##VIDEO ID:0iHzQcNp4C0## 21st meeting of the brard Planning Commission may we have a roll call please Duval Francis grun and Wald Norwood here Peterson here staying line here Goram here all right very good looking for a volunteer to lead the Pledge of Allegiance Dave again yeah you did so good last time flag States just get the job next month I don't know pretty good looking for a uh an approval of tonight's agenda so move stingl second Norwood all in favor say I I post same sign we have an agenda looking for approval for the July minutes so move Norwood second sting line all in favor say I I post Sam sign all right we have minutes all right we are up to unfinished business item six um single item here um we're going to have a public hearing on an ordinance regulating garage requirements for residential housing units is what we're looking at James you want to lead us off a little bit yes thank you Mr chair so as proposed two to four unit build buildings would no longer have a garage requirement while single family homes would be required to either have a 12x2 garage or a 10 x 12 shed uh this would allow the market to dictate the construction of garages and lower development costs for affordable housing which is something that uh Planning Commission has been interested in kind of doing both of those items uh so with that staff recommends holding a public hearing for the proposed ordinance and recommends approval excellent any questions for James before we get uh started with the public hearing hearing none I'm going to open up public hearing at 602 I'm inviting anybody either online or in public that would uh in person tonight that would like to comment on the uh any any U on the on our ordinance I'm hearing none all right nobody online all right very good I'm going to close the public hearing at 603 then we going to open up to floor discussion um everybody has had a chance to look at the proposed ordinance any any questions about the proposed ordinance seems pretty straightforward as our uh our resident uh Builder uh Mr Peterson do you have any feelings you think we're making a good step here yes I do I know this was an issue that was important to you yep very good I think it is y all right well not hearing any other discussion I would certainly entertain a motion to approve I'll make that motion to approve I think that's appropriate we have a second second we have a second any discussion I'm hearing no discussion so all in favor say I I oppose same sign we have pass an ordinance or move an ordinance on to the city uh city council level that'll be the next level on that and that gets us moving right along to um new business we have three items on new business we're going to have a couple hearings and then we'll have a discussion and uh I suspect most of you are here for 7B but hopefully 7A won't take too long here so um James can you tell us a little bit about the cup Amendment for the YMCA yes thank you Mr chair so the Brainard Family YMCA has applied for a conditional use permit amendment to construct a 50ft x 50ft fenced in playground at the commercial daycare facility at 703 Oak Street again this was the um cup that was brought before the Planning Commission city council um roughly probably a year ago um so this is uh in that original conditional use permit they were walking the kids across the street over to the YMCA facility um so this would be constructing its own playground on that property so theyd no longer have to do that um I was told by the applicant there's a slight um change based on on cost of what they're looking at for their fencing around um the playground so they'd be looking at doing a five still a 5 foot high um fence the Privacy part of it would be along the house side and then the remaining part would be a chain link with a um a kind of a Privacy mesh around it which would still meet code um so a slight change um based on cost uh originally within the findings of fact it had stated that it was going to be an all-white privacy fence around everything um so with that also they're proposing to um also put a permanent play structure that's P pictured in the findings effect as well as some weatherproof outdoor storage boxes for the loose toys um the applicant has stated that they have done an an unofficial parking assessment over the course of a couple weeks here before the application uh location of the proposed playground will not interfere with a pickup or drop off of the children on a daily basis the playground will be off to the side and will not hinder any parking or uh backing up of the parking lot area they will also have new lines painted in the parking lot to help guide parents and employees where needed for their allotted parking spaces again the Town Center does not require parking spaces um for this so they're not removing any required parking spaces uh so with that staff does recommend approval of the conditional use permanent Amendment for an outdoor playground at 703 Oak Street Brainard very good any questions for James I I've got uh just a a quick one what is the current use of this piece of property is it a parking lot is it a lawn what is it currently So currently behind it uh is an asphalt area I'm not sure if they're actually parking in this area or not but you have the the building that's facing Oak Street and then there's a parking lot that's behind the building um so right now it's an asphalt area um that would just be converted into a playground sure seems like a uh an upgrade I I like that all right I'm going know without any other questions I'll open a public hearing at 606 if the applicant is here they're very welcome to come up and address the group all right I'm here we're pretty friendly I'll see what I can do all right name and address and let us know what you're up to hi I'm Macy Barrett I'm representing the Brainard YMCA today um you said the address is what you need you can just yeah your address or just generally where you live we're looking okay I live in the backer area I'll accept that good enough okay um so with this uh conditional use permit yes the idea is to get a um a playground on site for our children this location houses our infants and toddlers um so we can have up to 42 Toddlers and 24 infants on site each day um with the size needed of the fencing each child is required 75 Square fet per child outside so in order to have at least two classes up to 20 kids outside on site in any given time we would need this 50x50 area um we would be looking to put a permanent play structure on the play area and then um with the mesh fencing being able to put all loose toys away um and make it aesthetically pleasing as possible um we do utilize the parking in that lot um we have gotten the lines painted on there to help guide parents and staff on on where it is that they can be parking um most of the parents don't stay long term so they just come in drop off and leave for the day so that shouldn't be an issue um there would still be space to utilize the easement and get through the parking lot as needed on the right hand side there um and then it's just kind of a turnaround yep so we're kind of looking at that space there um kind of as close as we can to the building so that we're not walking the kids too far along into the parking lot area um as we talked about earlier right now we are just walking the children over to the YMCA we do have little buggies that they get transported in to keep them safe um so this would help with the transportation and then being able to utilize the playground in the winter so that they can get outside in the winter time as well all right thank you anybody any questions from AC before we please James uh as far as any communication with the neighbor and any concerns of theirs have they expressed them um no I the only thing I've ever heard is that they were looking to get a privacy fence up along their um property line but I have not discussed anything about um the children playing on the other side of the fence so that is something I can look into I was told it was a rental property so that will be something I have to kind of dig into to see who the property owner is and then one more uh recently we've also had another child care facility that came for a um a fenon area and then had to come back after a little bit more of expansion to the facility is there more room for you guys to grow the playground area if needed um I would say yes I don't know that it would be necessary um just because we don't want to limit the amount of parking spaces um with that amount of children that we can care for we also need an a lotted amount of spots for our staff to park but we can expand it if we need to okay other questions from AC my only question is what are the ch that each kid stays in their 75 square foot I know zero zero yeah thank you very much I appreciate it would anybody else like to discuss on this uh contribute to the discussion anybody online I'm hearing nothing so I'm going to close our public hearing at 6:10 and uh can open it up to do a discussion in the group I personally can't think of a Bad Thing uh about this so if there isn't any other discussion or any other questions sure looking for a motion I would make a motion all right to