Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

This planning commission meeting will come to order. We will first call the role. Mr. Greedy here. Miss Lazeris here. Mr. Waters here. Miss Heim Street here. Miss Silva here. Dr. Mason here. And Mr. Homeman previously informed staff that he would be unavailable for this evening's meeting.

All right. Next on the agenda is correction approval of minutes from our last meeting on August 26th. Um are there any objections to the minutes as written and shared? Any objections? No objections. If there's no objections, corrections, or edits the minutes from August 26, then I'll declare them approved. Okay, we'll move on. Next on the agenda number four, um questions and public comment. Um, individuals have uh who have registered to speak are invited to address the planning commission at this time. So, please state your name and address when you are called uh uh or when you come up to the mic uh to make your comments. Um, no action will be taken for items not listed on the agenda and each speaker is limited to three minutes. Uh, please note that if your comments pertain to the public hearings and there's multiple of them later on, do you want me to pause? Can you hear? [laughter]

Um if then then then wait until those public comments happen later on. Okay. Um that said, specifically for item number nine, the recommendation for reszoning the property on East Tyranina Park from single to multifamily. If you would like to speak on that particular item, then now would be the time um to speak. um unless you're making a presentation. Um so any public comment now is the time. [snorts] Misty, is there anyone that came in?

Nobody registered online. There is no seen no public comment. We'll move on to the next agenda item. That okay. Um, so now we're on to item number five. Um, a public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request from Andrew Meyer and Melody Fisher Meyer for the purpose of um, filling and grading within 30 ft 300

300 ft off the shoreline of the property located on 353 South Ferry Drive in Lake Mills. So Drake, I'm gonna I'm gonna have you lead us off on all the items tonight and then you can delegate as you feel. Sound good? Sure. I'm going to let uh Attorney Dresser walk us through this one. All right.

Good evening, Plan Commission. Um this is a conditional use permit for uh grading within 300 feet of the ordinary high watermark. Uh that activity does require a grading permit or a conditional use permit under our local ordinance. Um I I think this is for uh a um garage that is going to be set um off from the principal residence, the primary structure on the property. Uh the petitioner is going through a variance process to get approvals um for the placement of that garage. Um, and this was the most convenient plan commission meeting to address the conditional use permit on. So, it's a little bit of a we've we've approved a number of these. They've gone through the appropriate process to uh receive the conditional use permit. Um, it really is a question of whether whether or not they receive the building permit for the placement of the garage and whether or not they ultimately need the conditional use permit if they go through with construction. So, I think there's um a question there. Otherwise, the the petition is the application is put together appropriately. Uh the request is within ordinance. Um and and staff's recommendation to approve the conditional use permit.

Okay. Thanks. I believe the the plans and everything was attached to the ag the plan commission agenda. So, if you have any questions, if you had chance to review, um I'm certainly available to uh you know, do what I can there.

Thank you, Mr. Treasure. Um, what we'll do now is open it up to public comment on the conditional use permit uh request. So, if you uh can please, if you have any comments, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Anyone would like to speak on behalf of this item right now. Okay, seeing none, um we'll close the public comment at 7:05. Um would the applicant be interested to make a comment now either? No, not not necessary if needed. Okay, great. Um so we are now on item six of our agenda where our commission can either enter discussion, ask questions of staff, discuss concerns, suggest changes. Um any thoughts planning commission on this particular conditional use permit? I had a chance to look at the site today and um my only question is is is that the the existing garage is that being torn down?

I I believe that's correct. Yes. What was the answer? Yes, it's being torn down. It is being torn down. Okay. It's not being added at on two. Thank you. Any other questions, thoughts? Not seeing anything. Okay. Uh I'll make a motion to approve city council resolution pertaining to 353 South Ferry Drive. I'll second that.

All right. It's been moved by Mr. Waters and to approve the resolution as written. Seconded by Miss Silva Street. Annie Street. Oh, Miss Him Street. Was that Miss Him Street? I'm sorry about that. Okay. Miss Heim Street. Um, any other questions, debate? No. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Miss Lazeris. Hi. Mr. Grady. Hi. Mr. Waters. I Miss Heim Street. I. Miss Silva. I. Dr. Mason. I. Motion passes 6.

