One. Alright. We'll call to order the special meeting of, the Dilworth Planning Commission. Like to welcome our guests here tonight. A little little bit late, but welcome you nonetheless. At this time, we'll, do a roll call starting with you, Cassandra. Cassie Baird here. Mark Sloan here. Ryan Weinserl here. Astrid here. Raider here. Olsen here. Thank you. Item three in our, agenda is the approval of the agenda. So moved. Second. Motion by Chad. Second by Ryan. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of approval of the agenda,
signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Next, we'll move on to item four, the public hearing. We have a request for rear yard setback variance on a proposed residential structure at 1609 Fifth Avenue Northeast, Block 3, Lot 46, Keystone First Edition, parcel ID 52.45 Dot 0870. The applicant is Optima Development. Property owner is Keystone Investments. Welcome, Bruce. Thank you, mister chair and members of the planning commission.
So before you this evening, we have an application for a rear yard setback. And I think the best way for me to describe this I went through it pretty clearly within the staff report itself, but we have the subject property here located on in Keystone First Edition. I believe this is Lot 46 here. As you can tell, it's a funky shaped lot there at that location. And, really, the reason for the applicant coming before you today is because of the challenges they
are facing in trying to situate a structure on said lot. And you can also tell by this image as well that the, neighboring property to the south also serve an odd shaped lot itself, but there that home is situated rather close to the side property line, which in a R 2 zoning district, which we are in, it only requires a five yard side setback variance, and then the rear yard and front yard are both 25 feet.
So I know this might be a little challenging to see, and I can get zoomed in on things if necessary. But this is, showing a schematic of what the developers would like to do. Again, meeting this 25 yard, front yard setback, and this is reflecting centering the home on the lot itself. Give me just one second. Let me see if I can zoom in for us here. Just real quick, Peyton. You mean 25 feet. Correct? Yeah. Thank you. That's correct. Yes. So you can see right here
a typical 25 foot setback from the rear property line, which is what you see right here, would be what this line is reflecting. And while it might not seem like much, this is showing that it is encroaching into the rear yard. And to give a little perspective as far as how close from the neighboring lot over here, which is currently just received a building permit application, We're looking at approximately 42 feet and some change from this designated point here
at the variance location or request, to this back building line of the neighboring property. So, if this were to be approved, as you see right here, this would equate to that 11 and a half foot setback variance because you gotta be 25 feet off. They're showing about 13 and a half feet plus or minus in there. So it'd be about 11 and a half foot rear yard variance. There was also some other perspectives that were brought, like if you were to shift over the lot.
One second. Yeah. So this is reflecting moving it over a few more feet. And so now we're looking at, this structure being about 17 and a half feet from the rear property line at its closest point. And you can see every foot that it goes the another direction, it's obviously extending further away from that 25 foot, or from the rear lot line. And then at this closest point, we're looking at 48 feet. And there's also a possibility I don't know.
I don't think we have this one on here, but you can see this setback side setback variance that we have over here, shown at 13 feet, we'll say, 13 feet off the side property line if we're thinking back to the narrowness of or how close in proximity to the neighboring to this property to the south that this home would be located. And so, you know, theoretically, they could continue to move over this home another eight feet, we'll say, to reach that five foot setback requirement.