move forward very good with any no we don't have any conditions or no this one's pretty clean good do we have a second second we have a second with Norwood all right um Mr chair I believe I need to say officially that I will be abstaining all right that's I I do appreciate that you gave me the word earlier all right all in favor say I I I opposed same sign very good all right right we are moving along now we're up to the feature item here we're looking at the U 7B this is a proposed ordinance to prohibit outdoor storage for crypto or other related uh uses James would you get us up to speed please yes thank you Mr chair so due to the sound level concerns the city council directed staff at the August 5th city council meeting to draft an ordinance that would prohibit outdoor storage for crypto mining facilities data centers AI centers and similar Elite uses uh so staff has included this in the proposed ordinance as well as provided some General cleanup of this section as there were references to Old section of code and incorrect uh indentations in there one such addition was to require outdoor storage to be 100 ft from residential property parks and schools and then um added some clarification for for screening on there as well because it just said needs to be screened from view uh so with that uh staff does recommend holding a public hearing for the proposed ordinance and recommends approval all right very good um any questions for uh for James before we get started here hearing none we're going to open a public hearing then at 6:12 I'm going to certainly invite anybody that would like to come up and speak uh you all know the you've been here before and so name and address and if you can keep things to a few minutes that'd be great but come on up Sarah you're not gonna be first come on yes you are okay hi Sarah TC um 11687 oakd Road Briner Minnesota um just thank you all of you and everyone who's been here and along this journey and support of it we're very glad to be moving forward and hope that you all support this um it seems to be a good move and I just want to share that recently I've had several other cities across Minnesota reaching out to me looking for help on this very same issue so good to get ahead of it before it's a bigger problem so um with that I think that's all I have to say I think you all understand our concerns pretty well at this point so thank you all right thank you very much looking for anybody else who would like to come up and speech tonight there we go Karen TC at 12437 oakd Road Brainard um our property um actually in our house is like 3/4 of a mile from the current crypto mining that has outdoor storage and we can hear it continually and so I'm sure the current bid or that option that was available was like for 40 units and I think they only have 10 currently I don't I think it's like 10 out there but they have no um fencing or no noise barriers and we can continually hear their fans going so that's just something that the noise level with something larger is going to be quite loud and like I said ours it's continual especially if you want to sit outside you can really hear and I know the people from the trailer park they thought it was my husband out there with the tractor or something that was going all the time but it was just noise from the crypto Mining facility thank you good thank you anybody else like to speak during the hearing see some people thinking about it all right let me give you one more chance I don't think we have anybody online no it doesn't look like it so I'm going to close the public hearing then at 6:14 open the uh floor to discussion on this any questions any ideas we've hashed this so many times well then I've got a question for James if nobody else does um would the with the existing crypto um facility are they going to be impacted by um uh with their permits that they're operating on will they be impacted by um this this change the main thing is they wouldn't be able to expand their operations If This Were to be implemented it wouldn't impact their existing operations okay very good so they can continue what they're doing but they can't can't get any bigger yep very good um I know you talked about other uses besides crypto what other uses do you guys have on the radar that you're considering that could be could so yeah so AI centers and data centers which would be like data storage centers for like Google and stuff would you know run similar type of equipment in there so those would be the you can't foresee every type of technology that you know runs off of this type of heat so that's why we put similar uses in there that's kind of standard language that we have in some of our other code um but uh you know the ones that come off you know come off of mine is data storage centers as well as AI centers all right very good Mr have and it beer James why are we I guess when it gets down to it we're looking at noise correct why are we eliminating it then to the AI centers the data centers why isn't it I don't know just you know you can't film a movie an action movie there a Stallone movie on that site because it would be so loud with everything blowing up so there's yeah there's still mpca standards that uh um every industrial use has to to be to abide by um you know this one as it's been stated in the past does operate 24 hours a day um so that's why I think um you know the Public's voice concerns about that and why this one's kind of unique compared to other uses Mr Norwood and so just to clarify within this ordinance this is just limiting it is limiting the data mining AI those kinds of things as far as being conducted in outdoor storage units that's correct so the processors themselves can't be outside um the gist for crypto uses um air cooling out there so that's a big difference from from other types of and the the interm use permit that the Planning Commission reviewed as well the data processors are were outside side very good other questions for James or discussion points well I guess we're looking for a uh looking for a motion here um doesn't look like uh so looking for the U to recommend as a as it is I guess we're looking for a uh looking for a motion so move all right I'll second it and we have a second any discussion yes Tiffany I I think this is dealing with the problem that we're looking at right now but I still want to come back to sound and noise in a bigger uh bigger discussion or a broader ordinance you're here that was my point yes I think it was that I but we'll do this for now and then we'll do something bigger and better in the future very good we got a new year coming before you know it and all that kind of stuff and new itinerary to make and all those things all right so um with that being said um all in favor say I iose same sign very good this goes back to the city council is that the next step here yep so it would go back to the next city council meeting for a first reading which uh because the next Monday for city council is Labor Day it be on the Tuesday which I believe is the 3rd of September all right very good I think we'll uh unless you guys want to stick around for a fascinating discussion about building design and standards we'll give you a minute here to uh to uh move along with the rest of your evening I think they should stay okay can make them stay I think we should make them stay there going to be pictures is going to be fun tell us what they've learned yeah yeah reflect on you're welcome thank you all right well this is going to be an internal meeting all right that moves us up to uh we're ready to move on to item C here this is going to be um we're going to look at providing Direction uh for building design standards and if I interpret this right this is kind of cleaning up some of the work that we did when we uh when we did the revision of the of the code and try to clean up a few things James go ahead yes thank you Mr chair so um at the last planning or two planning commissions ago uh Planning Commission directed staff to take a look at this um kind of two things so we didn't take an in-depth look uh originally when we were looking at this as potential design standards within uh the city of Brainard but then also some of our setbacks and how things work um staff has uh We've now worked with this code for a couple of years now and have seen things that you know could maybe be tweaked with with our design standards work here so with that staff did prepare a document that I figured we could kind of go kind of step by step and figure out maybe a general consensus or if we need to create motions on direction for staff we can um but figuring out you know exactly what the Planning Commission would like staff to um work on for a potential ordinance here uh so the first one uh that I included in here was some of our setback standards Within tn1 tn2 cn1 cn2 District um it kind of deals with lot sizes setbacks I tried to put things that uh I think were strengths that I've seen uh within the ordinance that uh has been good and then some things that have maybe been difficult for contractors or difficult to interpret or or had made things difficult for for development so uh within that I I kind of went with the tn1 standards here