[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] evening and welcome to the March 7th meeting of the minona Planning Commission the commission generally meets on the first and third Thursdays of the month the schedule and tenative agendas can be obtained by calling the planning division or checking the city website at minnetonka. goov the commission holds public hearings on land use applications from a specific process standpoint that means we make recommendations to the city council on rezonings subdivisions conditional use permits and amendments to the city's comprehensive plan zoning zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations we also make final decisions on site plans signage requests variance requests expansion and expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council in that case the commission makes a recommendation and the council makes the final action in addition to these formal actions the commission also provides feedback informal feedback on development and concept plans unlike other land use applications commission feedback on concept plans occurs without any formal motion or votes the city notifies Property Owners within at least 400 feet of the sites post signs on the properties and places notices in the sun sailor any grieved party May appeal a final Planning Commission to decision on to the city council if you wish to appeal you must submit a written request to the city within 10 days of this meeting from a b broader standpoint the city's comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and Community responsibilities individual rights are easy to understand Community responsibilities are more subtle but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group The Community Development Department the Planning Commission and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult Balancing Act we ask that you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications again welcome and staff please call the role Maxwell is excused minion here Waterman is excused Banks here Hansen here uh Henry sorry I got that out of order here and chair chair Su is also uh excused tonight so we have four Commissioners thank you great and I believe that is just barely enough to do what we need to do for the citizens of minaka tonight so um with that I do believe we have a change to our agenda Mr Gordon would you want to walk us through that at all yes chair and Commissioners there's been a change memo for this evening and you'll also note that we are now posting those change memos uh and pushing those through to your uh granicus system so you'll see those uh digitally uh from now on but the change memo tonight is for item 8A and that was the minona corporate uh Center sign plan um after a discussion with the applicant earlier this week uh they've decided to withdraw their application to proceed with those sign plans amendments so that is off the agenda and U by de facto 8 B becomes 8A for tonight's meeting that's all I have chair great I'll look for a motion to amend our agenda then uh before I do that just a question for Lauren too is is the policy now changed so we are going to get those change memos electronically and then until how shortly before the meeting do the change amends come in that will they'll be available electronically yeah so good questions uh commissioner Henry the uh the change to do it electronically um we think is helpful for your as Commissioners is also helpful to um just the packet going forward as well um and it'll be in the afternoon usually on on Thursday um sometimes we've pushed out change memos to you by email um you know and we'll follow up with a phone call just to let you know it's there if we have an item that has a lot of comment on that wasn't included in the packet that was published on Friday um but typically it'll be like a Thursday afternoon U prior to the meeting sort of a push it's good news thank you yeah great question for process and transparency so um with that just look for a motion to amend I like to make a motion to amend and a second I'll second the motion all in favor say I I I and that carries so our agenda is updated for tonight and then with that uh Mr Gordon I'll turn it over to you for a report from staff oh um then skipped an item um Commissioners would you like to any changes to our minutes from the February 22nd 2024 meeting seen a lot of shaking your head I'll look for a Voice vote all those in favor of approving the minutes say I hi hi hi okay sorry sorry Mr Gordon now turn it over to you as excited Mr Gord I'd say the same for me mine's stuck on so is onine mine's also on je if you're you overr me there it goes okay now we're good okay uh chair and Commissioners few things uh for tonight from uh the last Planning Commission uh meeting that came to the council um this past week on the 4th uh we had the accessory dwelling unit on the nway drive um that you had recommended approval of council also approved that um um and then the other item was the Wood Haven uh subdivision on Plymouth Road that was the five lot uh subdivision on the west side of Plymouth Road that was approved by the city council um kind of similar discussion uh about some drainage and traffic uh the council had with that but they were satisfied with the plat that it met all the requirements so that uh that went through um on a unanimous approval vote as well so that'll come back for final plat final plat um just goes to the council for approval that'll probably happen here in the near future as well um our next meeting is on March 21st we'll have a number of items uh for you to review at that meeting as well that's all I have tonight chair great thank you Mr Gordon um Commissioners anything that you would like to report tonight looks like commissioner Henry thanks chair I do on Tuesday March 12th the city will have a community solar workshop and people can attend either in person or there is a webinar link if you can't join in person we'd be happy to have you there virtually too as a member of the sustainability commission I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't mention that so look to say a lot of people there and just just I ask is that here at City Hall thank you yes it is in the community center great