Good evening. Uh I'll now call our meeting to order. Our first agenda item this evening is open forum, which is a format change for us. But we want to give in the open forum an opportunity for anyone who wishes to address the commission on an item that is not on the
agenda and not on a future planning committee uh meeting agenda to to um speak to any topic relative to the mission of the planning commission. So let me ask is there anyone in the uh audience tonight that would wish to
address the planning commission as part of the open forum? No. All right, seeing no one, we'll now move on to adopting the final agenda. Uh, commissioners, uh, our next item is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a
motion to adopt the agenda? >> So moved. >> Thank you. Now second. >> Second. >> We have a second. All in favor? >> Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. Um, our next item is to review the
planning commission meeting minutes of November 18, 2025. Uh, I'm going to move approval of those minutes. Uh, but with one small change. Uh, Brian, if you could show those minutes. Um, I just want to clarify.
There was a presenter by the name of Mary Coleman and the minutes as drafted say that uh she presented comments to the planning commission relative to West Creek Village as the current grading is in violation of city ordinances and state environmental statutes. I would
like to strike the word as and substitute stating that to make clear that Miss Coleman was saying that the U activities relative to that development were in violation and not in any way
suggesting that we determined that that was the case or that we as a planning commission agreed with her in that respect. And with that change, I would move approval of the November 18th planning commission meeting minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second that. Yeah. >> Very good. We have a motion and a
second. All in favor? >> Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. Commissioners, our next item then is to um conduct a preliminary plat review and associated request for Victoria condos.
This item does include a public hearing. So after a staff presentation, I'll open the public hearing for those in the chambers that wish to speak to this item. Anyone who wishes to speak will have three minutes and then I'll kindly ask the next individual for another
three minutes and so on until everyone who wishes to speak has had the opportunity. Then I'll ask our planning commission uh for a motion to close the public hearing at which point I'll I'll um we'll we'll then as a planning commission review the requests. Let me
now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Tonight we're looking at a mixeduse development request for Victoria condos from Monarch Development and Gier Homes.
They have five requests this evening for preliminary plat shoreland variance, zoning text amendment, conditional use permits, and a site plan and building materials review. As you're aware, uh, this project previously came in back in
2022 with a 63 unit apartment building proposal. They've since modified their request, uh, with the sketch plat review this past August for 10 condominium units instead of those 63 apartments. So, we are at the preliminary plat phase
of the major subdivision process. So this is where the major entitlements are granted before moving on to the final plat where we look more closely at the final details of the development and finalize the development agreement. But tonight's uh the most important step.
So looking at the location and area it consists of three parcels totaling uh 63 acres. So, these three parcels right here, 7928, 7942, and then this sliver in between, uh, 7928
consists of the current city-owned parking lot, and 7942 consists of a private storage building. It's currently located right in the heart of our downtown. It's west of Quamlit, which is the street here, and the Victoria Flats
building. It's also east of Andy's Way and Winchester and Ry over here. It's north of Tower Boulevard, which is this road and the burrow, and then south of Stiger Lake Lane and Vixs and the Old Victoria House site. So, as I mentioned
before, they're looking at 10 condominium units on the upper levels for this proposal with two groundf flooror commercial units and a single ground floor showroom unit. So the existing conditions as I mentioned they have that single
structure here for a private garage storage. They also have the adjacent city parking lot which currently has 43 stalls within it with access points from both Ry's way and Quamlit. There are also utilities available along Quamlit
and Tower Boulevard. And then it's also within a thousand ft of Stiger Lake. So shoreland comes into play here. As I mentioned, this was reviewed back in 2022. Uh there's some renderings attached here showing the previous
proposal for the 63 unit apartment building as well as the parking deck. With that, um that parking would have accommodated the commercial users as well as the apartments and provided additional public parking. As I mentioned, they um have come back with
this revised concept which we will be reviewing this evening. So, here's how the exterior has changed. You can see they took off a few levels on the front here for those 10 condo units. The ground floor commercial remains basically the same. And then the parking
deck is no longer part of this project. So, starting from the basement and working our way up, this is the proposed underground parking for the 10 condo units. They also incorporated a single stall here for the showroom space which
is noted in the image on the right here as well as those two commercial spaces and a lobby for the condo users. Then moving up the second and third levels would consist of the two bedroomedroom condos here. So eight
units between those two floors. And then the top floor would have the last two units as well as an amenity space and a roof deck with an overhead canopy. In our comprehensive plan, this area is guided for downtown mixed use, which
allows development between 24 and 75 units per acre and envisions this type of mixeduse development. Their density for this project comes out at over or at at about 31.25 units per acre. So it's within that uh comprehensive plan
guided density. So we do not anticipate that a comprehensive plan amendment is needed for this request. It's also zone central business district which is our downtown district. We allow mixeduse buildings and various commercial uses such as showrooms with a conditional use
permit. So that's part of their request tonight. uh if they come back at final plat and say they are putting on a pool on the rooftop deck for example, that's something that could require an additional cup in the future. So we'll take a closer look at that as uh users
become known for those commercial spaces as well as what type of amenities will come with the building. And then the only bulk standard that we have in our CBD is a maximum height of 50 ft. They are proposing 49 ft. So they are compliant with that. And then just to
note for scale that's similar in size to the Victoria Flats building which is right next door. So for conditional uses as I mentioned mixed use and showroom uses are conditional as well as any commercial
use within Shoreland area. So, they have to meet our general conditions per our zoning code, such as consistency with the comp plan, health and safety, compliance with any of our other zoning code standards, adequate p public infrastructure, adequate screening and
landscaping, uh appropriate architecture, correct zoning, and that the traffic isn't going to go beyond what this area is needed for. So, none of these uses applied towards our specific conditional use permit
requirements that we have in a separate section in our code. And then, as I mentioned, we'll evaluate if they need additional cups in the future based on users and residential amenities that come in. So, for streets and pedestrian
connections, they are proposing only a single access from Quamlit. Now, so there, you may recall in one of my earlier slides, there was an additional access here. They're proposing to eliminate that. And then the two access
points on Ry's Way would remain so traffic could flow through the angled parking in on the southern entrance and then out on the northern entrance or people could come in and out on Quamlit here. And then additionally, they have the
underground parking access directly off of Ry's way going down into the basement of the building. And then just an additional note for pedestrian connections, they are proposing sidewalks around the site and leading up
towards uh the end of Quamlit there. For parking, they the site currently has 43 stalls. They are proposing a total of 81 parking stalls with the project. So that includes the 20 underground stalls.