because I didn't want to put every single one of them in here but a lot of them kind of work hand inand with with what we did um so the first one Ali if present access and garage parking is required um this we we had a similar code to this in the previous one that uh um stated it should be what the predominant uh type of development is in there if if you have driveways you can maybe do a driveway this kind of cleaned it up and and made it easier to interpret if there's an alley um then uh garage placement as well as a driveway would have to be in the alley uh so I do believe from a staff perspective that uh this one has been benefit icial um and it really hasn't created too much problems with people wanting to do garages or do infill development um so just wanted to mention that uh density in most of our zoning districts hasn't uh you know been too big of an issue I think uh the comprehensive plan and the densities that we work through um did a good job uh whenever we are looking at doing a duplex or a Triplex I have to look at density within the block and so far it hasn't been an issue um the the one area that we did look at it too with with with density was uh um the my neighbor to love Coalition project um just to kind of get a gauge when you're doing an apartment on on a certain lot are you meeting the density requirements that we're looking for in a tn2 that one kind of just met it with the uh there was 12 dwelling units there and the dwelling units per acre matched up to it so anything less there could have been some considerations or concerns that it's not being developed enough um the other thing that I think's been beneficial is we used to have a I think a maximum height of 15 ft for a garage which you're getting some large Vehicles now um people that do construction work you you know F350s F250s weren't quite you know fitting into garages um so I think this has been a a good change as well where you can go up to the um structure of the the house or um 30 well 35 ft structure of the house uh so essentially matching you're not having garages that are out of place still um if you have a single single single story your house you're not doing 35t garage again this may help then to um you maybe add some accessory dwelling units to properties as well so I think this one has been a good change that uh we've seen allowed um allowed Property Owners to really reinvest in their property right now we're working with a gentleman who needs a a slightly higher garage and it's going to allow him to stay in the house and and you know meet the needs of the site so that one's I think been a a good change as well um one of the weaknesses here I think we'll go one by one want to get you guys' thoughts on here um one of them is lot size range so for instance in the tn1 district you have a lot size range of 5,000 to 7,500 ft most Lots in the tn1 district are going to be 7,500 ft exactly so it does happen quite often where there there's maybe like a separate lot next to it um that's smaller than your typical one it could be 2,000 square ft that you can add that onto that 7,000 500t lot so uh we're going through one right now where somebody may have to come for a variance is not adding a lot of flexibility here and I I think the intent of of that slot size maximum was to reserve you know a whole separate lot from being combined with another one because we want a house to be built on it so staff's recommendation for this one is maybe you let you know right now we have 7,500 Square ft maybe you let that one be 1.5 times of what our maximum is that's still wouldn't allow somebody to combine with a vacant lot next to them a full vacant lot but allow flexibility with kind of small cleanups that are next to existing Lots I don't know if that makes sense I can kind of answer any questions on that that Planning Commission may have on that Mr NWI first so with that's my one concern is that as uh vacant lots and the encouragement for infill and the shortage of housing that so in your opinion there wouldn't be necessar neily that opportunity for individuals to pick up their neighbors vut lot all that easily exactly so what what we what we saw prior to this is you know if a fire Happens Next Door House gets you know has to be torn down that neighbor is the first one inquiring about that property so they can have you know more space to store things or another garage so really to do that you need a lot size maximum of you know 14 15,000 square ft so I'm proposing to only limit that to about 11,000 square ft somewhere in there um so that would still prohibit somebody from combining that lot over there um but would allow it happens quite often where there's a an odd piece of property right next to that one that they can't combine to it um so it would allow for not having them to come in for a variance essentially because you know it's still tough even in that instance to figure out what your practical difficulty is so it would allow more I guess leniency within the code to be able to do simple and easy consolidations that make sense but still wouldn't allow people to consolidate with the the neighboring property Mr Peterson yes a followup on years is why why are we limiting a neighbor from buying it why couldn't they just still even buy the whole thing and and just utilize it the way it is I get I I'm confused why we're limiting it why a neighbor can't buy the property so again um together yes so so what we found is you know brainer property um when they when they are demolished like that is quite cheap um so by taking away that property and having the neighbor just use it for storage and just a larger larger yard um you're really prohibiting then a home being built on that property so when you know when you have to come say do a street Improvement project on there you're not really hitting your density that you should be you know hitting on some of these streets by having just large yards we're get we're getting older you know and older homes we want you know to see these Lots infilled so at that point when Street Improvement projects need need to come down there we have utilities there already we're not having to expand into other areas or Annex other areas we're we're putting homes in where we have utilities so that's really was the the thought process behind it I did add a a part in here too that uh potentially having a cup um to exceed the maximum rather than the variance could be an option because it it I do see a difficulty and this hasn't happened before but if somebody wanted to Pro propose say a fourplex on two lots you know there should be an opportunity to combine two Lots at that point it would make sense um because they can't just do it on on one lot so I thought a cup might be a good option so Planning Commission can review that okay we're we're really adding the units that we want to see here we're adding the building that we want to see it's not just being used for for Green Space essentially so that's staff recommendations I can certainly answer any other questions from Planning Commission Mr NW for the consideration of the conditional use permit process as to facilitating some of that infill and increasing higher density um is there limitations being that it is tn1 as to facilitate that type of development so tn1 does allow for one to four units it doesn't allow for five plus how about within design standards as to Aesthetics to retain the neighborhood type of feel within the design and that's something that we'll kind of discuss later on what some of our design standards might be for one to four unit buildings so there's an idea that we certainly do want them to conform to the neighborhood and where I'm headed with that is there's a within some of our T1 tn1 districts there is different periods of time from when they were built as to um and so there if you walk down and you see a brand new building that looks like it's a completely different design and doesn't match any of the rest of them it's a little bit weird um versus so I guess where I'm headed with it is that maintaining the neighborhood design aesthetic when doing a fourplex or something like that it's it's been a longtime consideration within the city um there's parts of it that I love and there's parts of it that I hate and I'd hate to just completely abandon it without any concern or consideration for the reason why I was put there uh just a question for you what change would you like to see in the language to reflect that do you I mean do you see something we need to change to do this or are you supporting what we're doing here staff's recommendation as to how it is laid out in the packet here I believe is liberal enough to help facilitate for more administrative development administrative permitting and development um but I don't but it's also conservative enough to still make sure that you like it I like it all right very good Mr Peterson again yeah one more file with that I mean we can't stop the neighbor from buying it it just combining the lot onto his so he could still buy it and do whatever or do nothing with it so yeah so can still buy it for if they want a bigger yard um they can have a bigger yard what is what typically we get approach with is they want to