moving on um anything else anything else okay great next we'll move on to our consent agenda um before we move along into the process just a kind of a brief recap of consent and agenda items consent and agenda items are items that tend to be more routine in nature and if we have a a bulk of them or more than one we pass those items with one motion um tonight we do just have one item on our consent agenda um so Commissioners or anyone in the audience if if you'd like to pull this item please let us know and then we can pull it for further discussion but assuming we can leave it on the consent agender okay with that um Mr Gordon is this a Voice vote or we do do we take a recorded vote just remind me yeah you can just uh make a motion and approve it and I'll I'll read it off individually okay I'll take a motion to to approve item 7A or consent to gen items I'll make that motion motion by Banks I'll second second by Henry and okay minion yes Banks yes Henry yes Jer Hansen yes great awesome all right so item 7A is approved then so now yep you're all done okay good thanks for coming thanks I just needed to do my due diligence for my clients so nothing else that we need to do we can sell the property very good thank you thanks and good luck with your project tough to get a seat here tonight so all right um before we begin consider ation of the non-consent agenda item let's just briefly review the steps in the process first the item will be announced and staff will report on the subject then our commission will ask questions next the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer any comments and Commissioners can ask additional questions at that time after the applicant is finished the public hearing will be opened to give anyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal and if you wish to speak please come to the podium state your name and address for the record um once everyone has spoken we may allow speakers to return for additional comments at larger meetings and neighborhood spokes people are encouraged and will be given up to 15 minutes to present the public hearing will then be closed and no further comments will be allowed so the commission will then discuss the proposal and take in action so tonight our only non-consent agenda item is item item 8B now an ordinance amending non-commercial sign regulations and I'll turn it over to you Mr Gordon thank you chair Commissioners this is a an amendment to the sign regulations and the zoning code it's section 32506 and uh again just a preview where we're headed we're recommending approval of the ordinance Amendment uh to the city council um few things just to kind of precede um the specifics of the language here this was really a conversation that happened um about a year and a half ago and that as a response to changes in voting in minetonka and at that time um minetonka had gone through a u process where uh rank Choice voting was put on the ballot for the voters of the city to U uh vote up or down and as you know that was approved by the voters so rank Choice voting um is part of now our uh structure for uh elections for uh local races um as a response to what kind of comes out of rank Choice voting um we looked at changes that we may want to consider to the sign ordinance um and that's really the result of more um people being on a ballot uh for any particular office office if it's a city council or a school board as an example the two that we used in the staff report so uh with the ability to have more people running um and the limitation on the amount of signage you can have on your property that's currently three signs uh non these are non-commercial uh signs uh as the code defines them so three signs is the limit um as noted in the staff report there are a number of Elections where you could have had you know uh upwards of 10 people or more you know um running for office that may have been supported at that time so we we had a study session with the council we talked about what how should we respond to this or do we need to respond to it and at that time there wasn't really interest to change the code um or there wasn't a decision made to kind of move forward with that so we just left the code as it was uh now we're coming up on another um election cycle where we have uh opportunities for uh more signage um again and we thought we would revisit it one more time and so we took it to the council um for their uh input and we kind of gave two options for um looking at changes to the ordinance the first would be uh on the screen here option one was reflecting what the state law um allows which is essentially no regulation so people running for um offices um residents that wanted to support any of those number of people could have as many signs for that candidate on their property with no regulation from the city um the second option was to basically increase the number that we already regulate at three to six basically doubling the signage so after after some discussion the council thought maybe option two is a better option A lot of things about motanka with signage as were kind of restrictive as compared to other communities on our signage um and this was a little bit more in the spirit of of that than not having any regulation so that was the discussion uh in January with the council so um at a staff level we took that and put together the uh ordinance that's on the screen here that would change the temporary non-commercial signage um and again this is this is kind of an election uh uh item in terms of when we see the most amount of signage on residential property but it could be for anything I just you know the election was maybe the example that was used the most because that's when signs usually show up on residential property but it could have any any other non-commercial type of message on your property all year round six signs 36 square feet total in size up to um 3 feet in height and that could be year round but again the the election signes where this came from so we we continue to use that as an example so this is the changes that uh um we recommending and again as for your consideration uh tonight as Planning Commission you want to make changes to that um have other input on it that's this is the time um for discussion