I'd like to call the uh 24th of November meeting of the Richfield Shield Planning Commission to order. The uh first thing on the agenda would be the roll call. Good evening, Commissioner checking in.
Commissioner Hoie, >> Commissioner Charlesson, >> Johnson, >> Commissioner Stersa. >> The next thing on the agenda is the open forum. This is an opportunity for residents and community members to address the planning commission generally on items not on the agenda.
People can participate in written comments or virtually. Um, planner Crosby, have we received or planner, have we received any comments? >> Chair and commissioners, no, we have not. All right, seeing no one here, we'll move on
to the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? >> Commissioner can move. >> Commissioner Charlesson seconds. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor of approving the agenda, I >> I opposed. The agenda has been approved.
The next item would be the approval of the minutes from the regular planning commission meeting of September 22nd. Need a motion to approve those. >> Commissioner Canaly moves to approve the minutes. >> Commissioner Charlesson seconds. >> All right. Moved and seconded to approve
the minutes. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Opposed. All right. I don't believe we have any presentations. Is that correct? So, the next thing would be the um would public hearing. It is a public hearing to
consider requests for an interim use permit to allow temporary and occasional parking on a vacant lot adjacent to the Lakelands Co-op. Do you have a report for us? >> Yes. Thank you, Chair. Lakeland's co-op has submitted an application for an interim use permit to utilize the vacant
and unpaved lot south of their property for approximately 122 days a year for the next 5 years, which is the maximum term afforded by the zoning code. Lot four, an adjacent but entirely separate lot from the Lake's co-op lot was acquired by the grocery store in 2016.
At that time, the co-op requested and was granted a 2-year intermuse permit to utilize the lot for occasional employee parking. The IUP was granted on the basis that the need for long-term parking in the area would be better evaluated once the
parcel to the north was developed. Development of the parcel to the north of Lakewins has proven to be slower than anticipated. Additionally, in the years since the previous IUP expired, Lakewin's customer base has grown significantly, which in turn puts continued strain on the availability of
parking. As explained in the attached uh request letter, which you can see for more information, parking is not permitted as the primary use of a parcel. In order to develop lot four into permanent parking, it would need to be formally combined
with the Lakewins lot and the planned unit development would have to be amended. An IOP would afford Lakewins more time to evaluate long-term needs in conjunction conjunction with the eventual development of the northern parcel. Building more parking when it is
truly not needed would be unfortunate and goes against the premise that property should be used for the highest and best use. staff finds the request reasonable as in 2016 only minor maintenance of the lot as opposed to paving and striping is recommended. Paving and striping could encourage
regular use of the lot by non-emp employees which is not the intent. Appropriate signs and lands landscaping as required in the res draft resolution will further prevent non-employee parking. Um the applicant is also here or a
representative for the applicant is also here if you'd like to hear from them as well. Thank you. Would uh would you like would you like to approach and if you wouldn't mind just saying your name and
where you're from. Hello, my name is Greg Dick. I'm here on behalf of Lakewin's Food Co-op. My role is general manager at the co-op and uh I want to thank you very much for your willingness to take our application for this purpose. And I also would like to
thank the city staff for the support that they've provided in guiding us through the application process. Very questions from commissioners. Um actually I'm wondering where um five years is an awful lot of time and this
is going back all you know it'll be it's been almost 10 years now. Um where did you arrive at the fiveyear figure and is it possible that there something will happen with that parcel? From what I understand, it was I mean it
was not designed. There was some expansion that was put off or something. What's what's the long-term plan with the co-op house? Thank you. Um as the lot exists now, it is essentially a parking lot. Um and the planned unit
development as I understand it considered that to be used differently. And in the 11 years Our co-op has been on premise here in Richfield. Our business has grown considerably
three times since opening. Um, and that we're finding on our busiest days to accommodate the community of Richfield and Bloomington and South Minneapolis that largely comprise our ownership that that lot makes it feasible for us to
support our business. The term of five years was, as I understood it, the longest amount of could be applied for. And so we pursued that knowing full well that as we continue in our business here that its use as a parking lot would
serve our co-op very very well. >> So are you anticipating that in five years you'd like to come again and request an extension to continue to use it for parking? >> If not before then. Any other questions for >> Commissioner Hoie? Um the you know
approximately 122 days a year I guess like where does how is that monitored? Like are you is it just like when the lot is full you find people using it approximately that often? Can you kind of guide add some guidance there? >> Definitely can.