it doesn't matter combine it so then they can use that square footage to build a massive garage understand or a pool what's that or a pool yeah so so anything that doesn't require building permit like fence fences just zoning permits sheds they can put that type of thing in there yeah a temporary pool something like that a bigger yard you know nothing prohibits them from buying it's really just the the combination um to to really what's typically done is is looking for a larger garage it's all about the garage all right uh um I I I like where you're going with it because I think it's um it's U it's supported by the comprehensive plan so it makes a lot of sense to me what you got next so very similar to the lot size um lot Frontage on all roads um in the tn1 is 50 to 60 fet um staff's recommending probably maybe going to something like 75 which would be again your typical Lots 50 ft wide just to provide a little bit of extra um possibilities for for consolidations to clean up things as well so I don't know if there's any comments from that very similar to the last one I think I think you can keep going I think we're good maybe maybe at the end of the section we can step so the so I'm just noting this I'm I'm not sure if I'm recommending any changes for it um we spent a lot of time on Accessory dwelling units um when we were building this Cod uh right now they're permitted on the corner lot and there C uh condition use permit for interior lots and they're not allowed um on rental units so um just wanted to kind of make note we have not had anybody um we've had inquiries on it mainly from rental properties asking you know can they create more space and more housing um it's not allowed for rental properties uh we've had a few people um I'd say more rural areas asking for accessory dwelling units and and uh um just we haven't had really a lot of traction with this so just kind of want to make note of it and see if there's any anything the Planning Commission wants to see different from this any comment on that the group otherwise that makes some sense to me I guess I would like to see a recommendation if you have one and can put some more I I just I feel like there's we have places we can put these things where people can live and I'm disappointed that we haven't had more of them being so I I think the only thing that would probably open it up is if you open it up to um rental rental lots to do accessory dwelling you still would require conditional use permit um you know so it could be reviewed I guess it would be if it's an interior lot if it's a corner lot and you open up to residential it would just be permitted at that point um so maybe there's a a given take maybe it's always a cup but you open up to rental properties um so then there's still neighbors can still um you know kind of give their opinions on it it can be reviewed by by Planning Commission city council checking to see if there's enough parking um in these areas so that could be one potential change to to try to have more housing and adus within the city of Brainard so on a rental would be talking about like a fourplex plus uh another unit above the garage or something is that I'm trying to imagine what what ad what this would look like for a for a rental unit or or it could just be done in single family homes um to add an extra unit to the site it could just be you know strictly done with single family and then rent it out and then rent it out okay that's making some sense okay excellent thank you Mr Peterson yeah with that I mean I never even thought about that but what we're talking affordable housing and the young people trying to afford things it'll get abused by You Know Rich old white guys or whatever but to do that but that is a way to supplement income on that for young families I guess if you did allow it as of right now it's not so as of right now if you're the homeowner you're allowed to do that and rent the accessory dwelling unit out if it's a rental property you're not allowed to then build an accessory dwelling unit and rent that out as well so that is being followed up with if the somebody buys it moves buys a different house but keeps that in rents both that's being followed up on so that would not be allowed if say they they bought it built an accessory dwelling unit and then decided to move um you wouldn't be able to renew your ental license at that point all right is there is there any would Planning Commission like to see a potential ordinance that would allow that or you know some direction from Planning Commission might be helpful or you leave it as is you got any thoughts on that I I think I'd like to see something to discuss that has more maybe leniency or ideas to try and move this okay yeah I can yep I can certainly crft some language and you know the next one will be again a draft so can certainly be struck from the the draft if the the language doesn't work good making sense to you James anything else otherwise we can move on to item D the garage thank you Mr chair so um this is something that uh you know staff's kind of looked at in depth um worked with developers um I know Dave has some some opinions on this one as well uh when we were looking at pictures uh with the garages initially when we were creating the zoning code here certainly the Planning Commission uh and city council didn't like that uh look where the garage protrudes 20 feet out or 15t out in front of the house and that's really all you see when you go down down neighborhoods um so so with that the the Contemporary neighborhood as well as traditional neighborhood uh ended up implementing that the garage when attached has to be set 5et feet behind facade of the principal structure um so this has you know it's not really contemporary design that you see in neighborhoods going up right now um you look at some of the houses in Holton for example they're still able to abide by the the old zoning code as it's as uh we had drafted the ordinance um typically you see the garage you know maybe 5 ft out in front of the house and then there's a living space up above it it doesn't really have that protruding look like the you know definitely didn't want to see that 20ft garage out front so there is some character um to that and then uh also when we're looking in kind of that grading area there's a lot of Ramblers where the garage you know lines up with the house so every now and then I'll get an inquiry of maybe adding onto the garage there well then that becomes a problem because all of a sudden they have this garage that lines up but if they want to add to the garage then they're going to have to do a 5-ft setback from it um so so staff's recommendation with that um is to maybe be a little bit more lenient on that and and really create you know part of part of this um form based code is we have these different neighborhoods and right now we have traditional neighborhood and contemporary neighborhood having the same setbacks um in my opinion contemporary neighborhoods are maybe a little bit different than the traditional neighborhoods for this potential setback where we in the Contemporary neighborhood we can maybe allow a garage 5T out in front of the facade and then in traditional neighborhoods it would have to be lined up with the facade so that's what staff is recommending I know there there can be difficulties with how roofs line up when you are trying to have garages behind um structures a lot of times when you see it in in say North Brainard you have a two-story house with a garage that that abuts that you're not seeing a lot of that type of development anymore so this is staff's recommendation to to make it I guess more development friendly in the city of Brainard any thoughts on that folks good job all right very good I think if there's uh if we're good with that section then we're move ready to move on to good old uh 55-4 General Building Development and design standards yes thank you Mr chair so kind of before going into the discussion items I did want to uh um kind of mention one of the strengths I see of the new code and we I know we spent a lot of time on this is not wanting to see those houses that have a garage in front and a 5-ft entrance um so having kind of that needing that 30 30% facade to 70% garage hasn't really impacted development but I think we'll ensure that we're not having again kind of that big garage with just this little 5ft entrance on there um so I do think that's been a a good add to the Cod and something that you know should be retained and and has been has been a benefit uh so with that um kind of discussion items that I've listed here uh so staff recommends that the entrance of a 1 to four unit building be orientated to a street and not the predominant orientation of other buildings this would kind of remove a gray area um from the code where um you have to at least have an entrance on on a street so right now we had a picture Sean if you want to pull up um the pictures that I sent if you want to go to the bottom keep going keep going and then one more I think so here's one that doesn't have a front entrance um I think it probably is lacking in in site design because not of not having a front entrance I know originally um there's