and then making a recommendation to the city council so uh pretty straightforward so we're recommending again um you recommend the city council adopt that proposed amendment to increase um the signage essentially double from what it is today so chair I'll turn back to you with any questions great thank you Mr Gordon um Commissioners any questions go ahead commissioner Henry thanks chair just to clarify does this mean if we if we vote to adopt the second option here it's only good for the non-general election years and then still in general election years there is no maximum limit to the number of signs nor square footage on people's private property yeah so uh commissioner Henry and planning Commissioners the uh um the state law has uh a lot of language in there about the number of signs that can be posted on a property and for for elections um and those are have limits on when you start it and then when you end it so it's kind of the middle bullet point here um 46 days before the election 10 days after the election they have to be pulled so many of many of these um would would require compliance with that um other signage in the community hello my name is Dr Michael DeSantis I'm a licensed psychologist I'm also certified in Behavior sleep medicine and I am here to talk about the effects of drowsy driving drowsiness is a direct function of what people have done in the past 24 hours in terms of sleep if a person has gone 18 19 20 hours in a row without sleeping there is a process called homeostatic sleep pressure and that just builds and builds and builds it's an inevitable pressure that may cause people to actually fall sleep for very very brief periods a matter of seconds and they may not even be aware of it no that we do have to follow State yeah okay so last clarifying question is then in general election years versus what we were agreeing to here it's going to be there's actually a fair amount of research on the effects of sleep deprivation on performance in a laboratory or in a driver simulation test and one major study done some years ago found that if people were awake over 17 to 18 hours even after a good night's sleep the night before they showed impairment in reaction time and processing of information and when the amount of sleep deprivation was inched up even a little bit more people went from an alcohol equivalent of 05 blood alcohol to an equivalent of .1 in terms of how they performed on these tests a 1998 expert panel on driver fatigue and sleepiness identified some characteristics of crashes that relate to drowsy driving they found that these crashes often involve a single leaving the roadway with a driver who is alone in the vehicle and does not attempt to avoid the crash yeah kind of vary as well there is no question that on an individual basis when individuals are um feeling the pressure of work and school demands uh family demands multiple role demands they may actually find themselves going to sleep at an hour past their biologically primed opportunity to sleep so people are pushing the envelope because we live yeah chair and uh Commissioners we um I'll go back to elections again because that's usually when we have the most temporary non-commercial sign enforcement is we take those on a complaint basis um we're not out looking for violations sometimes we'll come across those um the ones that we will take action on if we don't have a complaint are the ones that are safety um issues if they're at an intersection kind of blocking visibility um we we'll remove those or move them back on the property um so that's kind of the first first level of enforcement with the complaints we usually have um you know a call that comes in uh we'll log those usually for a few days uh we'll we'll go out and do a sign sweep usually once a week and and and take out um you know all of the signs or or or tag them flag them as illegal and then um um we do have a uh ability to to pull them and keep them too if people want them back we will hold them uh they can uh they can purchase them back it's kind of how we operate um so that happens um regularly during the election season so we typically aren't going to run out on a complaint um one off and and pull a sign at a moment's notice um it's not real efficient that way so education is usually the best way to uh give information about where to put signs and people are people are getting better about that I think in my experience over time commissioner Henry thank you a few more commissioner minion brought up a good point I just want to make sure I'm clear on this one and that our audience is clear too if we vote to agree on the second of the two options it does say in the table that the duration of display is not applicable so are we voting to say that they can keep them up as long as they want to that that's correct yeah okay good so just want to make sure all the Commissioners are clear and yeah except for when the state you know has uh regulation so it's again it's still the 46 days for the state prior to the election and then 10 after so the state the state law is always going to be plays okay so what we're voting on here if we do number two some of what we're voting on is more restrictive than the state and some is less restrictive than the state it sounds like um I would say it I would agree yes um we all this language that's shown on the screen here really is more applicable to um any sign any time um not just narrowly focused on the election signage so we always have to default of the state statute for election signage oh so in non-general election years if there is a ele political sign in somebody's yard they have to have it off 10 days after the election in non-general election years um when we're not having a primary as an example um the will default to this language and where the state or federal you know election is in place that then we have to comply with the state law which would allow more could I could I try and say it maybe like Mr Gordon what I'm hearing is the city is not doing anything prescriptive or restrictive in in our language but there is additional language in State Statute or state is how I think about that is restrictive so we're not doing anything specifically but the state is the state is in general election years