122 days was derived through carefully calculating um our busiest days which are Tuesdays of the year um to support our senior discount day. Uh Sundays are a very busy uh day for individuals to shop to prepare for the week. Um, and
then the other days to bring the 122 to balance includes the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, as well as the scheduled community events that occur at least currently at the amphitheater
that comprises the 122. You're welcome, Commissioner Canal. Um, you mentioned the amphitheater. I I read your letter. You mentioned that it's common for members of the public to access the amphitheater in Richfield
Lake by parking lot sharing that space with your employees. Yes, thank you. Um mornings on weekdays and even on weekends we'll see a number of people amass even prior to the opening of the co-op with dogs and strollers and things of that nature. And so it is a a jumping
off point for people's recreation around the lake and amphitheater. I'm included in that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We may we may have you come back up here if there are other questions. Thank you. >> I would like to then open the public
hearing. Did you receive any uh comments beforehand? >> Chair, we did not. >> Is there anyone here to speak to that? All right. I would accept a motion to close the public hearing. >> Commissioner who motions to close public hearing.
>> Commissioner Charlesson seconds. moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> And opposed. The public hearing is closed. Um, let's We need a motion to take the staff recommended action and then we can
have discussion on that. Commissioner Kaly, I would like to move that we take the staff recommended action as outlined packet. >> Commissioner Stersa seconds. >> Thank you. All right. Any discussion?
My only question is what happens if someone wants to build on that parcel in the next five years? Does this preclude that from being developed or what would happen? >> Um, not necessarily. I mean, if it's
owned by the co-op and I mean, I don't think they have any plans to necessarily sell it, but um the an the IOP would basically be um it it expires either upon, you know, the five years ending or
the conditions of the approval not being valid anymore. So, I mean, it it no to answer your question, answer is no. >> I I think it's reasonable. That was just my one question I was concerned about. >> Yeah, >> I would echo uh commissioner's comments
that I think that this is a reasonable request um and I support it and I support it for five years. >> I just have some questions for staff, I guess. Um with you know the location of
itvious obviously landlocked public road by the other parcel. I I guess I'm not understanding why it wasn't initially part of the original parcel. Why would they just combine the parcels? Would then that create an issue
with the overall land use? Like what do we want to create a situation where we're constantly revisiting this every five years? What is the what's the benefit to that of just like finding more permanent solution for this? from the staff's perspective. >> Yeah. So, it's it's kind of a bit
complicated. Like the history of the the entire Lindel Gardens PUDS very complicated. I don't really have an answer as to why it was excluded. It's always kind of been to the side. Like if you go back through like staff reports
and resolutions and stuff, this lot four has always kind of been to the side. And depending on which documents or which staff reports you read, it it it was planned for any number of things. Like I've seen it was considered to be green space at one point, it was considered to
be perhaps developed in the future. Although you're right, it is a landlock parcel and it's it I mean it's not really developable by itself. Like it would have to be um have to be platted differently maybe like part of the other parcel given so it can have street
frontage. Um, at one point it was in some other documents it's even considered um as an actual permanent parking lot or even parking structure. So, it seems like the the I guess the plans or the vision for
this lot has kind of always been outside of the PUD and it it could really go either way. Um, which is why we're kind of on the side of um, we really don't think that if it's truly not needed that we we shouldn't have more surface
parking because that's not a good idea overall. But this PUD in general is really unique in that um there's so many different uses that in five years possibly it does make sense for there to be more surface parking because the lot
to the north hopefully by that point there there'll be some more permanent plans for it to be developed which would kind of add to to the I guess need for more parking because then there will be another use. Um so yeah it's complicated. Um, I think we're just
airing on the side of caution and truly just seeing if we can explore all options to see if can we can we actually develop this in the future, leave that open. Um, but if in the future the the additional permanent parking really is
needed, um, then that's also an option. Um, it would just there would be a lot of um there there'd be a process to go through that. we'd require a parking study showing that the additional need for parking is actually there. Like we're
not just going to grant it just because it's being requested. Um the PUD would have to be amended. The lot would have to be combined with the Lakewoods lot. So it would be a a truly like kind of permanent thing. Um so we think this is this is a good middle ground.