this one went through a couple variances and there were other homes on this block that didn't have front entrances but uh you know staff recommends probably that there should be you know always a requirement for that uh so I wanted to get planning commission's take on that uh this is an example of of where it probably could have been enhanced with the door on the front any thoughts on that folks yeah I have some thoughts on that if I may go ahead Mr Peterson I liked all the pictures I think all the houses can work simply because everybody is different and what a floor plan may not work on a particular lot for what the people are looking for possibly I I think there's many ways to dress up something um I don't know yeah there's probably many people that don't like my house and vice versa you know so I I just think it's I don't know why we're necessarily setting designs for someone else that's that's not ours I guess that would be my that's my feeling on it so very good other thoughts if not I'll weigh and I'll say that it's it's a balance I I hear you that that individuals are going to have their own way to do it but it is our job to create a cohesive City that works as a whole because every every property in a neighborhood affects every other property the value of every other property in the neighborhood and the perception of it and so I I I don't think we need to have a cookie cutter world but but I do I hate that I hate that look and I I I just think that looks so much smarter when you have the doors coming out like that and you can see the entrance way I think it creates a warm neighborhood that's just my personal view any other view on any of the other points any of discussion points on there if not what else are we moving on to what else we got there we up to three already or do you have some other points on uh so yeah some more on number two so that's just kind of the first item um so also looking at 1 to four unit buildings um possibly having some higher standards that are that are listed um than than what are listed right now um possibly uh adding brick or stone alternative side uh siding patterns porches covered entries shutters Etc um thinking that home should be potentially required to incorporate two elements um these are the ideas that I had for covered porches shutters so what we're seeing if you want to pull those pictures back up Sean and a lot of our infill if you go further up so these are most of these are are Habitat homes that are built so certainly built on a budget um but would meet you know this one meets probably three of the items you have you know different siding patterns with the the gabled end there you have shutters you have a covered area so very simple things can be can be done to you know here's another example of just a covered porch and shutters so things can be done to enhance the front and help them blend in with the the block here's another one with a covered porch Al different color on the top and I'm sure usually they put shutters on so this is an idea by staff um kind of looking at simple ways and and fairly cost-effective ways to just dress the front up in some of these neighborhoods Mr for I know that I didn't weigh on on item a but I'm going to again ahead um but in conjunction with Item B I believe both of the items there are moving in a quality Direction um I understand the point of view as to adding more requirements that would potentially cost more but the the potential of cost additional cost will not be greatly um especially when we're considering the the garage situation that we just got done a little bit ago and the amount of significant cost that that would be these are small compromises as to continued quality Design Elements very good yes Mr Peterson um as a builder I'll respectively disagree with small costs as far as when you get to Stone Brickstone some of those things sightings are not a big issue but when you get to those harder Services there is quite a cost difference I guess when I gets down to it where like the pictures that you've got I think are are great like something like that can be easily done a couple colors and everything but let's go back a number of years in brainer remember the shingles that they used Put on houses were garages all right then we had stucco then we have some and you guys may have it it may be around where they've got the the rocks at by the front door going up at an angle and areas that was the best thing ever at the time correct and then Masonite come along best thing we don't have anything better than this why it could be the same thing today we're saying why did we let them do that 50 years from now so I think in having the 30% that you're looking at difference of different sidings colors red siding blue siding you know white trim or whatever in my opinion works but when you start adding those other components they they are labor give you an example what will charge for vinyl sighting depending what you may pick out it's probably $4 a square foot stone or rock is going to be $40 to $50 a square foot there is a bath difference in the cost for those things and if you're talking an apartment you're talking big areas I believe what staff is recommending is not the requirement of stone or Mason products I believe what they're suggesting is other products to be used other than one monolith James you want to yeah so really I listed five items there and and you know not fullyin but would would the idea would be that you know you have to at least incorporate two of them so you know you could just do covered porches and two different siding types um so you don't have to do brick and and mortar it' just be an option to you know if if you want to to do that as one of your ele required elements you could do that food yeah oh that was good question though we we clarified what we're we're looking at there uh C are you on C at this point Y so C is I know we're working kind of through the garage one right now and that was just recommended for approval um part of the staff report in there is is when we looked at from a staff perspective and and Planning Commission that was one of the um maybe things that would prevent uh somebody from buying a historic home and chopping it kind of halfhazard Le up is that they would have to add that garage in order to do it um there's still the uster parking requirement that uh would maybe prohibit smaller Lots from um you know redeveloping one of those historic homes I know it is in our comprehensive plan to preserve some of our historic structures in the city uh so this is an an idea to potentially um require a conditional use permit if you're con converting a single family home you could still build if it was a vacant lot and or it was a house that needed to demolish you could still build a duplex as permitted but if you're converting a single family home it would maybe require a conditional use permit I like it other thoughts Tiffany please I I think there is um great appetite for this because it's not so much the conversion of single family homes into multif family it's that people tend to do it very badly I think a conditional use permit would if they're going to do it well we it could be okay um but that will let us control that so I think it's a great idea all right very good James you got anything no sorry all right that's all right space enough do it all the time Mr Peterson I do not all right then we are on to D so next one is should a minimum unit size for two to four unit buildings be 400 square ft um this was brought up uh in an email from uh uh commissioner Francis uh we allow multif family buildings to do efficiency units um of 400 square ft should right now our single family homes and up to four units are required to be 500 square ft should it be the same as as a multif family building essentially so staff wants some consideration does the Planning Commission think that a 2 to four unit building could have 400t units in it any thoughts from the group I I don't see any issues with that I I would think if that is a problem I think the market you hope the market would sort it out people would say I I'm not going to move into a 400 square foot exactly You' hope that yeah I I think we're good on that one so that would lead us to e so e would be multif family units right now we don't have um a lot of code for for multif family buildings um one idea from staff would be that multif family unit shall incorporate uh balconies covered porches I think you probably add decks to it or staggered wall patterns included a couple couple pictures here obviously the the first one you have kind of staggered wall patterns decks and within that one um also on the bottom one you see there's some decks on the on the outside of it but kind of staggered walls I know the uh Thrifty White project uh they're looking at doing kind of staggered walls uh the bottom part being completely I guess one Foundation unit uh but they're providing some interest so it's not just one kind of square building so staff's trying to figure out ways that uh you can maybe create just a little bit more interest to make sure that uh um you're not not getting just a square box any thoughts there yes I like I like what you did with the other