##VIDEO ID:Bkfjg7SSsBU## I'd like to call the uh October 16th meeting of the plan of the brand plan commission to order roll call Mr cranic Duval here Norwood Peterson here staying line here Goram here all right Dave would you like to lead us in the pledge is that my job it is your job now last to lose your job is that what you're trying to do no no you're been since kindergarten doing that and it's you know they get kind of mushy after a while don't they all right looking for approval of tonight's agenda so moved to all right looking for a second second any discussion hearing none Fe say I I oppos ham sign we have an agenda looking for approval of the minutes from September 18th looking for a motion so moved second we have a second any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I there we go we are right on to uh item six unfinished business we're going to discuss discuss section 514 D 55-4 General Building Development and design standards James yes thank you Mr chair so at the last meeting the Planning Commission reviewed design standards proposed um by the Community Development Department uh kind of went through each one of them one by one took some motions uh when needed uh so staff based on some of those recommended changes also did add a couple others that I'd like to discuss tonight as well um highlighted those sections of of what we what we really changed in here so figured we go to the actual ordinance that I began drafting here and kind of go through each one of these highlights sections kind of one by one uh spending a little time on maybe some of the ones that need some more discussion and then if there's any other things that I missed at the end um or we can call attention to it you know as we're going through this we certainly can do that um and we'll go from there so the first one this kind kind of came up in the last month here uh with the uh accessory structure garage sizes in the rural living zone so typically rural living Zone you could potentially have uh you know larger pole barns that are built uh they're large Lots they're typically going to be at least one acre if not larger and could have certainly some agricultural uses as well um so I wanted the Planning Commission to take a look at this as this did come up in the last month here about uh eliminating the wording that would be up to 35 ft but may not exceed height to the principal structure um so I think this one because this would be new uh have a discussion and get planning commission's recommendation on this did we not discuss this in past meetings we did not we didn't touch this one okay well open up for discussion any thoughts any reactions to it would this would this only be for U uh rural living it would only be for Rural living okay yep anybody strong feelings any which way I think it looks I think it's fine I think I can probably live with live with that James I think we're good if you want to move on so the next few um were based on the no further than 2 feet beyond the facade into the front yard uh front facade into the front yard or the side corner so made that change based on the recommendations um is it what we had discussed before any questions on on that portion of it we we don't want to bring that back up I think we want to if we're happy now let's let's stay happy the consensus to stay happy we let lie so I think we're think we're good I think we're good on that one so next one is 25,000 Square ft for the traditional neighborhood 2 District uh that was discussed last time and and agreed upon uh the next portion design standards for the facade this is one we did have uh discussions about potentially looking at that wild card I did have um some conversations with commissioner Duval as well he did some research kind of went around some of our neighborhoods to look at it um so the the last part is what we had discuss other Design Elements may be approved by the zoning administrator such as a chimney roof design and angles window patterns dorm Dormers corales Etc um and then the one part that uh is maybe a little bit different from the last one we had talked about incorporating two of the following Design Elements um uh after discussions and taking a look at pictures uh wanted to take a uh wanted to have a discussion on if it's a two-story structure so you have more of a a face to it you know could there possibly be a requirement to have three design elements uh we did take a look at you know some some two story structures that uh you probably could have used another design element um so up for consideration and certainly would take planning commission's recommendation on this let start with Mike if he actually did some research and poked around any conclusions you you uh Drew from your research well I I think you know the adding the three is a simple a simple administrative tool for staff that that doesn't send people around you know it becomes it becomes part of the the particularly with the steeper roofs you you end up projecting more space up and it becomes and we had a conversation at the last meeting about sort of the the 5050 siding kinds of stuff in where it it starts to lose its its Effectiveness in creating something of interest and and and so you know another design element there would be helpful in being able to do that and I think James used the the wild card that to to sort of bait the imagination of of of someone that's proposing something here to say you know these are sort of the ideas and the open-ended Etc to to to to create the conversation