Okay. Um, we are now on to number seven. Um, a public hearing regarding the resolution 251, an amendment to allocate funds annually from TID 3 to TID 8. Um, I suppose if I can kick that off to Drake. Is that all right? Sure. I'm going to pass it off to Mr. Lewis um uh from Eden Hunt to kind of walk us through um this project plan amendment uh proposal. Good evening, members of the plan commission. Uh, [clears throat] I'll be pitching for Dustin tonight. What we have What was your name one more time?

Mike Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Uh so tonight and if I may share my screen is the proposal to amend uh TID number three to do an allocation amendment which would provide funds from TID number three to TID number eight. Uh perfect. [clears throat] So uh just a little background of what's been done to date. the uh we per state statutes letters to tax and jurisdictions have been sent out. Uh and the first joint review board meeting was held on October 22nd. At that meeting it was a non-action item. It was just a presentation to familiarize themselves with the amendment to the project plan. Um ask questions. Uh and then there will be a second meeting should uh this this group and uh council approve it. So the amendment itself is and I'll kind of orient everybody here. Uh TID 3 is in red and is uh an older TID. It was first created in 2006 as a blight elimination TID. Uh and then TID 8 is newer, created in 2020. That's the one in blue. It uh contains the historic downtown. So, an allocation amendment with the department of revenue for this TID would allocate uh funds annually. Currently, that uh amount is $110,000 annually for the remaining life of TID 3. And those funds would go to help uh offset project costs and others at TID 8. Uh so, TID [clears throat] 3 is set to meet its financial commitments in 2026. That's when the last debt obligations

will be fulfilled. Um after that it's generating surplus and it's this proposal to take some of that surplus and uh give it to TID 8. So uh Dustin and Sam Bell the director of finance put together a proforma to uh look at that impact to TID 3. Uh with this amendment there is no change to the TID 3 borders, no change to the boundary or uh its projects similar no changes to the boundaries of TID 8. Uh it's simply just a allocation of monies from one TID to the other. Uh so just a note the $110,000 while recommended by staff uh can change. That is up to uh you all and eventually the city council. Statutoily, the amount only needs to be recorded with the council's approving resolution. Um, so if uh you chose to to change that amount, uh it could then be it would be open for discussion as well at council. So, um there is an approving resolution uh tonight. Uh should it be recommended for approval tonight, it'll go to uh city council on the 4th and following that the joint review board on uh November 20th. [clears throat] Uh so this is a proposal that I um asked um Me and Hunt to put together for us. It's essentially the TID number three is is past any type of life where it can prov can provide any type of incentive really in effectively within its boundaries. And so because of the way that the TID is set up as a you know a downtown TID a remediation a

white remediation TID that TID is allowed to accept funds um from others. And so what this allows us to do is take TID funds from a successful TIF district and put them into our downtown TID where I believe they would be most useful in addressing the city's economic development goals. Um these funds could be used for anything really within the project plan of TIDATE. It could be used to assist in redevelopment of uh the sentry site um and and other things to benefit the downtown uh that are tiff eligible expenses. Um as he stated this the revenue is currently projected to be $110,000 annually in surplus. Um, so you get to just over by the end of the life of the TID, I think it's about a million dollars um that would be deposited. Uh, before we get to city council, we'll do kind of one final look at the at the TID in its f financial setting, see if that should be adjusted at all. Um, we do anticipate the the surplus is that's currently in or the fund balance I should say that's currently in TID number three is likely enough to cover its final um debt obligation without needing any additional revenue um towards it. So there's no concerns there. um then TID 3 would be able to continue throughout its life donating to TID 8 and then eventually expire at its normal um designated time I believe in 2034. Um so that is what's this where this proposal stems from is a is an attempt to send resources to where I think they best meet um the city council's uh economic development goals.

Okay. Any other thoughts? Nope. All right. We'll now hear a public comment on this proposed resolution 251. Please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record on this particular issue. So, this is a public hearing. Public hearing. Thank you. Anyone on this particular issue? Misty, anyone online? There's nobody registered online.