So that gets us to our 61 publicly available stalls here. They need 17 stalls for the two commercial spaces based on their square footage and our zoning code requirement and then three stalls for the showroom use. So even
after those accommodated uses, there are still 41 public stalls available with this project. And you can see the parking spaces here in the image on the right. They're adding more parking along Quamlit. Here is one of the showroom stalls. They have another one in the basement as I
mentioned. And then the incorporation of that angled parking throughout the city parking lot. Now, with that parking, they are requesting a zoning text amendment uh to match what the city has proposed in our
zoning code update that the plane commission has reviewed. The only additional change that's worth noting is the inclusion of compact stalls uh here, which results in a halfoot reduction of the curb length here. And those stalls
would be primarily utilized for these six adjacent to the building as you can see here with the 8 foot widths. So they are proposing what uh the city is planning to update with our zoning code update anyway. But if they wanted
to get ahead of that, they needed to apply for a zoning text amendment for consideration. And then for the shoreland overlay district, as I mentioned at the beginning, it's entirely within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake Lane. So they have to meet the 150 ft ordinary high water line
setback, which they do, and an impervious maximum of 80%. But they are proposing a variance this evening to exceed that standard to go up to about 90%. So we have to look at variance criteria. As you know, there are three
requirements in state statute to approve a variance. The first one being is the request reasonable and redevelopment that's compliant with our zoning code and our comprehensive plan is a reasonable use. Is the site unique? It's
constrained to a limited area with three uh public streets surrounding it and with the necessary requirements and our zoning and municipal codes engineering standards, it's very difficult to develop this site within 80%. Um, and
then lastly for character, mixeduse buildings currently exist in our downtown with similar heights and uses. So it matches the character of the locality as well. And then with our shoreland areas, any
units or any buildings that have four or more units have to go through an RSPUD process requiring a density tier analysis. We can exempt them if they are not providing riparian access, which this project is not. If it's consistent with the density range in our comp plan,
which it is, and if they're consistent with other requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District, which if the variance is approved, they would meet all the requirements for that exemption. Looking at signage, laying, and architecture, uh they appear to be
compliant based on the submitts that we've received, and their renderings appear to meet the central business district design standards, including building variations, altered roof designs, enhanced entries, and highquality exterior materials.
For landscaping and tree preservation, they need trees in the boulevard every 35 ft adjacent to the rightway. They need foundations plantings placed where practical and the CBD is exempt from open space
and minimum planting requirements. Um so the tree preservation we're at preliminary plat here. Uh that's mistaken my presentation. My apologies. So they have all of the proposed existing landscaping on the site eliminated. Uh they have provided one
boulevard tree. We have provided them with alternative options to place other trees within our downtown area because the site is so constrained by all the requirements that it's not feasible to put boulevard trees throughout this area
to meet our minimum requirements. Or alternatively, they can provide a contribution to the city's tree fund in accordance with our fee schedule. Looking at parkland dedication, they would have to dedicate about a fifth of an acre or $21,000 for those 10 condo
units. And the commercial projects less than one acre are exempt per municipal code. Uh cash is anticipated because they aren't proposing any parks or trails with this project. Then looking at storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD's rules. We
don't anticipate any wetland impacts, but there is some storm water that needs to be considered as this site would rely on our downtown regional storm water facility. And then as part of the variance approval, the DNR has requested that any additional storm water for this
site that is captured over that 80% allowance is appropriately captured and rate controlled. So for site utilities, water is proposed to come from Quamoclitz and sewer from
Tower Boulevard. And in the uh staff comment memo that was attached to this case, you noted that there were some minor comments from engineering, but those will just have to be addressed prior to final plat. So tonight, this requires a public hearing.
We did publish it in the Wakone Patriot on November 20th and mailed to property owners within 350 ft of the development's boundaries. We also posted it online and at city hall. Uh prior to this evening, staff have not received any comments.
And then lastly, I have some suggested conditions of approval for you to consider if you decide you are leaning towards recommending approval. I'll note the two items highlighted in blue. Uh number two here that we need a staging
plan before we would consider a final plat because this is a very sensitive area right in the heart of our downtown. We want to make sure that when this development occurs that it will be staged appropriately for construction. And then secondly that any changes in
those commercial spaces so if the showroom use becomes a retail in the future we want to make sure that's going to be adequately parked as well. >> Very good. Thank you. Ryan, does the applicant wish to speak? >> Hi, my name is Marty McCarthy. Um, I'm
here on behalf of uh Monarch Development. I'm one of the developers. Um, we are partnered with uh another development company called GA. Um, and so just a little background of myself, I
um I was the lead developer on the Row project here in downtown Victoria. Um, and and Carl uh is in pursuit and you've probably met him a couple weeks ago in pursuit of the downtown west project and getting that off the ground. Um, our
partner in the project as I mentioned GA Companies has 30 years of experience um doing single family luxury apartment or single family homes. Um they have built over built and developed over a thousand units across the Twin Cities. Um and
have built projects um such as Hunterbrook here in Victoria. Um and so um Brian did a really great job summarizing all of this project. Um we are the intent here is we're going to be
building out with GA uh the 10 units of condos and we'll be building the retail space for the retail uh and then that would be transferred uh back to Rich Ganon um the owner of the property currently and then he would lease out
the retail space. Um so I think maybe Like I said, Brian did a really great job covering everything. If you guys had any specific questions, I could answer any of that. But generally, the schedule would be we're hoping to get the final plat sometime in
January and starting construction spring um of 26 with completion around summer spring summer of 27. >> Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Um, I'll now open the public hearing. Is
there anyone in the chambers who wishes to comment on this agenda item? >> Jared Boon, 820 Interlike. Um, as being a past planning commissioner, uh, I'd like to say this project is a lot better
than the one that we looked at in 2022. >> Uh, my only concern would be to make sure that the showroom uh is able to be converted at to a retail space at some point, you know,
down the road. that um is only the major concern I have with the building. Otherwise, I would agree that you know it's a good fit for our downtown. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much,
>> Chair Uh anyone else wish to speak to this? >> All right. Hearing no additional public input. Oh. Uh, did you have a or were you just >> I was just >> Okay, >> maybe just a followup for Marty from Jared. Is the Is the uh spot the
showroom convertible to retail space in the future? >> That's a great question. Brian and I had that conversation this morning. And so it would take some um some work. So we either um need to figure out how to make
it compliant. So that would be how would Rich or whoever would be be the owner of that space go out and find additional parking to contribute to the downtown parking requirements and then um or there would have to be a conditional use permit um changing this requirement in
the future. >> Is the uniqueness that it gives two additional parking spaces that we'd have to replace or what's the condition that makes it unique? >> So the chair and commissioners I can jump in here. So looking at this space
specifically, going back to the parking slide, they have one dedicated space here um that I don't believe was included in the calculation. That's why it's graded off like this. And then additionally in the parking here, we
have another dedicated space for that unit. So, we have at least two um in case um uses change in the future that could be dedicated towards that. Does that answer your question?