at the desk down downstairs to to me adding it would would help on those instances um but other folks May um may have different ways of approaching it so do da have any thoughts I do have some thoughts um in fact even as I was driving in today kind of driving through the city and working around and everything you look at all the different heirs and the planning commissions that have done stuff we're in the process of changing what the last one did a little bit um and it'll happen again for two years five years from now as things change and progress and I'm on the opinion that I think diversity diversity is good I don't think we need to mandate everything that's done that would be mine the less we have to mandate I believe the better I think you can do there's simple designs you look at some Cape cods have one color and a black fascia for example or stuff and and you can make houses look sharp with just color changes not having to throw in other things that to me that at that point we're designing that house for them and I just don't feel that's the right way to go fair enough Tiffany um so James the way I read this they only get one wild card and they have for like the three and I guess I would like to if they have two different elements they could both qualify for that wild card slot let the have two wild cards and one other thing does that make sense it makes sense but I think the way that I'm reading it right now that would not be allowed that's a way yeah I i' I've looked at it both different ways and you know is it kind of a gray area um you know possibly I I could word it a little bit different that you know you could have two of you know still two wild cards and and that would qualify mhm Dave well yeah the way I read it is we're going to have to pick an expensive one in there that I mean you know the Brickstone the cupboard entry the porch those are if you're looking for a basic you know home and all of America is looking for that right now that throws it in there if we have to do pick three out of those and I could even see where color could be more than one thing more than one does that make sense too use two colors you cover two points I would agree or maybe it's three colors and cover two points or something like that where it's like I and I don't know how to make that English I I I I where I'm coming from is I recognize where Dave's at but I also I like the list I and I think we want to a wiggle room we want to we we don't want this to be like you have to do this but you have to get to a certain point and give people a lot of different ways to get to that point uh that that would be my inclination You So based on that if we want a little bit more wiggle room you know maybe the other Design Elements can just you could have all three of them as other Design Elements potentially yeah if there's all three good things that you know clarification what what now so if there was to be a little more wiggle room uh instead of having to you know choose two of the or three of of you know one of each of those for instance the design elements you could simply have three of them from the design elements uh which also could be other options as well that's not even listed so you wouldn't have to pick from you know you wouldn't have to pick from the first five if you were to do two both of those could come from the other Design Elements Mike any thoughts on that um going in the right direction you think well I I feel so I mean you know what we're trying to do is strike the balance between um being highly prescriptive and really uh allowing the homeowner or the Builder um to De to to to design the the the house that they want and it and and hitting the general ideas of what you're after you're after some some visual interest so that it's not either a rectangular box um with a lot of with a lot of Blank Space you know that's where sort of the um um window patterns and things can help make that a little bit more um appealing or or the the um the Pentagon right where you where you have you know the this large face and so I I I think that's the challenge before us and how best to do that and here's one way of doing that there could be others if if folks have got an idea on how to be able to to tackle this differently um you know what's good about the wild card um so what we're really saying is uh that other Design Elements may be approved by the zoning that flips up to the top paragraph and then you you kind of itemize here's some ideas um but approved by the zoning administrator sort of sort of suggests a conversation at the desk you know or when they come in for the building permit you going you know um and and there's an opportunity to have some some flexibility at DES before you before things get too far down the path um so that that language I kind of like and where you put it in and how you specifically your words method um just guiding people to that to that point so the reason we got here is is not wanting to have just these large rectangular walls with maybe a window and a and a door and just a lot of siding of monotonous design or or color or what have you so yeah in a way I think we're imposing a decision in the immediate thing but what we're giving is just you you can't um you can't even estimate what you know these structures are going to be here for 30 40 50 60 years people are going to be looking at it so for to me a little bit of inconvenience up front is probably worth the long run I love the etcetra that we have at the end too because somebody