but in the non-general election years when we have school board and city council elections what we're saying is that homeowners can keep those signs up as long as they want to that would be true for locals yes okay good to know also in the the packet and help me understand the maybe the discombobulation here but in page five of the packet or it's page seven of 13 and the specific one about the notes in the city council meeting where it says that Wilburn moved and Calbert seconded a motion to introduce the ordinance with option one and refer it to the Planning Commission and they all voted yes is that just am I wrong in thinking that the city council is implying that they would prefer option one or is that a typo and they should have said option two in that page or is it something that I'm not interpreting correctly you mentioned before that the city chair Henry and uh or chair anden commissioner Henry I did not pick up the minutes um um that were included in the packet and how that was stated it was um in terms of the number it was certainly not to allow the no regulation approach that was the option two which is the regulatory approach so if that's a typo in the minutes I'm not I'm not sure just no you one one or two this is on page five in the minutes yeah I do see that now okay just to clarify so it sounds like it should be to or it's not implying that the council was favoring option number one at least correct okay got a couple more if it's okay chair Let It Ride since the since the rank Choice voting passed a couple years ago what have the citizen complaints look like about the restrictive policy in terms of having so few yard signs possible in their yards has have we seen increased complaints from citizens about that or is it stayed pretty much constant before versus after the rank Choice decision yeah CH chair and commissioner Henry I think we've heard a few complaints about I can't I can't provide all of the candidate signage that I'd like to that represents who who I would endorse so we've heard a little bit of that I don't I don't know that I would characterize that as being Broad and um you know real deep with those comments but there have been a few okay thank you see from the minutes I think it was council person Calbert talked about the question of political signs on public property so on the non-private property the note said that Julie would address that she's not here but is that something that we can discuss or ask you about yeah certainly yeah so chair and Commissioners we we don't allow um political signage or any non-commercial signage on residential or on um public properties and that would be city property uh property owned by the county it's common out here in minona Boulevard to have uh signs within the County's right away or the rail authorities right away um so those are uh commonly um placed and pulled okay thank you and mayor weome mentioned the need for enforcement adding language to this right now it looks like we're just voting on the numbers as far as what people can put in time restrictions or none in this case but is there a possibility that we could add a writer to this and talk about what enforcement needs to happen or is that beyond the scope of what we're voting on today um that's a good question uh commissioner Henry um the the enforcement mechanism in the zoning code is broadly applied to all of the sections and if you're you know if you're in violation of the code then there are certain steps that have to be taken to um uh notice um correct or you know or have penalties uh within the parameters of the code so I don't know that um finding a specific enforcement um and penalty type approach just for signage is an approach that's probably legal um to to distinguish that differently than the rest of the provisions of the code so I would say um probably shouldn't consider that the reason I asked I would lean on the attorney for that as well but I'm I'm going to guess that's probably the answer that's going to the reason I ask is because in Prior city council elections there's been complaints by candidates for city council that their opponent was putting signs on public public property or they're putting it too close to the road and in elections time is of the essence and to do a speedy review of that to make sure that the elections are fair I just hate to see let's say somebody skirting the rules putting it in where they shouldn't be and then having to wait a week for a sweep to happen to take it out meanwhile it has visibility for that week and it could in influence people's decision in the election so I know we're not going to solve everything here but I do like that the mayor brought it up in terms of enforcement I think it's we need to have something specific to political signs ahead of Elections not just to say well we'll get to it when we get to it because I'm all for fair elections and this could go a long way to do that that that to me that tone probably gets noted and then hopefully our city council members hear that comment and maybe can debate it among themselves in a couple weeks so that was my intent to make sure people understood that I'm glad my tone came through thanks chair that it's very positive too it's well intended uh chair or commissioner Henry keep keep going thank you uh let's see in the city council meeting commissioner Shaq mentioned about duplicate signs and there's no provision in there for not putting in duplicate signs is is that something that we could put in the provision as well um commissioner Henry the non-commercial signage like any other signage uh relies on not um discriminating based on the content of the sign so um if if we were using um what's written on the sign as our basis for enforcement um that would be in basically interpreting the signs content which we can't do uh federal law prohibits that so in in your scenario what I'm hearing is if you want to have six of the same candidate signs in your yard the code would allow you to do that um and as staff enforcing the code we couldn't um um we couldn't go out and say you can only you have to pick one candidate that's that's not permissible if we were doing that and saying um or one one scenario if we we had a language like that um that would probably be thrown out