>> I guess does it answer the question of of if that was converted to retail space, would it then comply with the parking requirements for a retail space? >> For a retail space, it would not based on the size. Our requirement is 3.6 spaces per thousand square ft. It's
about a 1,400 square foot unit. So, we'd probably need about five or six spaces to be compliant. Now, where those come from in the future, that could be discussed. There are alternative locations within our downtown. We're also looking at other potential areas
for future parking internally. So, um, it's something that likely won't be utilized for potentially 20, 30 years, but it's something we should keep in mind, which is I why I have it built in as a condition for consideration. >> Very good. And we can carry on with that
discussion in a minute. I think it's important though that we close the public hearing. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Sure. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Very good. We have a motion. >> Second. >> Motion second. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? No. Very good. Thank
you. Motion carries. So, uh, commissioners, now we have time for discussion. We're welcome to carry on that discussion or ask any other questions of Mr. McCarthy, Carl, or >> So, yeah, just to follow follow up. So, uh, with the
total parking proposed and the total parking required, are we just at parking required versus propo proposed versus required? Um so we actually have a surplus of two
stalls I believe. Um just looking at the numbers here. So we or one stall right because we have 18 spaces more than what we currently have here. 43 existing 61 publicosed.
So that's a difference of 18 stalls. They need 17 for the retail. So that's one. But then for the showroom, it it's kind of a unique scenario here. They have the one that's grayed off here. Another one is inside the building
because we know this showroom is going to be used for vehicles. So that's their vehicle storage space. And then the third one is in the underground parking garage, which is on that previous slide that I showed. So that's their their three. So would that would it make sense
for us to um to view this as a as move it forward as if for some reason it was converted to retail that we wouldn't have to uh construct some additional parking somewhere around this a spot or two rather than have to
Does that make sense? approve it as if it was the the the change as if it was retail space so that we wouldn't have to make a problem later. >> Chair and commissioners, if if we did do that alternative, we would be looking at
that 1,400 square foot space as a 3.6 per thousand. So, we would need six stalls. This project would have to make that up. I guess what I'm saying is we'd have to approve it with that deficit
so that if it was converted, we wouldn't put a uh burden on the retail space or the development to not be able to convert to retail. You see what I'm saying? >> I I do. And last time this was before the planning commission, we asked the question whether indeed this uh showroom
was an essential part of the development. And I believe Carl was here and represented that that was a deal breakaker that Mr. Ganon was uh absolutely adamant that there the showroom remain as part of the the deal. The concern you're hearing is that we don't want dead space going forward.
>> Uh if at some future point uh this ceases to be a showroom >> uh it would be great if it could be retail or deployed to some other use uh and not be constrained by parking. And that's that's the concern that I think right and you're articulating.
>> Well, let me ask a question. If talking about the showroom, it's basically for storage and I don't know how many cars are going to be in there, but is there any plan for him to possibly sell any of those vehicles? Could it then be
considered a retail use of that space? >> That's fair question. >> I I don't think that's the intended use. I think the intended use is for um his his his cars and then he he does
um like a podcast for NFL Network or Cirrus uh one of those streaming sources. And so I think he intends to use it in that manner um and to be around for the car shows and all of that. Um, the one thing I would say
additionally is I think we'd prefer to have it go this the way it's proposed right now and and and work on it in the future because this potentially could be an a space that could be sold to be a condo like a residential condo in the
future where you only need two sp two spaces for that. So it would be ground floor space. Um, it's got nice in and out. You can pull your car in. Something different and almost like a industrial type space. So,
>> just like Sharon Blanish, add color that Rich has been in this building um designated as storage building for I think 25 years. And um, a lot of people have proposed to work with him to redevelop, but he's not wanted to until this time. So, it was definitely a
condition of approval that he's part of this project and downsizing his storage classic car space >> from 6,000 square feet that building is no windows to a much smaller space, in this case, 1400 square feet. So, it's a it comes with the territory to get this project off the ground.
>> Okay, very good. >> Commissioners, any other questions, comments? >> I had I had a couple. >> Yep. Um Ryan, in the uh letter to the applicant, the uh fire department had a concern
about the fire hydrant on Palmlit and the respondent indicated that they're moving that hydrant to Ry's way. I just was wondering if the fire department had a chance to, you know, react to that. I mean, is that satisfy
them? >> Chair and commissioners. Sorry, I'm jumping through the slides here. Um, this image doesn't have it. Um, but the plans that you're seeing in this presentation are actually a resubmitt
after that latest comment memo. We sent a new memo yesterday, but it was too late to attach it to the agenda. The fire department did not have any additional comments related to that hydrant with the middle. >> Um, Mr. McCarthy, I was wondering if you
could walk through a little bit on that ramp that goes down to the garage. Um, what kind of safety screening would or high how high is that wall um adjacent to the parking lot that would prevent
somebody from climbing over and >> um >> perfect. Um, yeah, the wall is high enough that it would require you to have a >> Would you mind please step? >> Excuse me. Sorry, commissioners. Yeah, the wall is high enough that we would
want to have we would provide a safety guard rail along the edge of that. That would be at the top of the wall to >> the top of the wall. There would be an additional an additional railing. >> Yeah, an additional railing. >> Okay. Do you happen to know what that total height? >> Uh, typically 42 inches is what's
required for a guardrail. But do we know how tall that wall is at the deepest part of the ramp? >> I think it's about 10 feet. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um and then I just back to Brian when
you know we're talking about going from or asking for uh variance on the impervious service um from 80% to 90%. And I'm just thinking in terms of the property as it exists today, we got to be close to 90% already.