may just walk in with something that we've never even thought of and right if it works if it breaks it up does some things like this I was thinking of the house that my mom uh used to have on the north side of um just was one of those kind of um Workman kind of a cookie uh uh the cookie um house sort of thing gingerbread houses you know but they put little things like half moons and things like this just little elements Field Stone things like this just get people to use a little bit of imagination I think we can get along long ways um have we given you enough James to uh and I guess the only other thing and maybe we have to to make a motion and and U um so we had a formal recommendation whether we want uh two Design Elements for all structures or add that extra one for two story structures I like adding an extra one for to myself if somebody would like to make them we're we're moving towards motion if somebody wants to make a motion on it I'd be open to a looking entertaining a motion I'll make a motion all right let's hear Dave I'll make a motion of no more than two design structures do we have it sure oh we'll leave it at that do we have a second on that please please repeat the the motion I would like to make the motion of no more than two Design Elements for for a two-story for a two for a two story okay okay we're waiting a second on that one required required okay yes okay are we all clear on the motion at this point do and looking for a second we don't see a second I would be uh then we'd be looking for another motion I will move um that we move forward with two and three for two story structures all right second and we have a second on that any discussion on that I I will just say that I if we were being more stringent on you must include these specific things I would want to be looser on the number but I'm more comfortable asking them to do more because we're being looser on what counts as more I I can back that I like that other discussion I'm opposed to the four of us deciding what somebody can build or not and go into the full Council that's what I guess I'm ultimately opposed against I hear you but it's also the nature of zoning that somebody's got to make a decision we do have zoning so but I respect that view um any other discussion if I'm not hearing any other discussion I would say all in favor say I I I oppose same sign I I there we go I think the eyes have it on that one where are we now James what else would you what's next so the next one um just to make note I did um take off the the language that was included about uh structural elements such as balconies porches and wall patterns for multif family and just included that into our existing one again these are going to be uh reviewed as conditional use permits so it just kind of gives some other ideas to potential developers of what could be included um so that was changed from the last one let's see I did add the glazing um requirement into the code um so that was different from the last one uh exterior building material so this was discussed in the general industrial zoning District about uh metal on the the front of buildings um as of right now it is 50% can be metal 50% has to be something else um so this one would be no more than 15% of a street side um elevation shall be metal so um let's see did I did I word that right essentially I I'll have to look at it again 15% something else 85% um could be metal okay and that came out of our discussion that came out of our discussion about you know how things you can look to our own streets um it well not it'd be the police cold storage building uh to meet this requirement especially on these smaller buildings um it really was just 50% I think brick and then 50% metal on the top of it it doesn't really have any Design Elements people are meeting the requir ments but is you know not really doing what it's intended to do at that point so the you know the 15% of something else uh would be more of what you'd look at you know maybe the bottom three or four feet of of what you'd have on a facade discuss yeah just by reading that it it shows the other way around that yeah I I I think when I just read that I did so we'd have to make that correction all right yeah then I'm fine with but that's that's what that's the intent of of the the ordinance same point Mike yep exactly the same point okay other discussion do we have a consensus on this I think we have a consensus on this one so that sounds good I don't think we'll need a motion here I think we're good so the next one this is something that uh we've been approached uh numerous times in the Community Development Department about um probably I'd say at least five times since we've done the new zoning code um in the rural living zoning District the potential for uh duplexes I haven't really been asked about four units um once you get up to three to four units there are potential sprinkler requirements based on size um so so that would be reviewed by the fire department could be a limitation but uh have been approached a number of times asking for um a duplex out in here certainly um there's interest uh from from the city of creating additional housing and wanted to get planning commission's recommendation on should it only be single family residential out in rural living or should there be options for duplexes thoughts from the group uh remind me again how the accessory dwelling units would fit in with this in rural living so accessory yeah right now accessory dwelling units um if the person