>> Thank you. Um, yeah. I I guess my my feelings on it, um, I would love to see it not be a surface parking lot. Obviously, that's what it's been for a while now. And it feels like every time we renew for five more years, we're kind of settling into that as this is what it is. And it kind of feels like we're
moving farther away from that. And we're also not um imploring Lake Winds to figure out what a world without that looks like. And when we maybe someday get to a place where we do have an opportunity for someone comes in and wants to purchase it, it's there's more
friction there kind of holding it in the in the steady coast of things. Um, and that's that's my main concern. I mean, I don't right now knowing the story history of of lot 4, like that seems unlikely, but also
we're kind of continuing that narrative, I guess, by by let by going with the flow, I guess. and um I'm open to be kind of persuaded either way, but that's my my broader concern outside of just this this moment and this decision.
>> I I share your concerns and I am strongly um I don't think five years with the possibility for an extension is appropriate or aligns with the direction that we're trying to go um in terms of
sustainable development and use of land space. And I mean the amount of parking spaces exceeds other large volume uh food co-ops in the twin cities by significant margins. Um so I I think it's a lot of parking and for five years
with within another opportunity to renew I don't think that that is um imparting the sense of urgency on more sustainable use of land in the city. So I would
I would actually I'd like to move to reduce it from a five-year approval to a three-year approval with administrative approval available for an additional two years um but by default to three years. So I'll move to amend the staff recommended action to reduce from five
to three years with administrative approval for two additional years. We need a second to do that. >> I'd second that. Okay. Is there any discussion on the amendment? discussion on amendment. Um the my
concern about um limiting uh the interimm use permit especially if it's renewed by administrative approval is that I guess I think we know that right now this is not an ideal time to be um we're seeing a slowdown of
redevelopment. It's um not likely that the environment is going to thaw anytime soon. And also we have a north parcel that while un I believe the ownership is different, there is this like unknown
about the north parcel right there. And I would hate for us to require something on this small little parcel that Lakewins owns that could
be better utilized once we see something come in north. Like there the proximity it's it just feels like why would we force the hand at something in a tough economy when we don't we hope for something on
that land just directly north of Lakewoods. >> Can I ask a follow question on that? Sure, sir. I'm trying to understand the kind of the the push and pull there. To me, it almost seems like if we have a shorter term on it, if they come back, request it, if something does start
activating on that north parcel, hopefully um having the um not having this parcel locked in might give us the option of Okay, we have a more timely moment to kind of maneuver all these things together
rather than well this is locked in for another three years now so there's not a chance of this happening and this is happening now and this can't be you know we can't push them to do anything different for another three years can am I misunderstating what you're saying >> I just don't like I don't perceive an interm use permit as locking anyone into
anything so perhaps that's just a different difference of opinion but there's nothing like owns this landw will continue to own this land until they decide they want to do something with it. I don't think that whether I mean quite like um I there's nothing
that by approving it for five years would likew permit to expire before we pursue it. Like I don't foresee that happening and I just I um I am just comfortable with the five years knowing what we're seeing
with redevelopment right now. I just >> I agree with you on the on the timeline of redevelopment. I'm not optimistic that those two years are going to make a huge difference, but I would love to leave the options open. So, I guess the picture I see is like if something does happen and then that two-year moment
that the difference of two years, three years comes, you're like, well, someone else wants to purchase this from you and redevelop it. We can't force you to do that, but we don't want this to be parking anymore. We want it to be a greater space that contributes to the combining unit of this space and the you know the fronters on the lake and we we
want this to be used in its intended purpose. Now I no longer want to be parking and then it would be on their hands. We at least have a little bit of say it's not a war against lake winds by any means but I just want to you know >> and I just would love to see a return to that
>> sorry overlap. I just I think until like I am I'm not a fan for overp parking anything. I'm not someone who thinks that parking lots are, you know, for the benefit of Richfield residents or that we need to start having more parking. But I do think that until we have a
better sense of what's going to go in on that north lot, having some flexibility with land in that area is to everyone's benefit. So that's why I'm more open to this and people are using the general public are using that the parking I'm
there. I mean like um so I you can see how full that I mean like it's just until we know what the north law looks like. I feel like the flexibility of this arrangement benefits a lot of people including the general public. So I'm okay with it.