The problem is when you do that, there there'll still be a slight variance probably about what you see right here in this little triangle. So it it would be close to hitting that mark, hitting the 25 foot requirement. But at that point, we're really pushing the homes up next to one another. Now albeit, it would be meeting the setback requirements on the side yards, but it would be rather close. And so in conform trying to stay in conformity with the area, that is why the developer is making this request to center the home on the
lot itself. And the applicant is here this evening, and, he'll be able to provide more information as far as, like, the footprint size that we're looking at, which isn't that large of a footprint. Altogether, it's not, you know, it's not like they're building a 5,000 square foot home and just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You're trying to fit a rectangle peg into a I don't know what you would call that shape right there. But, that's the basic facts of the case. Kinda went over what, the specifics are regarding the setbacks themselves. But, again, yeah,
the the issue at hand is just the awkwardness of the lot itself and trying to get the footprint of the home that they would like to see there on that specific property. So but before the planning commission or BOA, whatever you wanna call yourself this evening, the request is taking a look at this and considering a rear setback variance at a minimum of 11 and a half feet and potentially decreasing that setback variance,
we'll say, you know, to an the further you push it to the south, whatever the comfort level is of the planning commission, would be what they would have to go with from a building permit perspective. So that number can vary all across the board. So that's why I didn't put a specific number in there. So I guess for simplistic terms, an 11 and a half foot rear setback variance would be, again, for lack of a better term, the worst case scenario. The preferred alternative, obviously, but that would be the the greatest setback variance that you would be considering this
evening. That concludes the staff report. Thank you, Peyton. Having gone through the staff presentation at this time, we'd entertain, the applicant, for your presentation. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and spelling your last name. Alex Lavoy. Excuse me. L a v o y, Optima Development. And, applying for myself and Keystone Investments, the developer of the lots. So, yeah. So thank you guys for having us tonight. So working with the client, one of the things that they wanted to try to push for on these lots, seeing the success in the development was for a slab on grade style home tailoring
towards elders, if you will, and or anybody who is interested in single style living. So one of the challenges we faced with these two lots was trying to find the ideal sized home to fit within those confines to which the biggest home we could build was 33 feet deep, I believe, and 50 feet wide and still make it kinda work out with, like, a two bedroom, two bathroom style home, all one level with a attached garage. So a 1,100 square foot slab on grade home is just not necessarily feasible,
and the bedroom sizes got quite small, to where this was an ideal design that worked for one of the two lots in particular and the second lot, therefore, having to request for a variance. Jamming it tight to the south property line, like Peyton mentioned, you encroach ever so slightly in that, let's call it, northwest corner. But just to try to keep the conformity of the neighboring homes and how they're all laid out on the lot, centering it would look nicer for the development.
And I'd hate to, you know, jam a house right up tight next to the south neighboring property to the south because they also are quite tight to that property line. So, and then if as you see to the north, the the neighboring house on the opposite side of the street, we're dealing with their backyard per se. So we would wind up in that case with let's call it I think it's a 90 foot wide lot. We would wind up with 55. We'd wind up with about 45 feet, 35 feet side yard plus whatever you see in their backyard,
which just makes for kind of a odd green space to the side of the home, in comparison to centering it having similar side yards. So, the push was to try to build two, of the same style homes back to back for cost, measures. You know, you can get a better buy when you do two of the same. Mixing up the the finishes of the facade and interior finishes to add some character, if you will, but also keep costs down and get, two more lots built out in this development.
So that is the basis of it. You know, looking at these other style homes, keeping the 25 foot setback, they're all much deeper than 55 or 50 feet. They wind up being narrower when you do that, and you can stack on top of it, but then you don't get your slab on grade style build. So most of the homes that you see out there that are the slab on grade style will wind up being wider in nature, unless you are able to go deeper, which in this case, we are not. So questions, comments, or concerns? So this is your Victor,
you're the one you're looking at right here. This Correct. Yep. One you're Yep. Like Peyton mentioned, the one on the it'd be 407, I believe. Mhmm. That one jives with all of the setback items. So that one was going to be issued for permit. So, yeah, it's just the one in question that we're looking at right there at sixteen o nine fifth Thanks for your question, Bruce. We'll, Alex, if you don't have anything else No. We'll close that applicant presentation and then move on into any anyone in favor of
the application. We'll get to discussion in just a little bit. Wonderful. Mr. Chair? Yes. Interestingly enough, I live at 1608, which is across the street from this property. I I got a letter from Peyton to come here tonight, which, anyway, we live right across the street. And when we were shopping for a lot, we were looked at this particular lot itself, and we were had the same issue they were having is we couldn't fit a house on it. So we went across the street, which was the lot price was quite a bit more, but it was a much more normally shaped lot. So we're able to fit our home on it.