lives there and that's a potential code change as well um but if the person lives at the structure they could build an accessory dwelling unit on that rural living um the the primarily been approached about somebody buying a property U building a duplex so they could live in half of it and then rent the other half out um which again they could potentially have an an attached accessory dwelling unit but it would be limited to 650 Square ft okay other thoughts um director P the rl1 there's probably a lot of that's on sewered right for it would be a lot of it is um so there wouldn't be issues there as far as septics or anything to that effect or septic would have to be approved by the county in order to do it County would be the approval Authority yep okay I question I well I think we we're what we're doing it's interesting um I'm not opposed to it by principle but it would be bringing density into an area that we are not really planning on density um because we we talked about having these neighborhoods that are complete neighborhoods and things like this and I don't think the these would these would be somebody living out in the sticks in a duplex which might be just fine other thoughts fair point where we go get sigs one of the areas where do they go get sigs um yes if would there be higher requirements for septic systems to handle a duplex or they probably have to um have a larger um maybe larger tank a larger you know but if their property accommodates it then yeah and these are all pretty Big Lots yeah and and obviously there's you know some in the county you'll get large properties large lake homes there's you know even you know on some of the Lakes there you know these are running off of septics um you get associations you know you have large septic fields so it's not uncommon in larger properties to to have large than others yeah and you know there there is a distinction between rl1 and rl2 um so rl1 um is kind of your reserve um so maybe you don't want to create too much density it's kind of your your areas that you're planning for future maybe planning for future sewer and water um rl2 are really areas that uh are not going to see um sewer and water there's a lot of it north side of of Wise Road that's never going to have sewer and water and some of them are larger Lots so you know maybe there's a consideration for rl2 maybe not rl1 so something to think about there as well please to answer Tiffany's it's absolutely we build probably three or four duplexes a year so it's all designed on the soils and everything else so it's it's a nonissue i gu get down to it I I feel that the duplexes are fine and these are outling areas where there's probably no city sewer and water coming anytime in our life life times would be my guess so to me the to if you want density in the in the city I think that's probably a good thing can handle it I have a question for you James uh real real quick um are there people who are looking to do duplexes wanting to build new duplexes or subdividing they want to build new duplexes new duplexes yep that's who's coming um there's also you know there would be restrictions on place they couldn't just easily come and subdivide another property say in the rl1 um based on what's allowed per density so you know if they do have an rl1 lot they could build a duplex on it but they still need approvals from Planning Commission to subdivide you know say in one or more two more Lots because the density is not set up for something like that for them to create another lot to build a duplex and there's a duplex here so there's a planning you know there's kind of a planning process that stops it it it would allow them to build one duplex on their property I can personally probably live with one duplex as long as we're not creating new neighborhoods that we' never intended to make yeah I I do believe our density requirements um in there for from subdividing would you know kind of stop that okay all right very good do we have a consensus on this or we like to somebody like to make a motion what are we thinking Mike you have some thoughts there you're looking hard yeah I am um I I do like well I don't know what I like never mind you know if we if we could look at the zoning map that's what I was just going to ask just to see the spatial impact of this you're looking at the state hospital is rl1 up by the airport is rl1 and and we're um and more Northtown and that we're Way Way north of that we're picking up sort of that marshy embayment of Gilbert Lake yeah up U up towards um delmare and that area those are sort of the rl1 areas and the RL two is kicked more to the West there we're um pretty much at the junction of Beaver Dam with Wise Road and then to the West is that the lighter green is that rl2 the lighter green here that's the only area I see all right an rl1 gotcha so to to the to the point with you know um would we want to try and preserve our rl1 for orderly development and and preserving the opportunity for density um recognizing the rl2 probably is is as dense you know I mean it's not going to get platted out because a lot of it's super wet so it's mostly fronting rl1 totally wet it's not going to be Den I've walked it U which now the r rl1 this will never the two the rl2 green that will never be any in there so they're you know the advantage of being able to put more dwelling units per unit area of developable High Ground would would make sense um but you know to your point it causes me pause a little bit to to think about whether