity areas for more compact formats, major transit facilities, and multimodal corridors where the development format is expected to evolve over time to be more transit-oriented. A key change with our current comprehensive plan is a reduced emphasis on land use and a new focus on maintaining great neighborhoods and the resiliency of business districts. And this is done by contextualizing character of different areas of the city. In fact, the comp plan has what we call character types as opposed to different types of land use. Land use focuses more on the specific use of a specific piece of property. The land use framework and the comprehensive plan is more about the overall look and feel of an area such as low density or high density, urban or suburban, auto oriented or mixed use. And this is illustrated in the land use diagram as a companion to the plan's goals and policies. With this change, the number of designations in the comprehensive plan dropped from 23 to 17, so it's less granular than it used to be, and it's more grouped, again, based on character. Land use combined with building form and intensity is used to guide the location and programming of infrastructure resources and city services. This slide again re-emphasizes the linkage between the comprehensive plan and what will be the zoning in the UDC. The comprehensive plan sets the stage with the character of an area defined through land uses and the development format and then the UDC will augment it with more technical details as you all observed. We talked about this at the March 10th workshop, but just to hit it again, Westminster zoning is not like conventional zoning. We look beyond the boundary of the private property, the lot line into the street. to help make the building blocks of our community, looking at the street and the street frontages and how people relate to a space. It's these combined elements that are needed to reach the vision of the comprehensive plan. I also showed this example, compared Westminster to a nearby city that does not account for the public realm with development proposals and apparently are fine building 18 story buildings on the 5280 trail with just five foot sidewalks. So it's a crying shame to see them give the finger on multimodal travel, but I guess that's what Denver does for their zoning. This slide just shows how to navigate the UDC. Generally, the general phases of development ranging from site selection to site planning are laid out here and you can see the different steps in the process. With this slide, you see the main phases of site development in consideration of some of the things that I've talked about already in this presentation. Chapter one establishes legal provisions to administer the UDC. It's sort of enabling, if you will. It is not actually a regulatory chapter with specific provisions. It's just more of an establishment chapter. Chapter two establishes provisions for how to measure things, which is something we don't have now, so that's gonna be very helpful. And then definitions that'll be used in the UDC. Chapter three is where zoning is established, including planned unit development and specific plan districts. There's tables of permitted uses and then there's certain additional uses that have additional specific regulations associated with those and that's part of chapter three. Chapter four and five function as the design standards for future development. Chapter four being residential and chapter five being the mixed use commercial and employment. types of land uses So this includes standards for site design and infrastructure in terms of laying out a site for future development provisions for multimodal infrastructure to support the needs of pedestrians cyclists and vehicles through appropriate site design and circulation pattern to minimize travel distances for all users structure standards to inform the built environment and and how it contributes to the city's character through building design, materials, colors, roof designs, transitions and scales, that kind of thing. And then filling in the gaps, as I talked about, in terms of housing, filling in the gaps with options for small lot housing products, allowances for townhomes, rethinking some of the requirements associated with private parks, getting away from requiring pools and instead thinking about smaller format options like community gardens or pet play areas. and new provisions for adaptive reuse of existing structures. And some of the other gaps that we're filling in are the need for better standards for mixed use development. There's really three different gradients of mixed use. Right now, we just have the team on guidelines, which are really, if you think of Bradburn Village or something like that. So it doesn't really address more dense formats. And then provisions for office and industrial have been lacking. And so this will help us support employment development of the city. And then again, sensitivity to the challenges of adaptive reuse. Existing chapter six of Title 11 in Municipal Code, that's proposed just to be carried over. It wasn't even put into the document we put out because that's just proposed to be carried over. That's a chapter that the planning staff doesn't even really use. It's mainly our engineering staff and it's very specific about public improvements and how those get built and bonded and surety and those kind of things. So we did not include that here. It would just be carried over. But we've tried to maintain the chapter organization to be easier for the many, many users. They won't have to go and figure out what's chapter six now is now chapter 15 or something. So we're trying to keep the chapters as close to they are now to reduce that confusion. Moving on, chapter seven is development standards, things that would go on a site such as landscaping, lighting, parking, or fences. The landscape regulations are significantly updated. On the surface, in some ways, they look similar, but everything has been recalibrated in terms of how do we support things that will survive in smaller landscape areas. As the UDC has reduced setbacks and lot coverage requirements, it means there's going to be less space for landscaping. So we wanted to have We wanted to be sure we were putting in the right type of materials, the right amount of materials, making sure we're supporting efforts to reduce water use, greater use of native plant materials, and supporting pollinator habitat. And we know this is important to City Council, so we want to make sure we're maintaining that. This chapter also establishes parking requirements including a schedule of minimum vehicle and bicycle parking spaces with each land use and new avenues to reduce required parking to get away from the exception process and have more built-in relief valves on parking. Regulation of outdoor lighting is an example of new content that's not comprehensively addressed in our existing regulations. It's sort of buried with some of the retail stuff, but it's not applicable citywide. So this would make it a citywide thing. This is something actually Dave Gurman from our staff worked with the city's environmental advisory board and had a briefing with them and they were supportive of what's proposed there. Chapter 8 establishes procedures for different types of entitlements. It explains how to obtain approval, the criteria, the approving authority, and even appeal provisions. This chapter is probably very, very similar to what we have now, except that we have reorganized it to be chronological, based on the order you would do things if you were entitling a property. So you might annex, and then you might rezone, and then do a preliminary development plan, then an official development plan, and so forth. So it's chronological in that sense. I know this slide has been shown to the Commission probably multiple times, but it's hugely critical to understand some of the reasoning and thinking behind what's going into the UDC. Citywide, only about 4.1% of the city's land area is available for new development. If we net out properties that already have development applications working on them, it's only about 2.3%. It's less than 500 acres. on about 192 parcels or lots. The median size is 0.97 acre, less than an acre. That's for all of them. Again, if you go to