>> 82. >> 82 currently. >> 82 currently. Okay. So there is a little bit of more impervious than what is already in the in there. Okay. >> What are we losing? The trees. The strip of trees. >> Correct.
>> Yep. So you can see there is a tree here in the image on the right and a row of trees here. that is essentially what we would be losing. Uh the landscaped islands and areas surrounding the parking lot would still remain the same. And then they've added a corner of a
boulevard tree and some shrubs in this area as well. And we did lose some um impervious surface because we were uh expanding um not tower Ry's way um by two feet. Um
it was a um request of the fire department to give a a better turn radius to that road. Um and so we lost a little bit of permeability and island features that we could have had. >> If I could just add one follow-up question and I I think this Brian is for
you. Uh my understanding of the statute is that the the uniqueness test is relative to um the uniqueness of the property and the and the condition not being created by the owner. Um we have a plot of land
here with a building on it today that has uh what is 82% impervious. The current plan as I saw it was going to go to 96% impervious. The city wishes to impose a standard of 90. Um, help me understand why this is
not due to the plan for the building as opposed to the property itself. >> Yeah, I'll comment on this a little bit. I'm Mark Anderson, civil engineer with Samitech. So, we worked on the site grading and storm water management. And
um, yeah, you're absolutely right. The impervious area does increase on the order of about 10%. But for a small site like this, it's it's really a small amount of square footage and and for good reasons. Uh we
we wanted wider sidewalks for snow plowing, wider Ry's way, more parking. Um all of that creates imperous area. What's a little bit unique about this site is is is the water drains off to
Randy's way and it also drains off towlet. So when you kind of slice all that up, the increase in runoff is really a small small difference and it's the difference between running off a little bit of green space to a little bit more of pavement. And it's it's
really only about 2% when it flows to Ry's way and towlit. It's it's very very manageable in the existing storm sewer system. So, you know, that's just good to have that understanding in consideration of the variance. It's it's
not going to overload the existing storm sewer system. >> No, I I thank you. I appreciate that. I'm just saying that um or really asking you know if we have a plot of land uh you wouldn't need a variance uh if the
structure were smaller presumably. So so the situation is not due to the uniqueness of the property but the build the building plan as desired. >> Yeah. >> And I I agree I I would also add that
the current site exceeds the shoreline ordinance. So the building footprint would have to get smaller than the existing building, which wouldn't be feasible for this project. >> Understand? >> Yeah. >> Well, in thinking about it, it's we're
probably talking about less than a thousand square feet of lost a thousand square feet of, you know, net change. So, I'm focused more on primarily been that way. It's one block >> covered, but I understand the point, but
it's really significant in that. >> No, my my point simply is that we keep a high bar for granting variances. They are an exception. We don't like to pick away at the building and zoning code. And so what I'm what I'm asking is do we really need a variance? Uh is there
another way to to get at that? chair and commissioners. Um, if a variance is needed in my opinion, I if we don't have a variance here, we would lose the additional 2 feet on Ry's way
that's necessary for our fire department. We would lose sidewalk width that we need for our public works department to accurate or have the ability to appropriately maintain this area. Um, I mean, we would have to look at all
sorts of our other impacts. I mean, we've talked about this at our development review team meetings for the last few months. It's been a constant topic of discussion of how do we make this work? Um, how can we get it or how can we ask the applicant to get it down
to 80%, there really just isn't a feasible way to do it without affecting other departments and their operations. has the applicant agreed to go from 96 to 90%. >> Um, that was one of the comments in my latest submitt. I wanted verification of
the absolute maximum impervious because the latest uh plan set was unclear in that regard. So, that was one of the comments I had sent over yesterday for clarification. >> And one other quick followup, Brian, um, parcel two, that that weird shaped sort
of L-shaped sliver um, is currently city land. And there was a comment in the staff memo about obtaining equivalent value for that. So my understanding is that will become property of the developers. So the city's going to deed that land
over to the developers and it gets in exchange what the additional parking on Ry's way inclair and commissioners. So this piece here was actually former formerly owned by Rich Ganon and was transferred to the
city. Um, but with the plat submittal that they're proposing, the lot line would occur right about here and the six parking spaces that were shown where these trees are right now, those would be within an easement for the city for
perpetual parking purposes. Uh so yes, this area would go back to the developer or the applicant or the property owner for the construction of this new building, but we would retain that parking area.
>> Okay. >> And is Rich Ganon deeding the land to expand Ry's way to the city of Victoria? >> Rich Ganon wouldn't be, but the the developer developer would. >> Um so we'd be doing that. We'd also be dedicating um some land where there's
going to be parking on tower. Um there's four parallel stalls there and then there's likely some land that we'd be dedicating on the uh east site as well for the head-in parking on
>> who's going to pay for the alterations to the existing parking lot as far as the striping the curb >> developer will. Yeah. Other questions, comments? >> Well, just in terms of the variance, I mean, there there's the four test
questions. Should we just go through those so that we're all kind of hearing that and being reminded? I guess I just want to confirm too, would the site be in like 90% or less had the fire department and other public
works departments not requested part of the road and all of that? >> Yeah. Um, chair and commissioners. So, for example, if we wanted to include more uh boulevard green space with this project, we wouldn't have the necessary
width for our sidewalks per requirement. So, that's one example. If we let them have that 2 feet that we required, that could be an additional, you know, 10, 20, 30 square ft of pvious area. that
still wouldn't fit the need of our requirement per our zoning code and it also would constrain that area for our fire department. So, those are just two examples I can think of right off the top of my head of if we included those
how that would impact this overall development proposal. Something I want to comment on the impervious discussion is the rooftop you saw has an amenity and on that amenity outdoor rooftop is our planters and we haven't that's that's been omitted from
this conversation that that's impervious area that in other cities we've worked in that counts you know towards impervious areas. So I know that's that's not part of this conversation but should be considered. >> Okay. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Commissioners any other comments questions? Do you know what the
percentage of that would be >> as it relates to this >> square footage? >> We're starting to work on that right now. We've really advanced our interior design a lot right now and we're going to be building out the space for the rooftop amenity. Um, so >> fine.