we' want to allow that on the R1 or or try and have development go through sort of the platting process to to get you know whether it's PS or some other um land division process to to develop I don't have an answer those are the questions that are playing on my mind and I and I should say buffalo yeah Buffalo Hills clearly to the South there as well that Lively Acres or Lively Lively Auto area Auto than yeah I have a question for James like that Lively Auto how far away from like city services is that is if somebody hooked into that because it is for sale right now um is that got Services close so there's the one piece that's the kind of the very last remaining portion most of the 700 Acres was purchased um by somebody and I don't know about that little piece I'm guessing I'm not sure on that one for services you know the large the larger portion that that the person purchased it's it's ready um at the end of Buffalo Hills there to be able to stub into to city sewer and water so that part's ready for development um and that's where you when you do have Reserve areas you do want to see that um since we do have I kind of alluded to it a little bit we have um certain number of units that can be over 40 acres in that area so so if you build a duplex area you can't then again subdivide that 40 acres if you're going to be over your um over your allotment of dwelling units per acre so that's kind of your your stop on there um from from being able to develop any further um my my question would be on that so if somebody's bought 700 I know there's another 40 and it's and it's close to stuff I mean I would assume who's ever got that going to probably come forward and want more than that and then we would be looking at that and it could be totally different than what's up here oh that's correct so what yeah when somebody that's why you have it as a reserve right now because it then you don't want kind of halfhazard um splitting of lots in that area you want certain lot sizes to be able to maintain sewer and water and and not have to assess these properties um large amounts of money in the future so that's where you want that orderly development in there so that's where they'd come in request or rezoning they'd be um platting um that area out based on what's allowed for the zoning district and and that's how a typical development would work so are we getting a towards a consensus are we we're okay with duplexes on both one and two or do we want to make a distinction between that on rl1 rl2 personally I don't think it's going to matter okay I I just think the R2 is if it's there that's all that's going to probably be the acreages are just going to be bigger out there I literally walked those properties they're so wet and the ones down here they're probably going to come forward anyway and something will be different when it's happening I doubt if anyone's going to throw a duplex out there I I strongly suspect you are right um but I think I would like to see us maybe we do it permitted in rural living to for now I'm a very cautious person naturally but so I just want to see how that goes and maybe put it on the itinerary for two years from now to re-evaluate for Rural living one do you want to make a motion on this I will make a motion uh to do that that we make it permitted in rural living 2 to do duplexes and come back in two years you gonna remember two years no that's why I'm looking at James he's gonna remember in two years all right J James is that making some sense it is making sense and it still would provide an opportunity for somebody to rezone to rural living too um say there there's some property in rural living one that isn't all that developable um in the future not not near Services somebody could ask for a rezoning to rural living too okay do we have a second on Tiffany's motion second we have a second any further discussion not seeing any all in favor say I I same sign all right what you got left there James so that's everything within um the proposed ordinance the last thing it's come up a few times um in some of our uh business retention visits for the Ed um also in some other discussions on the memo that was provided by staff um I just alluded to um potential uh surfaces for driveway storage and parking in the general industrial zoning District uh right now the um off Street driveways off street parking is required to be paved by asphalt um or concrete a lot of times there'll be maybe small additions that need to be done you know there's maybe a large class 5 parking lot existing and uh in one instance there's a business down there that's looking to add maybe a little turnaround to their existing class 5 well we don't really have a provision for something like that in our code anytime you add something um you know you have to to meet the code you could request a variance potentially but then you have to figure out a hardship that's not related to cost so um wanted to have the Planning Commission discuss this um you know staff certainly sees you know the FedEx wasn't one one of the newer ones built in the industrial park you probably wouldn't want to see their parking area in the front um you know be just a class five um parking area certainly the main entrances are entrances off of our um streets they can't be class five we don't want that dust going into our storm sewer systems so we have to manage that uh something you know there's a lot of times there could be maybe a a turnaround around a building where a semi needs to go um maybe a storage area