where was that with B where it's you pick two of five or you know I I like that idea that you know we can give them some some flexibility I would like to see maybe some other more options in that list um of course I don't have any good ideas for it but you've got great ideas James uh Mr Peterson yes uh with that um do them which I think is all great but it am I missing you have to do one or two of them or it says should and shall so do you have to do them all or the idea would be that you'd have to incorporate one of them so okay yeah even if I think you add Dex to it even if it's uh um there are some other requirements that would probably stay in there that you have have to you know maybe have some different siding patterns and provide interest through that um but on top of just the different siding patterns maybe just have to have a deck on the outside of it um there's examples of that where still kind of a a rectangle building but even having a deck on the outside of it provides some extra interest to the building makes sense James the the point uh subject matter that I'd like to discuss within this specific situation is that there's a strong difference between a six unit or even a 8 unit multif family and a 25 unit um and when when incorporating Design Elements such as visual interest things um I believe that there is a significant necessity for them to exist in the higher density structure than within a lower and so I don't know how to functionally do that other than create the elements that you know more elements needed in higher density structure um so that way you know a five six s ends up being in one category and then there's more necessity for design elements of visual interest as it increases in size I think you're looking at at a tiered system that makes some sense there James any thoughts on that yeah maybe you go up to like 10 units um you have kind of one set of parameters it could just be you know some deck uh maybe a deck that has to be put on the outside and and couple different colors of siding then you get beyond that um when you're seeing you know some of these large ones here there's maybe another standard so that's a certainly a potential increased visual interest standards Mr Peterson um one thing I I agree with all of you on on that I would maybe leave the decks out of it just because some developers may want to stay away from an exterior deck or something like that for liability or insurance or those so do other things would be my suggestion that would be an allowable it' be yeah allowable I I was thinking two you know say you have a five Plex that doesn't have a second story you know maybe it's just a covered entry that you have at that point um to Pro provide some interest and that's why I kind of put that covered entry in there I think all of these movies get us away from that uh the brutalism the the square building that we've all kind of suffered through for years and the uh there have been far too many built I love the the one on the bottom I think that's quite interesting on there if we're set with year you ready to move on to F any other thoughts unless we'll move on to item F there yeah I just included that that would still be kind of kept within the code there so so I'll work on maybe kind of creating those two- tier differences within multif family dwellings good um so then the next part would be the the third section which is uh commercial industrial use uh I wanted to know the PSP district is not included in the code so that should be put under the uh in staff's opinion the commercial use design standards um it's usually in around our commercial areas residential areas so certainly shouldn't have industrial design by that's the public schools public areas it is yep yeah we have some you know large large churches um large uh um Senior Care Facilities that would P PSP district and then predominantly schools after that didn't we have that sort of come up with a Teen Challenge and some of their changes a little bit and stuff yep so they were in PSP as well okay um number B would be uh I'm seeing more and more uh metal siding not the type of metal siding that you picture with the exposed Fasteners uh staff still recommending that that would be prohibited but potentially allowing metal siding um as a conditional use permit in the the commercial District right now we only allow a certain percentage I want to say it's maybe 15% of the building can be metal sided um Sean if you want to scroll down this is just one quick example of um commercial buildings sometimes they'll do metal siding you know between brick and it'll be and it'll be staggered um this would allow for uh a review to it still be a conditional use permit so it could be reviewed to see how it looks but you have a lot of this flat metal paneling that's becoming I guess more contemporary and something that that uh our interest developers and and contractors so this is something just to to consider if Planning Commission would like to to go down that route of allowing more than 15% by a conditional use permit James strongly in favor I I personal opinion is as to design elements that are going to be easily accessible and E economical for um and long lasting for Rehab projects Andor new construction I believe that it's a a great opportunity for a standard that could be acceptable thank you Tiffany any thoughts on this no Mr Peterson um have him scroll down I'd like to see the a b and c again kind of the other way sorry thank so we're talking commercial and Industrial it's the same thing so for this one industrial can use metal um so right now we're really just talking commercial commercial is the one that's really relegated to that 15% okay thank you my thought on it is the devil's in the detail what do we mean by the metal I think there are there metal we could I could look at and go well that's I didn't realize it was metal right if I looked at something that is meant kind of imitates or um another material I might go I had no idea it was metal so I'm I'm kind of with you but I think the devil would be in the detail of what do we mean here I I don't know we have I don't think we want to get into having a list of these are okay and not okay but I think that's that's going to be the tricky spot and I believe that the reason for the conditional use is the opportunity for the review to do that okay does that all make some sense to you yep that makes sense and yeah and I think within that you specifically say that uh metal siding with exposed Fasteners is prohibited so somebody doesn't even come for a conditional use permit for that I'd be good with that what did you just say yeah with no Fasteners I mean like Expo exposed Fasteners so typically with the flat metal paneling you're not going to have the screws that you have in with the with the uh rubber washers on them why is that just because that certainly aesthetically when you're driving down you know say Washington Street is something that just you know certainly is not aesthetically pleasing in my opinion you know I think yeah there are certain I put a steel roof on a uh on a porch a few years ago 10 years ago and um I I think it would have looks just terrible to have the bolts sticking out on there I think it was worth being being made to to spend a little more money and uh and uh and get get the uh the better product so I thought that was well worth it in that spot um we where are we are we moving on to are we on C or we have lost our place here where you got go we're on B so then we're on to c y so c um we are do have a a standard right now for glass um Duncan that's why they had to have some of the glass on the front and I think they put the entrance on there um this this is a Cod from duth transparent a minimum of 75% of the front facade between uh 2 and 8 ft above the sidewalk must be comprised of transparent non-reflective Windows into the commercial space a minimum of 25% of the windows shall have used directly in and out of the ground floor occupied space uh so staff does recommend applying this to the Main Street District the Town Center overlay district and the commercial Corridor District only so this wouldn't be in your General commercial areas like Cub Food but it would be more of your downtown setting and this kind of leads on to the next part of discussing you know potential mixed use development in the commercial Corridor District so it just gives a it's a much simpler code than what we currently have right now for for our glass facades that we want to see in our commercial um Corridor District thoughts on the change there I I I I would say I like the change um I I I think that the transparency is very important and um I think the language is cleaned up so that's good Mr Norwood um specifically uh holding it back from General commercial your thoughts on that General commercial you get more of the larger department stores that's what it's made for um so most of our areas in General commercial other than maybe like a strip mall um is it would never be able to meet these standards um I.E like a Cub Food a Walmart something like that right the ones that are presenting the big wall of brick exactly got it got it well any other if uh if we're silent on the on