>> Yeah. I would just like to say I I understand your concerns greatly and I but the reality is I don't want that to be a parking lot in 10 years. I don't think that that's in alignment with any of the work that we've been trying to do
or that the city council has been trying to do or the policy direction that we want to take as a city. So to do a blanket five years, I mean it's been since 2016 and then another and then another five years. The whole point is I mean my amendment
effectively allows for five years because it's three years with the allowance of administrative approval for an additional two. But it's not just an automatic. I want there to be thought about what else this land can be used for and not just an assumption that it
can be it'll come before us. will rubber stamp another five years and then it continues to be used as parking because I don't think that that's what I don't think that's what this community needs. So I mean so that was the the point of my amendment. They both they
still have the possibility for five years but three years guaranteed and then administrative approval for two more. So that was my attempt with this proposed amendment to strike some balance there. So, we do have the amendment before us.
It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's more discussion on the amendment, we can take a vote on that and then return to the main motion. So, the amendment before us is to change the staff recommended action from five years approval to a three-year approval with the option for administrative
approval for an additional two years. So, all those in favor of the amendment, please say I. >> I. Are we inviting further discussion or no? >> Well, we had having that. Did you Was there much? >> I've been waiting. Sorry. >> No, no, no. Go ahead. >> I want to echo Commissioner uh Stersa
that um the the amount of time it doesn't feel important to me right now. Um because they own the lot
and they can use it as they see fit at whatever time they decide. >> Well, I mean, that's that's not really true, though. Well, what I mean by whatever they see fit in this context, they can use it as a parking lot permanently if they go through that
>> process. I mean, it would have to come before because they're already over there the parking as for that. >> I want to make sure I'm understanding this right just with you that if if they were to come before us as the owner of
this lot, say we do want to use it for parking at any time, they They have the option to go through that application. >> Sure. But it would be an application >> and they only want to do that if it's absolutely necessary.
And we can allow them as much time as they want to determine if it's necessary, which is up to five years. So by allowing them that time, we're we're making it possible that it isn't
turned into park. I understand what you're >> and and I I just wanted to make sure that um we we didn't see that we were interfering. >> Well, I I mean, fundamentally, right, we don't you don't have we've had owners
who've wanted to come before and put a swimming pool in their yard, but it doesn't meet the uh the square footage requirement. So we have we have rules and so just yes they're the property owner but and they're
>> and do you I mean fundamentally is the parking lot the best use of that space long term. I trust them as the property owner to make that decision at at the time they feel they need to
and I I don't think that we need to tell them hey this is the time when we should make the decision. >> Okay. So I I suppose that would be analogous then to another a private a private homeowner who wants to create a larger driveway because they want a
bigger car. Would we trust them to decide how they want to use their driveway? >> If if it's allowed within city code, >> then then the analogy, yes, I would support it. If it's not allowed within a
city code, then I would say that's not a fairy. But isn't the entire note um Commissioner Stersa that uh I think uh you know extension of a driveway uh swimming pool those are all variances with very specific criteria. This is a
planned unit development which is just a legally just a different animal in my mind. It's a different um different standards different um things that guidance that we should be using and approving. The whole idea behind a plan unit development is that there is
flexibility. The city gets something, the developer gets something. Um so I I would um caution us not to think of this as a variance process because the standards for a variance are so much
more uh strict and guided for us than uh granting an interim use in a unit development to to like I would strongly encourage us not to use the same >> um guidelines with that.