in court for having language like that because that's illegal um and if we were applying the code that way that would also be illegal so um yeah six six is the choice and you can you can pick your flavors um you know based on on the number and the size thank you I'll come back I maybe just want to make sure I understand this because I thought it was interesting as I read the packet that eus as one sign per candidate and so how do I square that Circle of our city says no we we're not interpreting that language but then a city 10 minutes away says Nope one sign per candidate yeah I was not I was not um so maybe something to think about as we go through the next couple weeks not clued into that um and that would be that would be an interesting court case it's interesting to see the city's compare and contrast so I that stood out to me as like very restrictive so turn it back over to my my co-host tonight no thanks chair that's that was going to be a follow-up question to mine so thanks for thanks for bringing that up I think it was a good compliment but that's all the questions I have for now great um very thorough so like kind of want to get stuff like this right so it's easy for future candidates to not screw it up right so um okay great with that um any other questions Commissioners for staff doesn't seem like it um we will then open the public hearing and I don't believe we have anybody on the phone so seeing nobody in ours we will close the public hearing then um Commissioners um I guess I'll turn it over to to us as a team any comments or discussion we'd like to have before contemplating any action so anyone what commissioner Banks you want to bat lead off thanks chair um yeah and thanks Lauren for the presentation and also answering all of the the tough questions um I know as we we look look at this you know we're being asked to consider one of two options U and the recommended option is really just um you know increasing two values from what we have currently so a lot of questions about violations um and and things that you answer really appreciate it because it gives gives us a lot of uh insight and information into um the policies but understanding that really we're kind of just focused on you know do we want to increase the maximum number of signs from the two options um well for one I believe um the increase is warranted especially with the rank Choice voting and the the number of candidates that we're we're seeing uh increase in races so I'm glad we're addressing this with the the signs uh and with the two options we have before us I think um certainly to say um no maximum and increase the height to I believe it was 6 ft um doesn't seem like the best choice um of the two um my one concern with the max height of going to six as you mentioned you know obstruction of of view um with traffic and and and things of that nature so uh leaving it at at three seems right um and then the increase from 3 to six U that that seems about the right number as well um and and the in the area in double in the area um I think it gives our residents more options more choices for you know how they want to present who they support uh which is great um but I also think that it's is you know not having um no limits um you know gives us um the framework to work with so I I I think the option two is what I would support tonight thank you thanks commissioner Banks commissioner Henry or commissioner minion any thoughts you guys want want to add commissioner Minion fire away if to say was a bit confused as to why we didn't have a duration of display uh but it makes sense to have it set up the way it is so you can have I support the police or the around my house there's quite a few of the window cleaning companies and I think it fits really well um I think it's like the 3ot height is another good thing and uh it's uh it's it's a good setup I like the way it is I'm supportive great commissioner Henry thanks just to reiterate a couple of the comments I mentioned and the questions that was implying my views on this one I'll just make sure that it's clear to the listening audience but I would like to see a duration of display added for political signs specifically for candidates in an election for a city election to match what we have for the state law so 10 days after an election I think is quite reasonable there's no reason for them to remain up longer so commissioner Min I agree with you 100% where if they have non non-commercial signs that say I support something or just to say something else non-election related they can have those up as long as they want to but let's make a differentiation here I think it's important for the city and the citizens will will like that better duplicate signs it's not a battle I'm willing to fall down on the sword on I I think it's cleaner if they don't do that if there's a house that had six of the same sign for one candidate I'd probably be inclined to vote the other way it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me but if that's what they want to I'm all for free speech too so I can see that but my personal opinion would be to follow what Edina has and say one sign per candidate it just seems clean cleaner more reasonable enforcement I would like to to have a more discussion on that one like chair mentioned have city council address that even the the mayor brought it up so let's have more of a a debate about that in the the city council meeting one idea I'd like to see pursued perhaps is maybe you'd have on the bottom of each candidate sign to say in violations text soand so number to this address and then the city can get those and maybe somebody in the public works department can speedily look at those violators and not have something sitting out a week right before the election that could possibly sway somebody's opinion I'm not sure what the exact solution is but something similar to that I think would be helpful to to everybody so that's what I've got if uh if we minimally today if we can add language to say that political signs need to be taken down 10 days after the election and I'd be fully in support of this great thanks commissioner Henry commissioner minion thank you that's a great point I think essentially as what you're saying is that we should establish