just the ones that don't have any applications, it's about 0.76 acres. So three acre sites is what we're talking about. They're small. It's really gonna preclude major large-scale things unless there's a redevelopment of the nature like at downtown Westminster where a commercial site was scraped and something new was going in its place. So in consideration of the land inventory, the development standards need to be recalibrated to account for this more constrained condition, but also allow for some creativity to bring about opportunities for housing, economic development, and other aspects of the city's long range planning. So we talked about this before, but it remains the case, our future is primarily gonna be through adaptive reuse, redevelopment, or infill development. Infill is, those are vacant properties, but they're boxed in by other development and often encumbered by easements or access limitations, drainage, or other things that might be going on there. The UDC proposes a sliding scale of applicability standards with potential reductions for setbacks, lot dimensions, height, outdoor space, landscaping and parking for these. We know with adaptive reuse, you can't really redo the site plan once the building is already there. So we've looked for additional relief valves there for things like stormwater management and solid waste design. Based on some of the comments I saw in the draft document through the comments, I just want to be clear, we have no provisions for this now. We bring things through our PUD process, we bring exceptions and variances to the Commission, and you all rule on those. We don't have built-in regulatory relief, and so that's one of the main things we're trying to get with the UDC. This slide I showed you all before, but again, it's just a few examples of showing the difference between current requirements and proposed requirements. The table on the upper left shows setbacks from an arterial as just one example. An arterial street is something like Sheridan or 92nd outside. and then recognizing the difference between urban and suburban patterns of development and using the comprehensive plan to distinguish those in different locations. The table on the right shows updated parking requirements, which you see they're generally scheduled for some reductions 40, 50% from what is currently required. We were also introducing a parking study option that'll allow an applicant to document similar sites and then show us an appropriate parking ratio based on that. Shared parking reductions, transit proximity reduction, there's other avenues that will reduce parking anywhere from 10 to 15%. We definitely heard the remarks at the March 10th workshop and those annotated in the draft that some of the commission feel that parking is costly and burdensome. So if that's something the commission thinks is not appropriate for the future of Westminster, by all means, if four of you feel that way, that could be something you make a motion on when we bring the UDC for adoption and we can let the city council know, planning commission thinks this is a policy change that should be entertained. That's certainly your prerogative. I did a little math there in the orange box. A 75,000 square foot grocery store, hypothetically, It would have 250 minimum parking spaces today. With the change in the ratio, it would be 150 spaces. The July 8th workshop last year talked about procedures, and again, I heard some of the commissioners express some angst over the current exception process that's been used for the last few years, and we talked about some potential alternatives to that. So there's sort of five main areas that I think will help us get away from the exception system. First, the updated standards have had a lot of eyes on them, a lot of input, so rethinking things like setbacks and parking like we talked about, landscape requirements. The updated, the base standards are just gonna be more workable than what we have today. And then the administrative adjustments, this is sort of the most minor tier of adjustments. This is currently in Westminster Missile Code. It's a 10% variability that John, the planning manager, can approve. When you're talking about 10% of a hundred foot setback, that's like 10 feet. If we're talking about 10% of a setback we've now lowered to 25 feet, well, that's like two and a half feet. So we're proposing to bump up the administrator exception to 20% to make it a little more impactful. The project-specific adjustment is another allowance. This would be specific to adaptive reuse and fuller redevelopment, as we talked about two slides back. In addition to the sliding scale applicability built into those types of development patterns, this allows some reductions to be approved with the approving body on whatever the application is, whether it's a PDP, ODP, SUP, different type of item that's before you. And so whether it's staff as the approver, the commission as the approver, or city council as the approver, the approval body can approve these adjustments through their action on the application. Just got a lot louder. The planned unit development process is proposed to be carried over with some added verbiage on how to use the new zoning districts as a proxy for standards informing the PUD. These, again, it'd be pretty much the way it is now, except that we're gonna try to get out of that exception process. And then last but not least is the Substantial Conformance Improvement Plan, which is abbreviated as SCIP. This is for non-conforming sites. This allows some improvements to a site. without having to come through, again, the variance or the exception process. It would allow for incremental expansions for the site standards on a given site. It would not allow for uses to change. Nonconforming uses is a whole other can of worms. But nonconforming sites, it would allow those improvements without the need for a larger variance or entitlement process. And those would be staff approvals. How does this impact me? With the public backlash that occurred in development code efforts in Littleton, Lakewood, and Fort Collins, we thought it was important for the public to understand the impact or potentially lack of impact. We think that most households and businesses in Westminster will not really feel the change with the UDC. As I said earlier, we're planning to keep in place the existing PUDs, the specific plans combined. That's about 68% of the city's land area, 20% with that extremely limited 01 district. We see the UDC coming into play when there's a major redevelopment, new buildings, significant change in uses over what is already permitted. That's when the UDC would come into play. The comprehensive plan remains controlling. That is not changing. The land uses, densities, the development formats established in the comprehensive plan remains controlling. But the UDC gives us... a new and improved avenue to implement the comprehensive plan for the things in the plan such as housing diversity, inclusion of sustainability concepts, multimodal transportation, new options for mixed use office and industrial development, provisions for adaptive reuse, all of which are not in our existing code and design documents. So our next steps will be to form an updated draft, taking into account some of the items identified by those who made comments. We have the commission's comments, we have 1,400 comments from city staff. When I get through that, then we'll go into a more robust legal analysis. Greg Graham is not with us tonight, which is fine, because there is no public hearings or action taken tonight, but Greg and I have spent five hours, and we got through like 12 pages, so. We're being very slow and deliberate there. But I do appreciate all the comments I saw from the commissioners. Lots of things to think about. Some really interesting comments I saw where they were tying together different things that were related that maybe needed some more eyes on them. I appreciate that. It's super helpful at this stage. And again, once we have the updated draft, we will come back to Planning Commission for a recommendation where you can choose to support it or make amendments to change it or recommend denial, and then we would go to City Council for adoption later this year. and that concludes the presentation.