there could be requirements that you have to treat it with I can't I don't know the exact chemical but they put it on um class five um roads in the in the county to make sure that um the dust isn't too bad on there I think it's some type of chloride treatment that gets that gets sprayed on there so that could be an option um another option is maybe if you do want to extend it or do some type of class five or crushed concrete maybe there's a conditional use permit process through it so it is reviewed um you know I'm sure one of the reasons it was put in the zoning code um to require concrete or asphalt is you know maybe in the past and at times when I'm down in the industrial area if you have a a 35 mph wind day you're getting a lot of dust blowing so I think there needs to be some some consideration for that um but you know do do some of our you know just utility roads for it or a turnaround area does that have to be concrete or asphalt or when somebody's doing a you know a small extension to their existing class 5 does that have to be concrete or asphalt so maybe there's an opportunity in the code to you know look at and see how that uh you know could maybe be changed going forward so um answer any questions the Planning Commission has any thoughts Mike any thoughts on that one and and this would be separate separate from the design standards correct this is a it it's yeah it's not really tied to design standards um it's somewhat you know still your site design standards I probably would put it in a different ordinance but wanted to have a little bit of conversation with it on on design standards tonight so we could explore this a little bit further without necessarily holding up the design standards I I think I what I what I would like the future to look like for the city of Brainard um in a warming climate is to have as as few black top surfaces as possible you know and so to to mandate large parking areas that that may be um you know radiating a lot of heat um during at the end of a sunny summer day um is it necessary to have that there um or or can we can we soften that somehow either with imperviousness or something that's not um real super heat absorbing and and and probably the easiest way to do that is is with with maybe the class five or or the the underl kinds of of gravel surfaces that compact um and you and you focus the the improved surfaces on those high traffic areas you know where most of the traffic comes into the building or around the loading docks and things of that nature or or your approach to public roads so you're not carrying a bunch of mud on the tires and then you know throwing that out on as you drive off so I I would prefer that we don't push too hard to pave everything and so where's that where's that balance point definit I I yes and I guess I also want to have us be open to other options than asphalt um and I know concrete is just ridiculously expensive um but we are dealing with a lot of a lot of dust and dirt already in our streets and um I mean we've we've had it come up in Council meetings and I know there are other people in the community that have talked to me about it and how do we keep that down and I'm not convinced that class five or crushed concrete is really the right solution um but as technology improves and I think it's going to have to I want us to to be open to other options very good I don't think we have to have a final answer tonight but I I think if you can come we come up with a definition of saying zones adjacent to or some sort of some sort of definitions um I think it could be something that could work or if you can invent an entirely new thing that won't generate heat island effects or cause dust in Jess class 5 yeah all right Mr chair yes please you know and if the issue is largely wind driven um wind breaks you know so plant vegetation as as a tool which would also help with storm water management as well particularly if you're directing that into the planted areas and so it could be a could be a a a a a simple combination of you know minimizing the asphalt and the the heat island the Heat to retaining and radiating surfaces and then places where we can use vegetation to infiltrate water and to um slow down wind so that the dust doesn't go flying it could be patterns like that if that would help you think about sure um so I think at this point let's come back to that we good with that that sounds good so I think I have Direction here is there any other items um design standard wise that that Planning Commission would like to discuss I'm good I think we've covered a lot of ground here literally so lot of areas good all right if we are good with number six we are moving on to number seven new business there's no new business we're moving on to number eight public form the chance for citizens to express uh talk about items that are not on tonight's agenda would anybody like to opine no anybody on the line all right well I better open the hearing or the form I open the form at 638 I will close it at 6:38 we are on to staff reports James yes thank you Mr chair so I got a few items here um there'll be a special Planning Commission meeting on October 21st at 5:30 p.m. for a cup request for a bulk storage propane uh tank uh that'll be in the industrial uh Area Industrial Zone District uh city council at the next meeting will be considering uh average advertising the brainer industrial property that the city of Brainard owns for a dollar per acre if certain objectives are achieved uh by a business this