So I understand what they're what they're trying to get at. I my I we talked about it with my wife and I because we we like his idea that they keep it centered on a lot so that we don't have these homes so close together. It's it's be just our our our position on that. But, and if we have any questions, David is in the audience today. He is the neighbor that lives at 1611, which is directly next door to the property. So well, thank you very much, for that, Mark. Do you have anything that you'd like to share in favor in opposition of the Okay. I'm good. So you're good with this particular
per Okay. That's Alright. So we don't have anybody he wants to mow my lawn. Put that in the contract. Alright. We'll we'll have plenty of time for discussion, Bruce. So So no one else in favor of the application? Hearing none, anybody want to speak in opposition to the application? Alright. So at this time, we'll close the public hearing. And now, Bruce, we'll kind of get into the Well, I think the meat of the discussion. Answered pretty much. It wasn't anything too deep. Just see the neighbor okay with that. That's a good thing. And, there's much you can do with that. So I don't have any further
questions. If this was not slab on grade, this was a two story, would it fit better? Because slab slab on grade, like you said, normally wider. You know, you're not going up at all with any square footage. You can stack, but typically then you have to put your main style living behind the garage. So then at that, you're still you're still encroaching into the rear of setbacks. You're still building a 50 something foot deep yacht. Yeah. 50 something foot deep house to where you'd have to jam it to the South Property Line, and you'd be at the same point. So And the North Property Line is 68 feet,
something like that? Total in total. In total. So 11, I think, was the total available space on the North Side. So, Peyton, I guess I had the question one of the questions that I have is when we were when this was being platted, was this flagged as a potential to be an an issue a lot? No? With a 68 foot long, it wasn't plotted to be an issue? Because you have to have twenty five and twenty five. That only leaves 18 feet on that side. And I know it's angled, but at that angle Now in Grand,
we don't go through maybe we should go more through the 120 watts and try to do they're trying to predetermine what type of home structure people are gonna put on there. We can't predict either. And and that's part of what the planning commission is tasked with. So you see the home itself, you know, and how it's designed currently. I guess, theoretically, nothing would prohibit them from recalibrating the size of the structure to make it fit within the setback requirements. So that's really why we're here this evening.
And so that we have a lot of odd lights in town that people have to deal with on a daily basis, and it was determined this would be the best route to go given the existing character of the neighborhood, style of home, footprint of the home, and the like. And, clearly, by Mark's letter, I mean, proper notice have been provided. Did the staff receive any feedback? No. Who owns the lot on the left hand side of this image? I guess, it should be to the west.
The the one that we'll be building on? West of the one you'll be building on. The I think they're building both of them. They're building both. There's a house on that one. That that's what I was wondering. That's I mean, trying to figure out if it's vacant, if it's occupied. This what? That one. Does the does the owner of Lot 2 They're building there of the potential That that's my point. Right? Does We'd be building them at, like, consecutively. Yes. Yep. K. And then and they'd be 42 feet apart to this. Is that so At that plan not this plan, the the other plan pardon me while I look.
42.5, yes. Yes. And I think we actually I think my drafter put the front yard setback at twenty five two, which I believe he was accounting for stone. But to my understanding, facade doesn't count for your front yard setback. So we actually gained a couple extra inches there too. So it's closer to 43 feet, back to back. Are they both solid and gray? They're both solid and gray. Same style, same layout, different, exterior features,
different interior features. Understandably, we have to move through the three part test. So who plots that land? The owner the Keystone would have done that and then submitted it to the planning commission and this this body would have approved it as is currently stricken. Okay. I mean, by that comment, Brian, I mean, I don't know how we get past a and b. Well, I I was looking through the the variance, those three reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential characters. Is that where you're going to lock? Well, the property cannot be put to reasonable use if used on the conditions and law
by the ordinance. That's why I asked this flat on grade if they can build a different structure. Correct. The uniqueness to me as this reads has to do with natural features more than just we decided to plat put a lot at this line. There's nothing unique about that other than what was done manually to it. So I'm having trouble getting past the uniqueness part of this as well. Right. I mean, I have less problem with the second one because we're talking about an inch or a foot. Sorry. We're talking about a foot difference between having the setbacks are to have at least
25 feet between 25 foot backyards for both houses so you have 50 feet between Mhmm. The two. And we're looking at 48 and and a half. So I have less problem with the second one. The first one at 42 seems like it would be out of place more compared to the rest of the neighborhood, but I don't know how that offsets having the house go further south if that makes it look more out of place. So I don't I'm struggling with which one would be better. Especially considering this house to the south is tight against that property line already. Tight against it.