>> That's fair. That's fair. But a plan unit development is to allow flexibility, but also it's to encourage what is the exact wording the best and highest use. Right? So it's not card blanch to a property owner to do
whatever because it's in a planned unit development. That's the whole point is that they have to come and and request things and then there's give and take. There's flexibility. I and it may just fundamentally come down to difference of opinion and that's obviously that's
perfectly fine. I just don't think that the best and highest use of that land is a permanent parking lot. And I feel like it's been since 2016. They initially asked for two years for 45 days a year. And then it's been
almost 10 years ago and now they want another five years with the potential to come back and ask for more. And I I think that we ought to set some some guard rails here or some guides to say that this is not this is not the
highest and best use. So that I mean they have I'm I'm still they have the ability to get five years. I'm just saying that it needs to be it can't just be an automatic cart blanch that they would need to go to city staff after three years and explain no we don't have
any other ability we still need the space and then if it's appropriate staff can um extend it another two years. So I mean I don't think any of us want massive extra parking um and I think
you're right with planned development we do need to strike a balance and so that's what I attempted to do with the amendment and obviously they could yeah different opinions. It's all good. >> And for a question for staff, I'm looking at the a map right now. It looks
like there's 20 spots on lot four kind of guided. I know that they're not lined or anything like that, but like how big is that lot? Like are we thinking that like you could just build a building on lot four? Are we thinking like uh like to the point that we want to see its
highest and best use? What could you do on lot four? >> Lot four is a smaller parcel. It's not even half an acre. Um, and like I mentioned earlier, it doesn't have any street frontage. So, like by itself, it's not really developable. So,
developable. So, it's really a case of it could kind of go either way to be honest. Like this this parcel doesn't seem like it was very well planned. It's not really entirely clear what it was meant for. Um, so that's why I mentioned
earlier that even though we're not in favor of more surface parking when there's already a lot, it it seems like it could be a reasonable use because of because of just the way it it is. Um, so
it yeah, I mean both it's difficult cuz we we don't want more service parking, but it does truly seem like it could be reasonable here in the future, especially with that northern parcel with the amphitheater that has um that generates a really large parking demand
during the summer and the amphitheater itself doesn't really have a designated parking area. Um, so it is it is difficult, but yes, you're right. You could put something there, but it's very small. Doesn't have frontage and
Yeah. Thank you. >> Well, no, but I mean rain gardens or green or greenery instead of parking, I think to attract bees and butterflies and all that kind of stuff that to me that's a better use than more surface parking.
One thing I'm concerned about though, if we take this other parking area away, would a logical next step be that like when just locks down their parking lot for their own people and their own, you know, I feel like there's also the the possibility that, you know, we're take
away parking lot. I I've used as a public person before to get access to the lake. And that would be the other thing I'm kind of concerned about and it's kind of alluded to in the letter here. So, I don't know. I I'm fully in in line with Commissioner Cers. I guess I I think five years is good and I wor if we take that option away, it's going
to cause more issues than harm, I guess. >> I'm not sure who I'd like to reply to that. I guess I mean the same could be true if we give them five years or not. Like they're a lot they can do what they want with it. Um one thought I had as we're having this conversation and you
know hopefully in the future when this area continues to be more developed maybe we would want to consider some for more dense parking there kind of garage or something that the city you know, partners with private land owners to fund and develop and something figure
out a shared thing because that area is dense and we want to encourage them to be there. So, um, thinking like 50 and France kind of thing a space for folks to access that area continue to be walkable. Um, but I think what it comes
down to is five years, three years with a two-year, you know, I like that it just gives a little more friction. It just forces us to think about it more often than getting into the vibe of all right five more years five more years
let's just you know you know none of us will be here in five years maybe some of us will be um and this conversation will come up again and I worry that you know it's just going to keep going on and we don't know what the world will be like
in five years or three or 10 so I I I would just like us to to force some mindfulness around this I guess kind of my motivation for the for chair's position. Okay. So, let's go back to the amendment
and we'll take a vote on the amendment and then we'll return to the main recommended staff action. So, on the amendment to change from five-year approval to a three-year approval with administrative extension possible for up to two more years. All those in favor of
that amendment, please say I. >> I opposed. >> I Nay. Okay. The amendment fails. So, back on to the main motion, which is the staff recommended
action. Is there any further discussion on that? >> Commissioner St. >> Well, it's it's already been moved and seconded. Um, so we don't need another move. My question, I just had one more question with the um for staff with this