was a recommendation by the Eda and then uh at the last city council meeting uh city council did direct staff to begin working on a comprehensive crypto ordinance after completion of the design standard ordinance so I'll begin researching that um I believe at the next Planning Commission meeting what I'll do is is bring kind of a final um draft of the proposed ordinance which will also include the graphic that'll have to edit as well for some of the garage standards um have the Planning Commission review that one more time to make sure there's no mistakes made um I'll go through everything and then uh if that all looks good we'll bring it uh as a public hearing at the next meeting after that and that's everything I have any questions for James my other question is um on the sale of the industrial park um certain objectives are these economic objectives design objectives one of the big ones is is the number of good paying jobs that the business would potentially provide um whether it's a you know maybe an expansion from an existing company in brainer or a new one coming to Brainard or wanting to retain a good business in Brainard um that's really where it's tied to as as of right now they didn't set a number of jobs some of that's going to be you know have to be looked at by the Eda and city council based on maybe how large the property is is it one acre at 5 Acres um so it's not a set number but uh you know I think uh from what the Eda discuss they're open to hearing if there's a business interested um you'll certainly have them work through that process all right that helps me understand that uh number 10 member reports let's start with Tiffany I have nothing all right Mike um couple things number one I I like the idea of jobs per acre and if we can also do kilowatts per job we would have it um um I had I had an opportunity to chat with somebody um who's with the green step City's program last week and uh they're newly hired and their principal task is to work with outstate cities us folks like us um and you know we look at our comp plan and under facilities in infrastructures our strategy to promote Energy Efficiency and use of renewable resources and uh you know the action that we would do would take strides to complete applicable strategies in the green step City's program and and I think that program went into it was started in like 201 15ish somewhere in that neighborhood and so it's been nine years and in the makings here and I think we were one of the early folks into that but um but I don't know how far we are down the steps we may still be at the on the on the landing looking to step down so so I would love to to to see us go there I don't know what the entry point is to that and whether Planning Commission is the right entry point James you kind of signal yeah so I believe we're at step three um right now and we're close to step four um some of the staff turn over um that was some of the things that I was going to have assistant planner work on at the time uh we do have a temp staff now that uh worked in in a planning department um she does work probably two days a week uh it's my plan that uh she's going to kind of work on that through throughout the winter time here as it was directed by city council at one point so um I think we are going to hopefully be starting that this winter again outstanding and and I think it's it's really encouraging to know that there's there's capacity within the program to assist and and they're looking to prioritize you know where where they're welcome to work um be able to help cities like us to to then go go forward on some of the next steps and and and getting us towards that uh that goal that we have of Energy Efficiency and use of renewable resources so that's all I have very good Dave um more of a can I make more of a comment sure you can comments questions whatever well it's all in the news of course the presidential elections and the housing shortage that we have different solutions that are out there and as a you know local citizens like ourselves that I I'm thinking and I'm coming from the Builder's perspective of it I see that we have two issues um one city of Brainard I don't know how you can do anything about and that would be a worker shortage you can throw all the money you want at it but I can't build any more houses because I have no help and that is throughout this country right now so that one I don't know that's probably the biggest one that's got to get solved that we can the second one as you probably are starting to realize is is government involvement really does make a difference in the Housing Industry of how we design things and and that's my perspective and that that's totally just my perspective um that I think we have to be cautious when we're doing designs things yes we want a nice community no doubt about that but I know of contractors many contractors will not work in the city of r or Baxter because of the rules that are in place I do um it it's not an issue it is it is little more constricted than we can build something outside of the city limits less expensive so my point is just be cautious of what we do as far as designs and if we want affordable housing we're going to probably have to open up a little bit I would say in some of these areas and I realize that's just my comment I appreciate your point of view thanks well I've got nothing so I think uh we're looking for a motion to adjourn so moved second all right all in favor say I I look at the comment yeah exactly should be