Yeah. If I may, Would you please come up, What's up? Would you please come up to the mic? So by shifting so we we submitted kind of two plans. We submitted the ideal option and then say a compromise because I don't want to be any closer to him as he wants to be closer to me, nor does the neighborhood want to see that, I would imagine. But twenty one foot nine was the side yard setback, so we kinda went five yard to twenty one nine, split the difference. That put it at the second option that you see right around that 13 foot,
which if he is five yard five feet, do you know how far you are from the property line? Five, six feet, give or take? I don't know. There was some stakes out there when I moved in. Yeah. I would imagine just by looking at it, and when I kinda pull it up on, like, onyx or those types of features, it's five foot. If there's one foot overhang on the eaves, typically, it'd be six. So let's call it six feet to the side yard plus your 13 and change. That puts it around 19 and a half feet, something along those lines, between the two homes side to side.
So 19 and a half versus 27 between the two homes side to side. So They're gonna be all parts too. They'll depending who buys the property, I guess, is the The plan. But that's what that's what they're marketed towards is individuals that want single style single home or level living, I should say. So we would be comfortable with the compromised option as well. Ultimately, ideally, we would center on the lots. But And that gets us to 487 between the corner of the block? 487, yep.
Like I mentioned, if we squished them out towards the face, not accounting for the brick facade, and the foundation wall was set to the setbacks, we'd be closer we'd be right about 49 feet. So at this option right here, we'd call this, like, a seven and a half foot rear yard setback variance. Right. And, again, that's at the closest point. Every millimeter you move, you get away from it as well. Alright. I think to further your point, though, I mean, if we're looking at this I mean, regardless of whether it's an inch or 10 feet, we're still granting a variance,
and we still have to meet the standards. So then we can debate what's reasonable because that's that's the fun part. And we've already had, mister Sloan talk about how he turned away from that lot because he couldn't build the house he want. We also had, Optima tell us that the new design for houses is and the demand for houses is slab on grade. This is what the market's driving. Is it reasonable for us to sit here and debate over how many feet? Five? It's gonna be gonna be Five to eight? Eight feet. Eight feet. Four or six. Eight feet. If we were to build a single or a double a two story house,
right, a stack at what would the cost difference be between that slab on grade? And is it is that reasonable or am I am I has nothing to do with your consideration. Well, I'm trying to figure out what reasonable use is. I mean And that but that's that's one of the prongs. Right. If if it's not if it fails to meet one, it fails to meet them all. Mhmm. And I don't know. It's just saying, I've always taken it at least, if you're having to meet all the setback requirements, it wouldn't be a reasonable build at that time. It's there's some subjectivity to it. That's how I've always taken it
Right. Which I don't think is unreasonable to consider for for whatever that means. I don't know what it means, but Well, then I get I suppose that on that, it's Mhmm. You know, we we have a neighbor right here who, if we go to split the difference, it's six feet closer to his house. The new owner of the lot to the west is already aware that they're gonna lose that eight feet of difference. There is a to me, that's more of the reasonable question. It's like, yeah. You can do it on this lot, but is it is it putting an unreasonable
pressure to someone else as well at the same time? It's a tricky one. It really is. And that's what my question about the lot to the west. Mhmm. Currently, is there a house there or not? No. He's building. So yeah. So then so then they would know that coming in. They so it's not being imposed on on that lot to the west. Person coming in would be able to see that and purchase it based on what's existing. That's a good point. Right. And then because, again, just that point of clarification. Yep. It it would definitely be that variance would be there for the person who purchased
that lot, but they would be able to see it as they walk through the house. I'm not struggling with reasonableness. I can get past the uniqueness part if it's if we include the fact that the uniqueness is the shape of the lot. And that to me is vague here. It probably shouldn't be to but it's still in a common sense scenario where we wanna make something work. I can probably get past that. I would feel more comfortable with the secondary rather than the first, but that's where I'm sitting right now. Could you go back to this,
the aerial photo, please? That one. So the one thought I have about that as we move that house farther to the Southeast, it would be, is I think he mentioned earlier about it ends with this big gap between that house that he's gonna build and the one that sits on the corner lot. Mhmm. It kind of you know, that's where how it was planted. And that's where we're talking about the, item almost c, which is, is a character of the of the neighborhood where you end up with this big gap, and then you've got two houses basically 11 feet apart. So that's I don't know.