Nobody registered online. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public comment at 7:14. Um, we are now on um item eight, our agenda where our commission can enter in discussion and ask questions on staff about this particular issue. Um, any thoughts on this amendment to allocate funds annually from TID 3 to TID 8 from the planning commission? Yeah,

I just found it interesting. I didn't know you could move from one to the other. Not that it's wrong or anything or object to it. It's just I wasn't aware of that. So, the allocation of funds 110,000. Who approves the fund allocation? Does the city council? Do you um ultimately city council and then the joint review board also has to sign off on it. Once the allocation is set up, then the city council can make the transfer of funds um at its at its discretion. But the to approve the ability to transfer funds, it still requires approval from the city council and then the joint review board. Thanks.

Good. All right. With that, I'll I'll make I have one question. If before you have anything, um I just I was just wondering what happens when it sits there. I'm just curious for my own if you didn't make a donation, the surplus would build up until the uh the council could choose to terminate a TID early or the surplus would build until the TID reached its natural expiration date at which point any surplus is divided up amongst all the taxing jurisdictions um and allocated out proportionally. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Would you like to make a motion if that's is there any other No, it looks like that's

okay. make a motion to move the funds from uh TID 3 to TID 8. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mason to approve the amendment as written, seconded by Miss Lazarus. Any other comments before we ask for a roll call? Do we need to state resolution 25-1 to move to approve the amendment? Uh the resolutions 25-1. Okay. as written. Is that your motion, Dr. Mesa? Yes. Very good. Can you second that? Yes. And that is the intention of my second.

Okay. No, no debate, no questions. Then I'll ask for a roll call vote. Mr. Waters. I. Miss Heim Street. I. Miss Silva I Dr. Mason I Miss Lazerus I Mr. Grady I

motion passes 6. Okay, that brings us to item number nine um on the agenda uh is a discussion and recommendation um for the zoning amendment request from Northern Management Company to change the zoning of the parcel land 20 2467140734025 located off East Tyony to Park Road from single family residential R14 to mult multifamily residential R312 um with a planned development district overlay. Um I'm going to ask Drake to again kick us off here on this matter.

Um if there's no objection, I'm happy to allow the petitioner to make their uh presentation and we can fill in any gaps following that. Any objection to that? None.

Um thank you. uh Chris Carr, 1300 West Canal uh with the Sigma Group, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Um over uh the last few months, we um went through common council for the future land use amendment, which we did receive. Um through that process and also through the last feedback that we received from this group, we have provided some modifications to the site plan. Um it was in the packet today that you have and I'll just overview a few of those changes and and what we heard from um commissioners and and some people on this board. Um you'll see in your packet we've provided a cross-section. I think that was one of the questions that was asked so that um the plan commission could really see the grade elevation and um showing how we were trying to protect the adjacent residents. So if you look closely at the cross-section, you'll see uh the burming that we have, the separation between the backyards um and then also um the heights as they vary down. So um a big goal of this project has always been to transition from the larger multifamily to the adjacent single family.

I'm sorry. Is that okay? Good. Thank you. I apologize. Yeah, thank you. [clears throat and cough] Go ahead with your

presation. Yeah, let me see. Um, Yep. Right there. So, that that's just a zoom in so you can see again we have just a single story uh on the sidebyside town homes very similar to a typical residential unit that you would see. Um, we've provided the burming. Um, we've provided the trees on top and then we've pushed the buildings back even further. Um if you go up I believe a little bit further um on the cross-section or is it down maybe maybe the next page that's a little bit zoomed out version. So the key thing here is as we tear down um and we go to the twotory buildings which is the max height here you can see that the existing grade really falls. So as you can see from again the residents were really have brought all of that down. So, that was one of the big items we wanted to show this because it's always been a um a comment that we've heard from this group and from the residents showing how we're providing that that buffering and that change from um the more dense single family, I'm sorry, the more dense multif family to the single family over there. Um we've also provided some additional details on the two-unit buildings. I think that was a question that they asked. So, um, uh, we showed a typical, uh, photo of which one of one, uh, what what our two families look like generally. Um, yeah, maybe it's up. I think those are the larger bill. Yeah, right there. Um, so it really looks, um, like a house. So, it's a singlestory building, direct entry. Um, so no stairs for um, more senior um, residents. Um and it looks really a lot like um a single family home. Um so we provided more detail. There's also a floor plan in there. [snorts] Um and then we have made a couple site plan modifications based on the feedback we heard um from residents and council. Um one of the biggest items is there is a single

family resident on the southeast corner of our parcel and our project. Um we originally had a 8-unit which was um not our larger building but the kind of the next tier up. We've taken that out and then we've switched it to a twounit. So, um the resident that's closest to our project, um they had a larger building next to them and we've swapped that out and now they have just the the singlestory um two-unit building. Um you can kind of see that down here. Um this resident who's actually pretty far back, um she's got some um a lawn here. So, this used to be a larger eight unit. What we did is