C at this point let's move on to D so D um unfortunately the uh I had I had Red Line this one it didn't show up in the packet uh currently the industrial district uh is required to meet commercial standards if they're within 300 ft of any of those roads um staff is recommending that if it's a adjacent to the road so if it's on the road then it has to be uh commercial cuz this is an issue when you're you say 300 feet from South 6 Street and but you're nobody's ever going to see the property you still have to abide by commercial standards you know and you're well within the industrial zoning District so staff is looking at this one you'd still have to meet commercial if you're on the road um certainly we want some of our major thoroughfares to to look nice but getting rid of that within 300 feet 300 feet part and making it just adjacent thoughts from that from the group I'm slow can you walk me through that again so 300 ft and Beyond so yeah so right now the code um states that uh structures that are Industrial in nature that are on uh business 371 uh 210 uh 25 and 18 and Oak Street and County Ro 3 uh if you're within 300 ft of that road and you're industrial zoned you have to meet com commercial standards which are much higher you're only allowed 15% metal in those situations so this is for industrial zoning District right now staff is recommending that if you're on that road you still have to meet commercial standards and you're Zone industrial but if you're off that road Zone industrial you're not you know you're not having to meet those same design standards so eliminating the 300t part of it just the statement of you're adjacent to it Y and I think to make this easier to understand you're talking one block is that 300 feet one block that's maybe a little more easier to relate to yep okay um then if we've got that set up I guess we are on at this point we have moved along to uh um e and the last one this is something that uh we worked in on in the Eda something that they've recommended to help spur development within the commercial Corridor District uh so commercial Corridor really go goes from the bridge uh and then about to the Cub Food area so that's our commercial Corridor District along Washington Street uh right now we're seeing a lot of Redevelopment in fast food um you know certainly Dunkin Donuts opened up and was able to rehabilitate kind of a a vacant uh problem property in that spot um but we're not getting a lot of large design on this road uh I gave examples uh I think previously to the Planning Commission of uh a road in Morehead that uh allowed mix use development that previously did not and really spur development same type of area next to a railroad major thoroughfare coming into the city once it was opened up to uh mixed use development you saw some really large development in that area and a lot of investment uh so this is where um staff is recommending um allowing that mixed use development it would be much like the Main Street District where there's no residential on the main floor so you're not losing your commercial um but would really in in right right now in brainer there's a lot of incentive to redesign like Thrifty White with res residential they can certainly maximize um profit and Redevelopment because of those residential units any thoughts there I I I I like what uh the notion there I think when I look at Washington Street I realize whatever we've been trying for the last 30 years hasn't worked so I'm I'm up for new ideas on that yes James and so mixed use is currently allowed within Main Street but not Town Center so Town Center um you Town Center mixed use is allowed Town Center is not required um to be uh so Town Center except for the overlay District um you can have a straight apartment in town center Main Street is your really your core area the Laurel Street area um so Town Center kind of sounds like the center but it's actually the the area around your main downtown so the the town center you can do an apartment on there you don't have to do mixed use development in the commercial Corridor district there would still be because it is quite commercial in that area there' still be that requirement for commercial on the ground floor got it well if we are ready then we can move on to uh we are on uh number four at this point accessory structures so this is another one that the red line didn't show up um previously uh in the code it's required on a shed under 200 square ft that it would have to be a standing seam metal roof so that's the one that does not have exposed Fasteners um an example is the elevator area outside here that's a standing seam metal roof uh staff would like the Planning Commission to consider would you still like to see a standing seam metal roof on sheds or would you or would the Planning Commission and this is for sheds under 200 square ft or would a uh exposed Fastener metal roof be allowed thoughts from the group Mr Peterson I'm I I guess we're going to disagree where I I have no problem in fact I've even seen designs where the Fasteners are a different color than the steel roof to accentuate them so I have no problem with with not with just uh screws rather than the standing seam and there again and that's where some of the respects cost is probably double to do one over the other James I am my thought on it is that in certain zoning districts in that are commercial and or Industrial in nature it's fine that it can be exposed Fasteners and other um situations even canvas or vinyl I'll say that very softly um because I don't want to get shot but um for for some of the other ones so commercial Corridor General commercial some of the ones that we are a lot more restrictive already in I would say that even the sheds still need to be as restrictive but in some of those other ones a little bit of a loosening so that way um more usability for those other zoning districts it it's more liberal and right now our industrial zones do allow for exposed Fasteners so this is predominantly you see this code um being applied for um Residential Properties in the city of Brainard they right now they're required to if they do want a metal shed it would have to have um a standing seam metal roof I'm say eliminate that I mean I don't see it it it's also required on a h house in in residential correct that's correct and that can be tough on some people if they want to go to a metal roof so just to keep that in mind all right any thoughts on this Tiffany I I I kind of agree with James that in our areas where we don't want to have ugly looking pole barns uh I I think and I and we're not saying they have to go with the standing SE metal roof they have other Roofing options so anyway we are only discussing for under 200 sare ft so once you get you know above 200 ft it has to match the primary structure which is in most cases going to be shingle roofs but you can have an ugly shed under 200 square fet and right now the code still provides for um may include a variety of building materials may be metal sided so the metal siding could have potentially exposed Fasteners but then the standing seam metal roof would be required well that's silly all right I I tend to think when on this I've got two different Minds one is it's a shed and then the other view is that you make a decision to save some money in one year and then for the next 40 years it's going to affect the perception of the neighborhood so in other words it's a small decision if you go just a little bit further you you're going to get a nicer product for many many years but I'm a Salesman so careful listening to me all right think you got enough there to work on for uh for on 4A at this point no no so that you know I'll I'll include some stuff you I'll certainly look look back at our discussions here um and there's certainly some disagreement on a few areas um I may include areas just so we can review or and take out so that's what I I think we'll go with the next time that I bring a a a actual proposed ordinance I think we'll take motions and and votes on some of these to to figure out the consensus so if you see some of these things in here and we don't exactly know you know if that is what you know our Direction was tonight some things may be included with the intent that we'll get a you know maybe a full vote and an actual vote on what we want to see in the ordinance on on some of these sections good um and and I just a couple other um things on that are and do we have to talk about tents for storage or hoop houses or are they pretty well covered in other sections so we don't have to worry about that yeah I think that would probably still be prohibited at this point excellent and then my only other suggestion say what the group think about a couple of these items we we've had two different thoughts on it can we have two different thoughts written up in there they could be 48 could look like this and just bing up a number here or could look like that and so then when we get the larger group um everybody will have a kind of a chance to understand the difference we're looking at right yep I think that could be yeah I can certainly do that I think that might be helpful so we don't have to say oh tonight your ideaas out we