Quick question. When do you anticipate giving it to City Council for approval? Is there a set date or are you just kind of leaving that open?

At this point, I guess the last quarter of the year.

Okay, so quite a bit of time. One other quick question, and if this is not the appropriate venue for it, you can let me know. Tell me what the city staff thinking is on changing the parking requirements. I'm just, I don't have an opinion one way or another. So what's your thinking?

our recommendation is as shown in the slides it's uh different the directions vary based on the the type of use and this is based on our experience with development applications but we're looking generally at 40 to 50 percent reductions on the minimum required we don't believe The transportation system is yet at a place in Westminster where parking could be completely abolished. Those of you that have listened to city council meetings recently know that we have citizens at almost every meeting complaining about parking at a certain shopping center. So we're very sensitive to what council's dealing with and why we have these regulations and how they're administered. So our recommendation is the reduction, the baseline reduction with the opportunity for additional reductions below that, that's where we're at.

So you think public transportation is going to take care of a lot of the parking issues?

We think the existing transportation system can support the reductions we're talking about. To go to a completely no parking, we think there would need to be much more robust transportation and other forms of transportation. And given that RTD is about to embark on a 20% across the board service reduction, I don't know that this is the right time.

I agree. So you think the parking has been overbuilt to this point?

Probably. I mean, every property is different, of course. We tend to see in commercial areas over parking, you know, like this Walmart over here, you know, the parking lot's probably sized for the day after Thanksgiving and it might fill up, you know, a handful of days leading up to Christmas, but most of the time, no. Residential developers, particularly like multifamily, they tend to provide parking, the lenders require it. So, yeah.

Okay, great. Just wanted to get an idea of what the city is thinking on that. Okay. All right. Are you entertaining questions at this point? We can.

It's really the pleasure of the commission where you want to take this.

Would anyone like to comment or have a question? Commissioner Pegg.

So... Goodness knows I'm the one who talks about parking a lot. And my question for you is this. If you were going to build a commercial development in Westminster, even if you weren't required to provide parking, would you or wouldn't you provide some parking?

I'm not a commercial developer, so I'm not gonna attempt to answer that. We could invite a guest speaker for our next presentation if you'd like.

I'm not a commercial developer either, but I know that transit is not adequate to expect everyone to take the bus or bike to some business. I walk to the grocery store every time I go. Heck, even in downtown Westminster where transit is densely provided, there are no minimum parking requirements. Actually, there are. Downtown Westminster, sorry, not downtown Westminster, Denver. Golden Triangle, I believe, has no minimum parking requirements. Sorry for mixing up two very different cities there. And even there, where transit's very dense, developers still provide parking. So it's hard for me to believe that not requiring parking would result in any kind of disaster.