That's why I was kind of thinking it's centered, kind of makes it maybe not look so on the Fifth Avenue side. It definitely does help the case in that this is a rear yard for these individuals right here. It's not as it's not like another five yard setback on this side as well. It it's gonna look weird regardless unless that corner lot puts up a fence. Then then you'll really see the Yeah. The border, if you will. I know Mark drives past the every day. I drove past it on over the weekend. It it's short. That is a very short order.
Mhmm. It's gonna be tough to fit a lot of things onto that spot. Are you centering the second house? Yep. That one fits basically just perfect within the the setback requirements. So it's, that was essentially the biggest home we could build on that lot, trying to maximize the footprint in a sense. And similar to what what you guys are up against, just what's reasonable, what's not. I don't know if I I have some, renderings of what the place is gonna look like too, if that interests anybody. Not that it matters for the variance portion,
but everybody likes to see the pretty picture. I mean, how I think about it, I know it's gonna look weird kind of on that one side, but I think that second option seems functionality wise, if someone were to move into it, I would see that side being more pleasing in terms of owning that home, right, if that makes sense. Because you'll have more space in the backyard if you wanna do a patio. The side space, you'll have more as well if you wanna do extra yard something or another, like a garden or something.
You're gonna have less shade over there possibly. Things that that's just what I'm thinking. The windows will be offset from the backyard. You won't be so close. That's a really good point about the backyard usable space. That's just how I think. I spend a lot of time in my yard. So And, I guess, speaking for the developer, the goal is to be able to construct on these two lots. So, obviously, we wanna make sure that we appease the city and make sure that we're not being too tight to the neighbors, and so that's kinda the reason for being here. So the goal is to be able to,
I got locates called in and, those are ready to scrape tomorrow if we get the green light, basically. So Does anyone know what the setbacks are in, like, South Fargo and the new developments? So I'm trying to think there would be a ton of 25 is I mean Standard? 25 is pretty standard. Building code, you have to be no more no less than 10 feet. You have to start fire rating your sidewalls. So, generally, you don't put your houses closer than 10 feet. So in our other zoning dis in our R 1 zoning district, we're generally at eight feet, I believe. So five feet's a little more narrow.
Mhmm. Of course, in the R 2 Zoning district, it is supportive of twin home style and everything. But we also have smaller lots or goofy shaped lots. Yeah. And just remind me again, Alex, what was the if we want the worst option your worst option here, five feet off the side over here, What is the how much of a setback was this gonna be still gonna be I could pull it up. Yeah. I can't I purposely didn't print that one. That one, four feet and change. Okay.
So I was thinking somewhere around there. That'd be jammed tight. Six feet from the property line so we don't have any overhangs. Yep. Yep. Otherwise, you gotta get into potentially raiding your eaves and stuff, which isn't fun. Yep. So this gray area you see would be practically probably cut in half, we'll say. And then the between homes, just so everybody knows. Oh, I didn't get that one drafted up. That would be about 52 feet. Give or take, yes. Well, thank you, Alex. We're ready to call a question. Guess I would entertain a motion.
Two options. And so if you're considering the, call it, option two, the shifted one in there. That would be For the suggested action, the blank would be filled in with what we would allow it to be or what we're changing it from? It would be so, like, in this case, 17 we'll call it 17 and a half feet. I would call that a seven and a half foot rear yard setback variance. That's how I was trained to do it. I don't know if that's correct. Changing it from the 25 To 17 and a half.
Not that we're making it 17 and a half, it's that we're changing it down seven and a half feet. That's correct. Okay. What is it? Eight and a half. It's eight and a half on there, but 17.7. Yes. That's 8.5 is the other measurement. No, I think it's 17.7 that he's existing. So it's twenty five minuteus 17.5. Yes. That's what you said. There you are. Can't do that in my head. Sorry. Do we need discussion to have what that number should be, or are we just gonna go with one of these two numbers and go about it? We should probably get it right. To get that. Yes. I mean, are we leaning towards one or the other?
Are we leaning towards even more of a compromise in between? Because we can make this any number we want, or we can not do anything at all. Mister chair, if we did the if we followed this one, is this option two? The the seven and a half foot variance is option two. What is the the setback from the side yard on this one? So we can get the total distance between the new construction and the existing construction. The one that was about '19 and a half feet, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. If we assume that there's six feet from the Southeast. So that's a that's 20 feet in between the two homes, the one that's existing and the one that's built.