>> It's probably before final plat understanding. >> If I could add one more comment, maybe two. Um, the project is proposing two water quality treatment devices. um before it discharges to the downstream
storm sewer to collect sediment. Um there's even a certain amount of sediment that collects on a roof and so on. So there will be one in the parking lot to treat the city's parking lot water and then one on Ry's way where the
rooftop water discharges. So it will provide treatment to the storm water which doesn't exist today. Um and then the second comment is I know we're suggesting 90%. I think it will be very
difficult for us to get to 90%. We want to find whatever green space we can uh including planters and so on. Um but work with city staff to you know get the right percentage that's acceptable
both to them and to the wershed. >> Did you get your question answer? Okay. Any other commissioners? Any other questions, comments? >> I just don't know if I got a clear uh to so for the the the car space, the car
storage. Let's say that does need to be converted to retail. And then whoever converts it to retail now has to um perform a magic trick to get three
parking spaces >> or come to the city I imagine to ask for a variance. >> Yeah. So um Commissioner Sakura they they have a few options. So the first one is yes magically find some parking
stalls somewhere to make this new use work. Secondly, you could request an amendment to the conditional use permit if it's just not feasible, which would have to go back to the plane commission, city council for review, or three, a
different user would have to be sought out for the site. So, there are some options. >> But I guess what I what I was suggesting was why wouldn't we just um approve it right now so that if it was converted, it would be just fine the way it is. We don't have to come back to uh
another variance request. We don't have to go through all this any dog and pony show. It's just approved as as if it's converted. It's converted. All the spaces there are aok. Okay. >> To do that would require some sort of mechanism that we have in our zoning code to do
that. We don't have anything in our zoning code that says you can approve variations to parking requirements with a conditional use permit or a variance or anything like that. We just don't have a mechanism to do that. The appropriate one would be a a PUD, but um
the applicant has preferred to come in at straight zoning and meet the requirements as they are for what's being proposed today. That condition is simply to prepare for the future in the event that that use changes. We are really looking at the development
proposal as it stands today. >> Got it. Thank you. That's a good clarifying point because I would have figured you would have come up with a lane for consideration. That's what I was listening for.
>> All right. Um, commissioners, unless there's any further discussion, I will ask for a motion. And um, Ryan, if you would put that up. >> I have a lot I'm like a chatterb. Sorry, I'm keep coming up with stuff here. So, I guess my question is aside from this
project, because I think it's fine, looks good, whatever. But why did we decide that we wanted to have uh you guys don't listen because I know you're going to frustrate the heck out of you, but why did we decide that we thought a parking lot all alone in the middle of
Victoria was a better idea than having a building with parking beneath it that provided the same amount of parking? Uh, chair and commissioners, since the city retains the ownership of that parking lot, that's always something that could be explored in the future.
It's not something that's up for discussion this evening, obviously. But, um, I'll say with planning, there's potential for anything. >> So, but, uh, okay.
So that remains the cities to develop at a later time >> or or retained as parking. It's it's under city ownership. So similar to that applicants in front of us this evening, they can do whatever is compliant with
the zoning code. We have that parking lot. We can do whatever's compliant with the zoning code as well if the city chose to do so. But that costs money which goes on to the taxpayers. So, we don't have any plans for that parking lot.
>> Yeah. >> There also seems to be an aversion to like parking structures near Victoria. You know, when you go to some of the surveys that have been done for other areas in the city, people really want just like street standard parking, not Yeah.
>> big structures. >> They want to pay for. >> All right. >> Y >> I I will say as a last comment that I am I am troubled by the variance. Um, you know, we don't like to grant variances because we like to preserve the
integrity of our zoning ordinances. Having said that, I I do agree with Mr. that this is a a much improved version of what was presented in 2022. It's a beautiful structure. Uh, it will
certainly add to the downtown area. I also agree with Commissioner Sakura that we can't have a dead space. if at some future point we've got a structure that can't be utilized because we don't have the parking to support it. So there are more issues to be resolved. Uh that
said, I would move that we recommend uh approval to the city council but with the conditions that staff have laid out, including specifically the maximum 90% impervious requirement. Um so that's the motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Um, our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.3, discuss the proposed zoning code,
article 7, alternative energy systems. Let me now turn it over to associate planner Travis Briley for a staff presentation. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Point out, we are towards the end of our zoning code review. I just want to point
that out. Um, so we're we're we're almost there. Uh, tonight, uh, we're going to be looking at two different articles, which is last two articles of the zoning code. Uh, the first one is the alternative energy systems. Um, as we go through this, I do want to point
just a review on on what we're doing. Uh the whole point of going through the review is to recognize the shortfalls uh of the zoning code, side effect of a zoning code that's several decades old. Um we want to make sure that we're transparent through this. We're available for questions and we're
flexible through the process with an end goal of in 2026 unifying the municipal and zoning code together and a recontification in its entirety. Um through this process, we're going to review the proposed language with the planning commission. We're going to take
everything. We're going to have the city council take a look at it. Public hearings, a whole bunch of very necessary things we need to do over the next several several months. The other thing that we're going to do is anything presented to the planning commission. Um, we're going to make sure that we're tracking that information and what's
been changed from what comes forward to the planning commission as it makes its way through council review, public hearings, and so on and so forth. Um, tonight is our second to last chat or article to look at and the biggest
and with alternative energy systems. Um, to point out those would be your windmills or your ground source heat energy sources, solar panels, uh, and similar items. And what we want to do is we want to allow for residents, business organizations to have the option of