I'm sorry I can't hear whoever's speaking. If you could [laughter]

Sorry. Uh I was up at the screen. So uh yeah, right there on the southeast we swapped that for a two unit. I I think staff is asking us to rotate that and and I agree with that. Um so that was one of the changes we made. Um we did with that replace an 8-unit with a 2-unit. Um and then we provided additional screening. Um, one of the comments that we received um from uh a commissioner was we we were showing um some um some of our our garbage and dumpsters a little bit closer to the residents down there. So, we swapped all that out and pushed it up north. We've added some additional L screening around the residents um so that we provide um additional buffering from them. And then although it's a little harder to see, we did bring a sidewalk on the west side of Brewster because there was a a reason that uh we had a request to provide a pedestrian connection out to the county highway and to really kind of provide more of that neighborhood feel. There is no sidewalk right now, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future. So, um really um what we were trying to do is is address all the comments we've received to date. Um, as as this team knows, we've worked very hard with both staff and um the members here to do that and we think we've we've addressed it. Um, and we're hoping to to move forward. This is our first level. Um, and then this will allow us to move forward to to final engineering and final elevation. So, um, I'm here to answer any questions, but that's kind of the history of what we've done over the last few months and and looking hopefully for approval here to to help us keep moving forward. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Um any other thoughts from staff before? No. Uh Brian Coranza is here with Meet and Hunt. He can provide some additional insight.

Yeah. So, as you can see, there is a a resolution or a motion here for you guys. Um, on the reszone, um, we did also provide a staff memo that highlights some additional recommendations. Um, I'm going to pull that up and we can sort of talk through some of the the key points here. Um, I think the first thing to point out is just a reminder on kind of the purpose of a PDD. We ultimately um have a PDD to sort of encourage the diversification of the housing unit and the type of development um providing for more imaginative kind of development rather than restrictively looking at the uniformity of a conventional zoning district. Um with that flexibility does come some additional expectation of public benefit and oftentimes that is um accomplished through higher standards of architectural design um as well as overall aesthetics and functionality of the site. I think the other thing to remind and remember is as this body went through the um comprehensive plan process, there was some priorities set for housing development and key to that would be a mix of housing types and sizes incorporating missing middle housing specifically which is that that uh type of housing that bridges the gap. Um as petitioner has pointed out that sort of two duplex 2 family fits that mold. Um and then using sort of a variety of architectural styles to mimic the feel of that traditional neighborhood. Ultimately um the petition did um highlight some of the changes in the specific um proposal. I just wanted to point out a couple um from first from staff that are identified in the memo. Um, so the 8-unit structure that was replaced sort of um in this location here and is now a duplex uh that was relocated across the street to here. There was also an additional a sixth

duplex added to this row along this section right here. And that increased the total units from 140 to 142. the mix is about um nine duplex buildings, 12 um 8-unit buildings, and two 14-unit buildings. And so um those are the overall changes in terms of what's being proposed. The I I will absolutely contend the the fact that the petitioner has diligently worked with city staff to really highlight and focus on those priorities that we we just spoke to. Um so they've been working really um hard to make sure we meet those. Uh we do have some additional recommendations that we would like to see as part of the precise implementation plan. Um the first thing we would like to see ultimately is a reduction of of these six down to the original five in terms of the duplexes on this row. Um we don't want to see so much crowding particularly along that corner. Um and then as um the petitioner pointed out, we are recommending reorienting some of the duplex buildings ultimately to have the front of the structure or basically the the front of the house facing the street and the back of the house facing sort of the undeveloped areas or the existing residences. Um this is pretty typical of a single family residence to have sort of a backyard. And in those traditional neighborhoods, you're going to have sort of the condition of of kind of that front porch that's semi-public space. And so that's that recommendation. Um we do also recommend removal of this 8-unit um structure as part of the development. Um again for the same purpose of crowding and replacing it with another duplex. And we feel like this is um in partner with some of the other recommendations for site evaluation um to close the drive sort of to the back