can keep we can keep the uh keep a lot of different ideas in in the uh in the flow that sounds good thanks James a bunch of good uh that's a bunch of good work I really appreciate that all right that leads us up to uh item eight uh that would be the public forum this is a chance for citizens to come forth and discuss matters that are not on tonight's agenda I will open the public hearing at 7:10 do we have anybody online do we have anybody here all right I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:10 and we're going to move along to uh staff report James thank you Mr chair so just wanted to add a few things that City council's been working on in the last month here uh after our last Planning Commission meeting uh so the state affordable housing aid uh that the city received last year which was about 96,000 88,000 was awarded to Habitat for Humanity for the construction of three new homes in Brainard I think one of them was currently underway and two other ones uh are proposed for next year uh so that's something the city's going did receive uh allocation this year as well we'll be working at the beginning of the year to also get those funds distributed to applicants and I think after this year it'll go down um but uh in 2004 we we also receive 96,000 so we're going to continue to to work on infill development with some of those state aid funds uh city council also passed an ordinance prohibiting camping in the city Liv of Brainard uh we do have language in our zoning code for this but this is probably specifically geared towards public property or predominantly um and then lastly I can't remember I mentioned this at a previous Planning Commission meeting but the city council passed the central business district incenta policy uh so this is an extension of the river to rails River to rails was kind of Washington Street uh down to Oak Street and then the river over to the NP Center so this extends it to pretty much all of Washington Street uh to the city limits and then all the way on South 6 Street along right along South 6 Street down to Buffalo Hills Lane East so this is incentive policy that waves sack and whack so this could you know certainly affect uh mix use development in the commercial Corridor district and incentivize it I know one area that we're going to be doing the the Washington um Street reconstruction project this was an idea to maybe help some of those businesses out as well to to do some re re remodel projects while that's happening and and maybe lighten a little bit on on some of the building permit costs as well um so that's everything that uh I have thank you very much I appreciate it moves us up to number 10 commission member reports we're going to start with Tiffany do you have anything sure um so just because I feel like people who are involved in Planning Commission are watching us on YouTube might be interested in this sort of thing uh mot is going to be having an openhouse to talk about the 371 210 intersection there on um it is September 10th uh 4: to 6:00 p.m. at the at mot um and then there is the next Rosen Meer Forum uh is going to be on housing oh so that might also be of interest to people in this room or watching us on the uh on the internet so and that's going to be on the uh 17th Tuesday the 17th at 700 p.m. at CLC uh and then I was able to be at the groundbreaking for the my neighbor to love coalition's uh 12 Plex that is going up and that was very exciting as well so great report Tiffany got James can you can you match that I don't know if I can match it but um given tonight's conversation within um I am going to ask for more discussion as to Data Centers um and not necessarily crypto but because crypto mining ends up encompassing some other portions of things that are very similar to Data Centers and that type of a use um personal opinion it might be different than a lot of others but I think we need to have a firm con conversation as to what we want to see done with it not and again I'm going to try to emphasize the fact that I think that we need to have a conversation not specifically to crypto mining but the similar types of uses that are associated with large amounts of computers that have large cooling towers that produce noise and those kinds of potential issues that arise from them I from what I see and I understand of the future is that we will have more data centers that continuously are built within uh as they require significant forms of infrastructure to exist there's going to be more of them coming they might not be crypto mining they might be just for the sake of all of us to be able to use um and there is potential significant economic uh impact that they could bring and so um given tonight was more about outside storage type buildings um there's I caution us with eliminating an entire industry based upon the potential for the noise that it may produce especially when there's cooling towers in multiple other places immediately inside City Limits immediately next door to tn1 Zone zoning districts and so it's it's one of those things that I I would hate to say no to significant large Economic Development based solely on the fact that well it has a cooling tower or the type of business and commerce that it does that's about it I a quick followup question do you for you do you think this would be a separate issue in itself or is it something we could incorporate into the larger noise issue that Tiffany talked about earlier it they they're going to create noise that's the heavy part about it is and anytime that you incorporate any cooling tower it is going to create noise so be at the hospital be at the high school be at any school um cooling towers are going to create noise the intensity of them and within data centers there's multiple ways to skin the cat and to Simply flush the whole situation out based upon how one organization has done it less favorably than other organizations could do it doesn't mean that it should be significantly swiped out and flushed just because one did it bad doesn't mean that all of them will do it bad especially if there's language as to help guide them into what is being done in other areas I'll restate my question do you would you like to see a one big attempt to look at noise or should we look at technology and noise as a separate thing I believe that we should look at the personally I believe that we should look at the use type as being needed to be addressed the noise thing is a separate thing but the noise thing with this use type is always going to be significant okay based upon the fact that we need to cool them in order to use them okay and so if that means that we have to put them in specific zones be they in an industrial Zone which I'm pretty sure that's why we all put them in industrial zoning it because that's the kind of thing that you would see there but to as to the noise situation it to go back and try to start hashing out all the other cooling towers that exist all the way around the rest of us and we say that well these ones can't be there because the fact that you know it's too noisy they unfortunately the people that live right next door to the hospital experience the exact same thing the people that live next to Washington Education Services building experience the exact same thing as long as they're on the east side of that building I shouldn't say if they're on the west side of the building they don't hear it but it's to say to say that it's not permitted in because the type of use I would hate to see that it if the issue is an issue based upon the equipment that's being used what's good for the goose is good for the gander all right very good Mr Peterson everything they said is what I was going to say so he stole all your thunder all of it no I I would I would agree with you my my point was more noise than anything it doesn't really you know I think the use is something separate and and I agree with you if they if that you know company B comes along does the same thing but they can make it quiet so it doesn't affect the neighbors I'm fine with it sure that's what I have all right I appreciate that all right and uh I'm just going to talk about one thing tonight I want to talk about this group I I think overall we've have put together pretty good board of uh pretty good uh group of Commissioners right here but we we've been short a commissioner for about six months and talked about Mr Grunwald I think he's a great guy and I've love to see him back on the group what's the status are we is Jeff going to be able to rejoin us so I did I reached out I haven't received word back I'll try reaching out next week again yeah I I I think it's it's really important that it's that we can be seven people and use all have all the voices in here and I I understand everybody's life changes and sometimes you can make meetings and sometimes you can you can't make meetings and I can appreciate that but you know right now we're lucky to make a quum tonight you know it's uh and so we can uh it should be nice to have a full commission again so that's all I have tonight uh looking for a motion to adjourn so moved second second favor say I I same sign there we go see Tiffany had did no discussion you appreciate that no disc