using alternative energy uh, for their their buildings. We also want to make sure that we keep a livable community and we want to make sure that we still protect and enhance air quality which is going to be one of the criteria moving forward with the Met Council when we get into the environmental section of the
2050 comprehensive plan. Um we also want to encourage alternative energy development. If we can encourage it instead of demanding it, it can make it easier. It's also inspire more creative solutions to the problems of the future. Uh the first thing we look at is a
ground source heat pump system. Um this is a way to heat and cool your home uh by putting things in the ground. There's two types of systems. There's an openloop system and there's a closed loop system. Your open loop system um uses ground water directly to help with cooling and heating compared to your
closed loop system which circulates a mixture of antifreeze and water um through a sealed piping network. So, one way to look at it would be like an open combustion engine like a coal engine on a train or on on old trains compared to an internal combustion engine which we have in modern day cars. Um, so we want
to make sure that we don't use the open loop system uh because it's not as environmentally friendly as going with a closed loop system. Some of the things we also look at is we want to make sure we look at setbacks which is a minimum of six feet for all the components from the property lines. Um, so we're trying
to stay out of those easements as much as possible. Um, generally these aren't placed in front yard, so the 10-ft setback isn't too important to look at. The other thing we want to look at is anything that's above ground we want to treat um with the same respect to setbacks as an accessory structure. Um, the other thing we want to look at is a
20 ft uh separation between our water manes that falls in line with our uh fence regulations that we have. I would like to point out in the packet that those put out tonight, the ordinance is state five feet um for the 20 feet and state five feet for the all components,
which is change the six to line up with what we do with other things. We look at wind energy systems. They're also known as wax, which are um wind energy conversion systems. So, we see that term throughout the code, that's what that um that means. Uh the big
things that we looked at this is we looked at location and height restrictions. We want to make sure that they're not over any bodies of water. Um that includes any streams, lakes, rivers. Well, we don't have rivers, but lakes and streams for sure. We also want to make sure that we have a setback. So, in the event that one of these systems
would fall to the ground or have some catastrophic incident take place that we're providing a large enough buffer to create safety. Um so, that'd be one and a half times the height of the pole and at least thousand feet from residential districts. Um, this is pretty standard
distances that are used in other communities as well as uh the safety guidelines uh for those larger type of windmills. We also want to make sure that we have a blade clearance so that if someone was to walk underneath or during any maintenance, they wouldn't get hit with the blade. Um, in the large windmills, if you go up to them, you can
actually hear them a little bit on quiet days. That's because the tip is uh sometimes breaking the sound barrier. So, you don't want to get hit with that at all. Um, we also want to prohibit any unauthorized access to ladders. So setting a minimum which is 25 ft for an access ladder on the outside or making sure there's a locked door for an
internal ladder um to the thing. We also want to look at the design. We want to stick strictly with monopole designs um unless approved by the city council otherwise. So that allows for some creativity while allowing for some uniformity. We also don't want any type of alternative energy system to be used
for paying signs or doing any type of advertising on it for. And we also want to make sure the design incorporates any safety measures or requirements at the state or federal level. We look at solar energy systems. There's um three primarily three primary um
solar systems that you'll see. You'll see uh roof mount on houses where they're mounted directly to the roof. You'll see um poles used to mount to the top of buildings. Generally, commercial buildings use some type of structure to elevate it off a flat roof. Or you'll look at uh something being placed on the
ground. Um this is permitted as an accessory use. It's something that uh is fairly common throughout Minnesota. Um and then we want to make sure that building mounts stay within the footprint and they count towards the height of a building. We looked at the the project proposed tonight. Uh they're
at 49 ft with a maximum of 50 feet. if they want to put the system on the top of the roof, they would be restricted to no higher than one more additional foot of elevation. Um, for the ground mounted mounted systems, we want to make sure they meet accessory setbacks. Primarily, if someone was do ground mounted on a
residential property be in the backyard, more likely it would be placed on the roof where you'd gain more sunlight. But we do have larger properties that we need to consider in addition to the smaller properties we have in town. Um, we also want to make sure that by the installation of any type of solar panel,
uh, we don't create any glare. We don't create any, uh, traffic concerns, we don't create anything where the light emitted for or the light that could reflect off them could cause any type of discomfort with adjacent properties. We also want to make sure that all feeder lines are placed underground. That's not
only a safety aspect, but it's also an aesthetic aspect to take a look at. Uh, there's abandonment and conflict. uh if some if uh solar panels are discontinued in their use as they do have a life uh depending on what you get
between 15 and 30 years uh once they've stopped their operation or been disconnected uh 12 months they got to go. So that would be an enforcement action. The other thing that we want to look at is when we look at anything to do with solar panels especially, there's a lot of federal regulations that can
get put in place as far as how they're constructed and there's different changes at that level as well as the state level. Um, as well as goals that are set in place with Met Council or whoever. So, we want to make sure that we looked at the strictest law that's being used to regulate them. If there's a law stricter than ours, we would use
that to say that would apply with all any regulations or rules from any of the primarily state agencies. So with that, is there any questions on the alternative energy systems? >> Just one quick one. So uh no signs or
advertising on the top. What about like communication u antennas or anything like that? Is that permitted or >> commissioner? On um on alternative energy systems, you generally wouldn't place those type of devices on there. That's not saying that they're not used
for communications. As far as um if you have a windmill put in place of having some type of antenna on top for controlling of that >> talking about like cell phone tower or something is that restricted. >> Correct. So that so that'd be restricted. So when we look at this type of thing, what we're act what we'll take
a look at is actually the next article we'll look at will have those type of restrictions in there, but there's no specific restrictions stopping that from happening. Um though it' be unlikely. >> Tra, are we required to allow WEX within the city of Victoria?