of these uh two-unit buildings um to again provide sort of that backyard for the two-unit structure. These are single family houses. They do typically have sort of a backyard to to utilize as their own. So we want to make sure that we're capitalizing on that opportunity. Um and then while when we reorient the duplexes towards the street again, you sort of create that traditional neighborhood uh setup. Um so in total those recommendations bring the the total down to 1334 units. Um the mix is essentially nine duplex buildings down to 11 for the 8-unit buildings and then two 14unit buildings. So in total the the um the reduction is basically one 8-unit structure that is also partnered with some recommendations in terms of the building evaluation itself. Um um in terms or rather let me speak on on parking. We do actually um there will need to be some uh some exceptions related to this PDD for parking specifically. Staff does um support this. Ultimately, it's a reduction in the number of overall parking spaces as well as um service parking spaces rather than structured uh spaces. Um for the building evaluation itself, um as the petitioner pointed out, they did provide um examples of the duplex 8 unit and 14unit structures and those are shown in the memo um between [clears throat] pages 10 and 13. and those are shown alongside some other recent developments of similar type structures in Lake Mills and in the region. Um staff feels that these examples that are provided don't necessarily meet the threshold for the architectural quality and style that we're looking for in terms of a PDD and

also what has been done elsewhere in Lake Mills recently. So we recommend using Summer Ridge and Park Reserve as development sort of benchmarks examples to sort of match the architectural quality that has been done recently in in the in the city. Um and these developments really focus again on having masonry at the corners, horizontal and vertical variation, um and other architectural detailing to try to create that um again the traditional neighborhood feel rather than a multif family development. you're walking down the street, you feel like the large massing has been broken up by some of those detailings. Um, ultimately staff does recommend um the the plan commission recommend approval of the reszone. Um, we do have those conditions outlined in the memo. Um we are specifically looking for your feedback to make sure staff's recommendation um aligns with your your thinking on this related to the 134 unit reduction from 142. Basically removing that 8 unit structure and then also feedback on um the commentary on um the architectural style and rather the the level of quality that is expected for the development moving forward. And these are really to help the applicant um develop their precise implementation plan so when it comes ultimately um for approval it is aligned with what your thinking is. So

thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Coranza. Um so planning commission we're going to be we have this motion 25101 for this reszone. Any questions to our applicant, to our staff? Any thoughts? Questions? I just What was the final number of of duplexes? 9 11. What? Yeah. Nine duplexes. Nine. Yep.

Nine duplexes. Um ha have the neighbors been informed of what's going on? um because there was a lot of discussion last time um they were they had various opinions about what was happening. So have they been informed? What were

I think a little bit of procedural um history here is appropriate. On July 22nd in front of the plan commission there was a two hearings held with regard to the subject property. Those hearings, one were regarding a future land use amendment and then the second one was regarding uh this proposed zoning change. The future land use amendment um was heard uh hearing on that day. It proceeded to the city council. The city council vacasillated on the topic but they ultimately approved a future land use amendment to plan neighborhood. Now, planned neighborhood is can accommodate many different types of residential structures, many different activities from multifamily down to single family. Um, feedback was heard at that point in time, not during a hearing at the city council. The hearing was held here. Um, but ultimately a future land use a map amendment was approved um designating this property in the future land use map as planned neighborhood. The zoning amendment hearing was held the same date here. that was basically tabled after the hearing. The plan commission didn't take any action on the zoning amendment itself and it's kind of sat in limbo until after the planned uh neighborhood uh future land use amendment went through. And now is your time to address and focus on the feedback that you heard at hearing that night and and comment to the petitioner what you would like to see or what would convince the plan commission to recommend the proposed zoning amendment or not. That's that's where we're at. Does that kind of answer your question? We're not holding a subsequent hearing tonight. That that specific um requirement has been fulfilled.

Yeah. Well, our our concern, I think, if I didn't can speak for the group, was the transition and um that appears to be addressed finally. Yeah, we we've worked very hard on that. We've heard that throughout and um we've we've tried to show that and um we've worked with staff, we've heard you. Um so yes, it's been something that has been pushed in and I we've done a lot for it. Any other thoughts?