I guess. Okay. But then that if we do option one, then that distance becomes 27 feet. Correct. But then we then then you then you Backyard gets smaller. Then you're only six feet That's of the backyard. So so if we're looking towards having the variance, where do you want the where do you want the green space? On the side or in the back? And that binds so that then that, to me, invokes a little bit more of the essential character, which is c. You know, you you had in the spirit of the reasonableness, you have the Western homeowner understanding that they're not gonna get the 50 feet,
that they're gonna get the 42 feet. You have a centered home, which is the preferred option, and it sounds like not just for Optima and Keystone, but also for the Existing neighborhood. For the neighborhood. And then we also grant the Southeast neighbor, you know, an additional nine or excuse me, an additional eight feet. So seven and a half feet of distance between that home. And I don't know if it's a shared you know, if if that's is your garage on that Northwest side? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He doesn't there's not even any windows on that side.
So so Oh, there's a window, but it's Oh. It's long. It's as big as it's never been looked it's never been looked through. Right. And that's about the same distance at 20 feet or so between his house and the new one that's going up just to its southeast. So And so, I mean, if I was a purist for this, I I don't think that it's seven and a half up period seems to be more in line with this, but the essential character is weighing a little bit more in my view,
to the 11 and a half foot, which is the, I believe, the preferred or ideal option as it's noted in the packet. Right. I mean, regardless, it should be built. Right. Right. Sure hope so. Here's a question. Do variances set forth in this meeting apply to future items such as patios that the owner may entertain? Or if they're going to stick with the home? You can answer that, Becky. Yeah. So, actually, yes. For a patio, now if it were a slab, a cement slab or something like that, we don't consider that as part of the lot coverage.
So that can be right up to your property line if you want. But if it's a wooden deck or composite or whatever, yes. That does account. That does have to meet setbacks and so forth too. Even with a variance in place to encroach beyond A deck would seem kinda unlikely on a slab on a grate. Right. I just said yes. It would be a patio, pavers, or or concrete slab. So so that would be okay. Yep. Yeah. I mean, I said so in the spirit of of taking a strong pull, I think I'd be more in favor of the 11 and a half. But And I'm more in favor of the seven and a half.
So oh, wait. Which one? The 11 foot variance? Yeah. Now I'm getting confused. Are we this is opt this is option one. Right? Option option one or option two. Can you show us option two? About to have some fun of this. So this one, except for that. This one would be the second. Right. One or two? Right. One or I'm trying to set it up here. Right. I would say the preferred is option one because that's what you brought here to us. I mean, that's what I would go with personally. So but we need to move along here. I was, totally in favor of that one until she talked about the backyard.
I said, oh, that makes a may maybe makes a difference. I don't know. That's why I'm now leaving towards the seven and a half. But So if we did it if we made it nine feet, that'd be fine? Let's put it right in between. Put the difference. You'd be fine with that? Yeah. I see. And that makes them happy and us happy. I'm I'm gonna make a motion to approve a nine foot Love it. Rear yard setback variance. Do I need to read the whole thing? On a proposed residential structure at 1609 Fifth Avenue Northeast Block 3, Lot 46 Keystone First Edition.
This property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the ordinance given the small lot size. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner, specifically a lot configuration not being symmetrical. And the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as this home will match the current principal structure front yard setbacks. This variance is contingent upon the structure meeting all other building and zoning requirements. Failure to exercise this variance within one calendar year will result in this application being
null and void. Thank you, Ryan. We have that motion on the table. Is there a second? Second. Second by Cassie. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion for a nine foot rear yard setback variance, can I stop it at that? Please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. We'll see that bulldozer moving tonight, right? Okay. Yeah. I can use that window. I can pick a number. That's it. Let's go. Hey.
Peyton, what what do you prefer as far as, like, writing on this? Can I would you like me to write all of this onto the paper? You don't have to write a thing. Oh. Okay. It's spoken into the record. Yes. They have a template. Yeah. Well, you know what? I just wanna be Alright. We need to write out the whole movie. Yeah. We needed a year of your penmanship with with your signature, thumbprint, and blood. Alright. Looks like we're, adjourned at 06:19. So thank you.