>> Is this a policy choice that the city council is being asked to make? >> Chair, this would be uh we we have alternative or this would be a policy choice uh more in more generalized terms be a poly choice going forward allowing the flexibility. Um when we look at the zoning code if we didn't want to include
them we wouldn't necessarily have to say no because we have proposed language going forward that would say if it's not included it's strictly not prohibited. Um one of the reasons that um staff felt that this should be in there is primarily to allow some flexibility with
development going forward especially with the green initiatives. This is also something that Met Council has hinted at that we might be required to have some type of regulations allowing things like this to happen in the future as the state moves towards um the net zero by
by 2050 um and looking for more alternative energy sources. Wex are are to say the least controversial. They are a so source of of of noise pollution. Uh I I don't think they're very attractive. Um they
kill birds. Um and and so a lot of people aren't in favor of them. I just put that on the table for consideration. Are we allowed at least to preclude wex in residential zoning districts? >> Oh, we would be allowed to do that. Chair,
>> I I would argue for that. Um the last thing I want is a noisy windmill next to me, even if it's a smaller version of a of a windmill. Um I I would hate to be the neighbor to that person. >> I second that. Yeah, I can't even stand my neighbors wind chimes.
>> Isn't there a isn't there a um state restriction on decibel decimals decibb from the base of the wind station and then like shading like the blades going by the sun and bl making the house blink. I think there's
requirements on the from the state side on some of those tests and I think that you suggested this that that we would be adhering to the strictest state and federal. Right. >> Correct. Um, I don't I don't know specifically what they are, but I know there are some
>> in chair commission. One of the reasons to put that type of language in there saying that we're going to go with the strictest rules that are out there, regardless of the agency or whatever that's shown, is because there's nobody that's on staff that's an expert in in WEX. Nor do I believe that
it would be a position to put somebody as an expert. It's something that might be a oneoff. Um, as far as putting up any type of wet system, you're more likely to see that on potentially the top of commercial buildings with vertical beans or you'd be looking at maybe in the arboritum area,
>> but also thousand ft from a residential. >> If you're in a neighborhood, you're having a hard time finding a spot that's 1,000 feet from anything. >> For the large format ones, for the smaller ones is the same same require ring chair has to be,000 ft. I think the
states it's 500. >> Okay. >> So, we we've look sounds like you've increased. And did you do that on purpose? >> Uh I looked at kind of how we look at shoreland. >> Okay. >> And looked at shoreland has certain regulations. Um and I'm one of the believers that when we start using
distances, we should stay consistent with it. Um looking at uh various communities which have wax in their ordinances, including um South St. Paul was one of the ones that recently went through it. um looking at different regulations that they or excuse me, South St. Paul Boulevard trees, my
apologies. Um so, but other communities that looked at it uh on my list of ordinances that I look at, it's got 14 communities besides Victoria on it. Um so just kind of pulling from that and thinking what would probably be best for
Victoria. Um, and I'm not always right with it, but a thousand feet kind of keeps it away because I did live in a community which had one windmill and at night living couple probably about five six hundred feet away from it, you could hear it on
nights where the winds were between 15 and 20 miles an hour. Enough that you couldn't hear the wind, but enough that you could hear the the blades going around. Other questions, comments, measures? All right, very good. Um, this doesn't
require a formal motion or action on our part. So, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Our final item for discussion tonight is item 4.4, discuss the proposed zoning code, article uh 8, antennas and towers, which plays into
your question, Bob. Uh, I'll now turn it over again to associate planner Travis Bryley for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair. Um, so with antennas and towers, the last article that we're looking at, okay, >> which is awesome in my opinion. Um, the
the whole idea for the antennas and towers, we want to establish good reasonable standards that are are provide equitable opportunities. We want to ensure that wireless communication services and any type of cit we're going through aren't interfered with and they could be responsibly placed. We also
want to use maximize the use of any existing towers that we have. Though you don't see a giant tower, we do have communication systems on the water tower. Um and there's potential for some of our taller structures in town to to use those systems in the future. Um we
also want to minimize any visual effects that they could create. We don't want things to stick out in such a way where it's like, oh, there's a tower, you know, and surrounding development around it. We don't want to avoid that type of stuff. Um, the way we look at this is is we
create some findings of of why these are important. Um, and that's because the telecommunication services, they have a direct impact on our community. Um, they have a direct impact on us as our users. Um we want the installation as well as location and the maintenance to be at a
specific st or at least at a minimum standard. Uh we want to provide a reasonable opportunity uh for these type of communication devices in um and we want to make sure that um uncontrolled and limited wireless telecommunication servicesly don't adversely impact the
the city as far as a visual aesthetic. Um and then for the purp and then at the end it says for the purpose of this ordinance wireless telecommunication services means antennas accessory equipment the poles towers basically anything associated with it.
Uh when we look at towers we do require building permits uh for them. Uh the main reason for a building permit is to make sure that we have all the documentation uh from engineering and from the experts in the field provided to the city um so that we could issue a building permit um to state that hey
they submitted everything that we could think of looking at even if we don't have an expert in the room that would identify the structural we don't have a structural engineer tower engineer um on staff. Um we also want to make sure that we don't have towers that get half built. So, you want substantial
completion within a year. Um, towers don't take that long to build depending on the type of tower that you do, but these companies want to put them up quick, but generally the deals are worked out in advance of the of a permit being submitted for the construction of a tower. Um, we also want to make sure
we get a letter of intent from any commercial tower users um that would do that. Uh, we look at our bulk and our performance standards. So there's a lot of things the city is going to want to take a look at to make sure that any tire that's put in place and its type of
use and design are appropriate for the community. So we want to take a look at height restrictions, setbacks, where it's placed, what type of construction is, what the design of the tower looks like. Uh collocations. Uh generally when you build a wireless tower, for example,
one that I went through was 185 ft tall. It had five collocations on it. What does that mean? It means that there five five different areas that you could put five different services on there. One of those services and the agreement that we went through is one was for the uh the county's um emergency services
communications. So, police police bands, ambulance, fire, and things like that. Um we also want to make sure that we look at lighting. If there's a tower there, there's minimum lighting that has to be done depending on the height and federal regul and state regulations. However, we want to make sure that we don't have something that's going to
cause an issue with the neighborhood or just aesthetically be unpleasing or detract from wanting to to be in the area of the tower. Um, signs and advertising again would be prohibited. Um, these are designed for specific purpose. They're not an advertisement. Uh, we have billboards that would allow
for that. We also require different types of landscaping. Um, and the main reason that that's in there is when you do have a tower at the base of the tower, you'll generally put down what appears to be a 20 or 40 foot conics at the bottom where you'll have your power sources and you'll have all the
communication equipment that you need on the ground to be able to transmit that signal back to the host user. Um, so we want to make sure that's put in place that it's still aesthetically pleasing or at least hidden. Um, we look at roof mounted systems. There are some different type of roof mounted systems
on there. We want to make sure that we keep those in in regulation as well, especially for aesthetics and safety. Um, and then determination of zoning. Um, our streets do not have zoning to them. So, when we look at something like say small cell wireless, which was
something that um, there was a bunch of grants for back in the 2010s. That's when uh, you'd had the Wi-Fi walkable downtowns. And what you would do is you could stick different receivers on top of light poles or flag poles or what have you throughout the downtown area.