with the five year the original staff recommended action. What is the there was a reference to administrative um approval for extension of that? I'm not finding that. Is there >> chair? Yes, it was something that the applicant had um requested in their
request letter. They were asking if there was a possibility of having of being granted the five years and then having the option for um like further administrative approvals. Um but that is not an option. >> That's not in the
>> that's not an option. No, when the five years is over, they would have to come back and do the entire thing again. Yes. >> Okay. >> So then we're on to the main motion. It's been moved and seconded to take the staff recommended action. So, all those in favor of that, unless there's any
other discussion, I'm sorry. Any other discussion? All those in favor of that, please say I. >> I. >> And opposed? No. >> All right. The next three to two carries. >> Yes. Sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, that Yeah, the motion carries for the staff
recommended action. Thank you. Um, the next uh item on the agenda then would be liaison reports. And I don't have the list right in front of me of who's who. I did and then I
um let's start with a sustainability commission. >> Um big thing was the pumpkin smash which was a big success. Um other than that that's the only thing that was in the notes. And oh um as I recall um there's a
Stephanie she sent in a her leazison report. Is that correct? Do you want to read that one then? >> Sure. Um she said that uh LMA Bonita opened on November 1st and uh oh she's the chamber of commerce by the way and
um it was a welcome addition to the Richfield hub and uh prior to them the lot was vacant for seven years and also that the coven is planning on moving into the old Richfield Medical Group. um
it in either May of or June of 2026. They have eight current locations and offer space, memberships, conference room rentals, dedicated desks, and private offices. It's a co-working uh type um business. And that was all she
had. >> All right. Um school board, no report. uh uh housing authority. >> H met in November and they heard from Ellers and Associates uh with an overview of TIFF districts and the
status of each of them in the city which was actually really interesting and like TIFF can quickly get um confusing and I thought the presentation was like very informative and easy to understand. So if you guys are or if anyone's at all curious about um TIFF in Richfield um
I'd recommend replaying that. Um they did certified the H descertified a total of three districts. Um two of them were the third one is the ME proposal that we um approved on 66 and Stevens that's not
moving forward. So um that's uh a bummer. But the first two they're they lived the life of their districts and um it's anticipated that there'll be $2 million more in addition tax capacity
next year um with the descertification. So very cool. Um and uh staff gave an update that abatement was beginning at um Penn Station on Penn Avenue and that um building should uh soon begin.
>> Um S uh Surma is absent for transportation um for um community services. Yeah, at the October meeting, the they discussed the the public works projects over at Adamsville Park, they were
dredging the pond and doing the drain. Chat about that. >> And for city council, at the most recent city council meeting, I um well, they had a work session beforehand um about good governance, but at the main city council uh meeting, I presented our uh
update of our activities from the previous year. Um in addition the uh civil service commission which is in charge of um the fire department hiring um they also presented their annual report and the city council did other routine business uh of note tomorrow. Um
they will be doing their truth and taxation hearing um about property taxes and so forth and that's that's coming up tomorrow. All right. Um city planners uh report. Thank you, chair and
commissioners. Uh just only that the site plan approval for 7424 Lindel Avenue South, which was the Lion Cannabis, the item on the last planning commission agenda back back in September, um was approved on the council's October 14th consent agenda.
And um just as of like a couple days ago, I received their building permits. So um those are under review and moving forward. Um and uh MIC has applied for formal land use approvals and will be on next month's um planning commission
agenda which is in two weeks. >> Is it appropriate to ask question? >> Yeah. Um with with the um 7424 Lindale has any there been any word about their excitement in moving forward to the project with the federal stuff with hemp
laws and all of that? there been any changes with that? >> I I I'm sorry I don't understand your question. >> Um just the there's a federal law to ban hemp right now and I'm just curious if that would impact their product lines.
>> I haven't really talked to them about that. I couldn't say. Sorry. >> Curious come up and with now they're for Yeah, now that you mentioned it, I do know what you're talking about, but yeah. haven't discussed that with anyone. >> The legislation you're talking about is
pertaining to hemp derived THC. >> Okay. >> Only Okay. >> Um cannabis itself remains federally illegal. But these these stores are opening up in legal states. >> Okay. >> Separate from the uh hemp. >> So maybe some of the products that they
would have stocked, they won't be able to, but they still possibly other variety. >> Yep. They'll still be able to use the plant. >> All right. >> Uh, I would Oh, what? Um, I would accept a motion to adjurnn unless there's other business.
>> Mr. Charlesson, motion to adjurnn. >> Is there a second? >> Mr. Hoy seconds. Right. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. Without any discussion, all those in favor, please say I. I >> opposed. Nay.
All right. The motion carries and we stand adjourned.