this other table one for political and one for non-commercial that's a wonderful idea um something that I observed in the last election is is that there were a number of signs that were placed within that 5 foot Zone and somebody gone through and just picked them up and thrown them down so I'm I'm not How We Do enforcement as far as finding or anything like that but um and I'm not sure who had done that but I would see that under a regular as i' drive around different places there'd be different signs that were laid down and they were literally within 2 feet of the street so I somebody's out there doing something in regards to it about who or how or what I'm not sure but it's just I thought that was an effective way they didn't steal the sign they didn't take the sign back but it was still there and it was basically a safety issue people could see I thought that was a really good use of uh of somebody's resources mhm yeah and if we can make clarify the language in this where if there is a sign within that 5 foot range I agree 100% it's a safety issue but if there's a violation and somebody takes action do they pull it up and lay it flat or do they pull it up and put it further than five feet away from from where somebody else put it up originally I'm not sure what the best answer is but hopefully the city council can take up that issue as well great any other Mr Gordon go ahead um maybe just to before you get to a vote I don't normally interject but just to clarify a few things with the ordinance on um definitions because that's a critical part of signage um so we're talking about non-commercial signage and we have a definition for non-commercial signage and that is it's any uh sign that is not a commercial sign so think of it a business you know a window cleaning company that would be a commercial sign um including but not limited to signs that convey messages concerning political religious social ideological public service and informational topics so it's a it's a really wide spectrum of non-commercial interests that are uh part of this ordinance um we don't Define campaign sign we don't Define political sign we don't Define election sign so all of these are in the non-commercial sign area and that's basically what um a Supreme Court case uh said in regulating commercial signage and non-commercial signage there's basically two types can't you can't um distinguish more than those two groups and talk about political as one thing IDE ological as another religious as something else um so I think we're we're probably in an area where um adding language um in that to to further Define subgroups of non-commercial signage um may be difficult I will talk to the City attorney about that we can report back uh to the council about your comments and then uh staff's responses to that and if if there's an Avenue for that but it I wanted to just put that out there for um the Planning Commission to think about before you before you do a motion and then we can we'll follow up one way or another regardless of what your motion is but again just to think about that so I hope I hope that helps it does thank you and if we make a motion that's a recommendation to the city council to approve and then before they approve a course they'll have some discourse and between now and then you'll do the research they'll have more information with which to do that discourse correct yep thank you okay well thanks for the it's a really good clarification it doesn't sway my opinion though I I still do think that a definition has to be added just because State ordinance has it for general election years where they have to be out within 10 days so it could be a little bit more work on the city's part get the lawyers in here but if we can add that 10 days somehow to this city council I think that's what I'd like to have happen so take it up please any good discussion anything else any other SP thoughts SP doesn't seem like it um I think um I guess for what it's worth which is not much uh I I I think I like the max number of signs being in play versus no Max I think I I agree with Mr Gordon and the staff's thought that that kind of follows the the signage culture of minaka um um I am probably curious about limiting limiting the signage per candidate but that's more along the lines of what commissioner Henry is that it's a turnoff personally to see five people's names right in a row so I would I would not uh maybe die on a hill there for for that and then I'm I'm probably also pretty curious to hear the city council's belief on duration I think that um in some way helps kind of clean up postelection and get back to normal life um so for what it's worth I'm I'm intrigued by that but um I'm kind of I'm probably fine the way the the language sits today as recommended by staff in the grand scheme of things but I'd be curious for the city council members to contemplate that so um with that um I'm wondering if we would be willing to support a motion then tonight to move this to the city council as written or if we feel like we need to adjust anything just curious where our heads are at oh based on what Mr Gordon mentioned about the need for more research done by the city I'd be fine with with progress in this on to the city council just because we've had we've made these comments and they've been pretty clear about what we recommend yeah okay that makes sense to me I just want to make sure we add the votes to to move it forward so um great so with that I will look for a motion for item 8B an ordinance amending non-commercial sign regulations would anyone like to make that motion I'll make that motion motion by Banks oh second second by minion staff please pull the commission minion vote for and very much of support of the duration conversation as well Banks yes Henry yes chair Hansen yes and that is approved and we'll move to the city council Mr Gordon does that have a specific date that it goes to um yes that will go on March 25th okay great end of March so we'll hear that uh here shortly and then with that commission um item nine for us is adjournment would anyone like to make that motion make the motion motion by minion I'll second second by Banks or sorry second by Henry all those in favor say I hi hi we are [Music] adjourned [Music]