Well, we've told you staff's recommendation. Commissioner Pegg, if you can get three commissioners who agree with you, you can recommend that we not include Park.

Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just say I think that we should have some parking requirements. I think there's a reason people aren't going to Denver and that's because they don't have minimum parking requirements. It's really hard for them to find places to park because the residents and other people are doing that. So I think we need to make sure that we're not We're not just going crazy about it. I think it makes some sense. One question I was interested in though, aside from the parking issue was, was about the, I'm trying to find the right section here, so give me a second, but it was about the city does not have to comply with the UDC like a typical a private citizen would as far as that. And that just seems fundamentally unfair. It seems like the city should have to go through the same processes and as any developer as things go through. So I'm just kind of a little, was a little flabbergasted by that. So could you speak to that please?

Yeah, that's one of those existing provisions that was carried over. It's been in our code book since the, That's another one where if the commission thinks that's unfair or not a good idea, if you can get four people who feel that way, you could make a motion to that effect.

And I can add to that too. Since, gosh, I think it was the early 2000s, the city has, city staff's been working under an administrative memo that was issued I think in 2001 by a former city manager and it directs the city to essentially abide by its own rules, just maybe in a different process. But it requires that all city projects go through the official development plan process. It requires that all city projects obtain building fire permits and everything. So even though the code has the broad exception, the city, at least since the early 2000s, has been under a mandate to generally follow those rules.

Yeah, and that maps on what I've seen in my years on the commission too is that we've seen city-led ODPs over the years and so, I don't know, maybe if we're operating under a different system, maybe it is time to consider modifying or codifying that in a more permanent fashion.

Yeah, that's a point well taken that we're currently in internal discussions and redrafting that 2001 memo right now to modernize it. So it does beg the question, well, why shouldn't the code just say we follow our own rules? So we'll have that, we'll raise that, we'll continue to have that conversation, see where it goes internally too.

I did have one other question. A few weeks ago I looked at this and I was able to find the chapter on oil and gas development. And I'm trying to find it tonight and I can't find it. I'm looking at the table of contents, it says page 436.

You were not wrong. Okay. Because we were not planning to update those, those were updated just a few years ago. They were signed off on by the state. We were proposing just to leave them in place. Because it's a very lengthy code section, we're proposing to just put it at a new chapter farther back in West Bristol. So we didn't put it out with this UDC, with there being 500 and something pages already. We thought leaving out that 100 pages,

Okay, so I'm not losing my mind here, at least not yet.

It was in Chapter 3 in an earlier draft.

Okay, because I wanted to say I read through those and I thought they were strong and well done, and I think we should definitely keep something very close to that in our UDC. So any other questions or comments?

all right are you continuing to take comments uh some way yeah this is not the end we're okay i'm gotta sort through 1400 staff comments uh so yeah we're definitely still taking comments and you know like i said we've been invited there's other you know obviously this is the planning commission's purview you know the udc but as i mentioned we have been invited to other uh city uh boards and commissions that are interested in it they have issues they're interested in, and the UDC seems to be the way to address those, lighting, environmental advisory board. The inclusivity board wanted to talk about housing, so we went and talked to them. So yeah, we're very happily still taking input.

Okay, and what's the best way to get a comment to you?

Email me or email Ronnie and she can send it to me.

The document has been closed. The comments directly on the document have been closed as of the 15th?

That is closed, yeah. It's overly complicated. I think that's a very useful software platform to have a PDF that people can make little notes on and see it, but it is a third-party vendor. and we don't actually have an account with them. We're kind of sliding on someone else's account, so I don't have anything for it. But that's why it's been a little bit of back and forth trying to get this stuff out.

Okay, so the best way to get comments to you is email. Okay, great, thank you for the presentation. This looks like an incredible document. I know you've put a lot of work into it, so I appreciate that, and I appreciate you keeping us up to speed. And if there's no more comments,

Can I give you one comment right now?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

This is a little thing. I just noticed, and I didn't catch this before, anytime you reference oil and gas, instead of saying OGCC, it's ECMC, Energy and Carbon Management. So just make sure you update that.

In the 12 pages that Craig and I did review, that came up.

Not a big deal.

Thank you for the catch, though.

It's always helpful. ECMC, that's good to know. Okay, Ronnie, do we know when the next meeting will be?

Yes, the next meeting will be July 14th.

Okay.

And then the quorum call for the 28th will be going out soon.

Okay, great, thank you. And if there's no more input, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn this meeting at 7.42 p.m. Thank you all for your work. ¦ ¦ ¦

Thank you.