So as far as the photos you were showing of like the I think they were 14 is eight units and 14 units. Did you say the architecture is going to be changed? It's not gonna Yeah. Yeah. Generally, and I'll let um I don't believe we understand that um that they want some some more um interest in the architecture and we do plan to do that. I believe that will be a part of the precise implementation plan. So we do understand there's an expectation moving forward of a of a of a higherend architectural and we plan to do that in future submittals. Yes. But we we have heard that.

Yeah. The PDD overlay has kind of two process processes you can go through. There's the consolidated GDP and PIP. So general development plan and precise implementation plan. you the devel applicant is also allowed to submit for the the zoning amendment with the general development plan um and then come back for a subsequent approval for the precise implementation plan. The precise implementation plan is where you get more into the details of um of that nature. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Yes, Mr. Waters. As Mr. addresser outlined the city council approved

the plan neighborhood. Um when you look at the comprehensive plan which was developed by this planning commission plan commission and approved by city council on page 635. It defines the planned neighborhood and it goes on to comment that it maintains a balance of housing types. single, two, and multifamily within each planned neighborhood to ensure a minimum of 55 to 65% of single family residents and between 10 to 20% in two family housing and the remainder in mixed residential in a given neighborhood. As you look at this proposal, it falls way short of the 55 to 65 single family residents. It does address the two family housing because it comes in at 12.7 with the original projections. That would leave what multi- housing at around 35% which it's at 87 in this proposal. So there's a a vast difference between this proposal and what is defined as a plan neighborhood in the comp plan. I I think those were general items and when we talked to the to the planner and and Dustin's not here. So those were general ideas. That was one of the reasons why we added the additional twos. We've we've come in front of this and and have uh the the single family development um is not financially viable. Um we've looked at it many times. It's um we just can't do it and and not many people can do it. So, um when we um went with um the comp plan amendment, we did do as

much as we could, and that's one of the reasons why we added a couple of those extra um two unit buildings was to at least get the building count a little bit closer to what we want. If you can imagine, um trying to provide that transition and actually have 55% single family, the development wouldn't work. So, um we believe it's consistent. Um, I think staff believes it's consistent with um the change in the overall land use plan. Um, and and we think it's it's addressing the transition um and providing a a very strong housing development that is really needed um in the city [snorts] commission. Any other thoughts? No. Um, I mean I I just will say um at that meeting there were suggestions made. I think for the most part almost entirely like those suggestions I I believe showed up here. Um I I for one am not interested in consistently changing goal posts on people. Um so I appreciate you for meeting that. Okay, any other thoughts, questions? We're going to I mean our options are for this uh matter in front of us which I believe is 25 101 motion to reszone from single from single family to multifamily on this particular property. our options. Approving to approving the amendment as written, modifications or conditions, denying it, continuing on planning commission. If there's no further

thoughts, questions, concerns, opening it up to a motion. I'll move to approve the um resoning petition to R312 PDDD. Is that right? I think the easiest motion for you would be a motion to approve motion 25-10-1. Okay. I move to approve motion 25-10-1.

Second, Mason. Okay, it has been moved by Miss Silva to approve 20 um what would I say this? So motion 2510-1 um and seconded by Mr. Mason. Any further thoughts before we ask for a roll call vote? Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Miss Heim Street, I. Miss Silva I Dr. Mason I Miss Lazerys I Mr. Grady I Mr. Waters

no. Motion passes 51. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I look forward to working with you guys on the precise implementation plan. Appreciate. Thank you. Um next is a recommendation on future agenda items. Are there any coming up from city staff that we can anticipate in the next month?

I not none at the top of my head. I anticipate we will um I will be reaching out um to the plan commission for the December meeting to determine if we would like to reschedu from the December 23rd date to perhaps the Thursday before December 18th. uh in the event that there are petitioners looking for um action that are timely. Um so I guess keep that date in mind. Um we'll send out an email to make sure we would be able to obtain a quorum, but uh I think the I think most would prefer not to meet on December 23rd. So we will yeah, we'll see if there's a availability for an alternative date.

Thank you for that. Anything from us? No. Okay, I'll take a motion for adjournment. So move second street. All right. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. All oppose say no. All right. Meeting adjourned.