Well, those are all done within the public rightway. Public rightaways don't actually have a physical zoning to them. So, we just made sure to add language that would identify how that control would be between a a business district or a residential district.
Uh we look at temporary mobile towers. Um there's height restrictions that we want to make sure we place in there as well as setbacks. Um restriction from the residential zoning areas. Um we want to make sure they're windresistant. You don't want a temporary tower going up and then falling over. Um we want to
make sure that there's a limit of how long they could be there. 120 days is pretty standard. Uh they don't need a building permit because they're generally on a mobile platform. Um, and then we want to make sure that if there's a denial um of allowing them in or some type of uh issue that's created,
they have an ability to appeal that decision with the planning commission of the city council. We also want to make sure that they don't interfere with public safety signals. Now, um, your temporary mobile towers are generally used uh for two purposes. One, there's an incident that happens such as a
tornado if it came through Victoria and took out a cell tower. um Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, whoever else could come in and they could set up a tower pretty quickly to provide service so that people can still use their phones um and do that. The other thing that happens is
when you get um a different type of sporting events or large gatherings where you're going to have a lot of people using uh the cell tower, if they don't believe there's enough uh bandwidth to be able to handle that, companies will generally bring in a mobile tower to handle with that. um looking at the appeal administrative
decisions. One would be we don't allow them in residential districts. But if you we needed one, if they needed one in there, they could come to the planning commission city council to move it in else they would have to just stay outside the residential district. Uh generally these will go up 60 80 90 ft
in the air. So there are various things. The example on screen is just one example of what these can look like. They come in many forms. uh touched on the small cell wireless earlier. Um that you'll see a lot of this is just small cell wireless. Uh
permits are required for it. Um they do uh we can apply reasonable conditions because they would be attaching to public infrastructure generally. Um with the application that does not require conditional use permit. Um conditional use permit is a land use right.
Rightways don't have a P to them. They're a rightaway. um uh we would want to do collocations required. So if you had uh multiple providers, say you had a cellular company who wanted to use one of our light poles to put an antenna on,
but we also had um a telecommunications company that wanted to create Wi-Fi hotspots, we would want to make sure that we put them in the same area. That way the detraction that it creates isn't multiplied by multiple locations. Uh
there's height restrictions. uh 50 feet or 10 10 feet above a structure. Um so if you attach it to a light pole or you attach it to the side of a building or what have you, you can go 10 feet above it. Um but you wouldn't be able to attach it such in the air that the top of it would be greater than 50 ft. Um
the other part to it is if it's placed in the rightway, you need an agreement with the city. Um, that agreement allows uh the city a lot of flexibility with the design or maybe trying to to mask what an antenna would look like sitting on top of some of the infrastructure.
The other um one thing we also want to look at, same with the um with wax and those type assist and the uh solar um if it's not used within 12 months or for a 12-month period, 12 months to take it down. Uh solar is a little bit easier to
take down depending on its size compared to say a 200 foot tower. Um and then unused portions of a collocation of tower after six months you have to start decreasing it. So if a company want to come in and put in a tower that was say 120 ft tall or 100 feet tall and their
collocations can't use it whatever the highest location they have something on anything above that would have to be removed at either 25% or at least 30 feet. And then we look at interference. We don't want we want to make sure none of these signals interfere with uh public
safety. When we look at towers going in, regardless of the tower, generally you'll get an um an RF report and they'll take a look and try to make sure that none of that goes there. We'll also run any type of application through uh the county's uh emergency management to
see if they have any concerns with signals or with placement and things like that. is those all need to be taken into consideration when these are constructed. We also want to make sure that they meet state and federal regulations. None of us, nobody on staff is an expert in towers or radio
frequencies or that type of math. There are specific engineering jobs out there that handle that type of stuff. Um, with that, that's the last slide I have on towers and antennas, and I can stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Travis. I'll now open the
floor for the planning commissioner to raise any questions or discuss any concerns. >> Very good. We'll we'll leave it there. Again, no action is required on the part of the planning commission. So, we'll close that uh discussion. >> Moving on then to the miscellaneous uh
section of our agenda. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Just a couple more sides if >> ah sorry I thought we were done. I apologize. >> Absolutely. I I apologize for the little bit of confusion there. I just want to point out that this is the last. Again, I'm I'm super happy about it. I'm
excited to go to the next steps um of everything we've covered. Um but just the remaining code items in process just to make sure we're all on the same page. We still have swimming pools. We didn't address them when we looked at performance standards in the code. Uh swimming pools have different
regulations there. There's International Building Code that regulates them. However, they're not regulated by Minnesota building code, which city adopts. So, those type of regulations will be coming forward to the planning commission in a future meeting. I don't have the date for that set yet. Um,
anything that we've talked about or reviewed here. All those red line marks and comments and all the staff reports will go to the city council for review. Um, that process is not fully hashed out yet, but I just want to remind everybody this isn't the last step uh before we would staff would go through and make
sure any decisions or any comments that were made line up with the municipal code review, which is another review that's taking on. At the same time, we'd have a final staff review uh to make sure that there's no questions that would be between our development review
team as well as administrative staff and senior management staff of the city. and then eventually set up a public hearing to go over the zoning code specifically uh with the hopes of codifying sometime between well next year sometime uh
before the end of the year would be would be fantastic and chair with that I have nothing else unless there are questions on the following processes very good thank you and again sorry good job >> any other questions concern if not we'll
move on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda Uh uh next is uh reports and emerging issues. Any reports from staff? >> Yes. Uh just a reminder that this Thursday is light up Victoria. So I will be attending. I hope to see all of you
there. It should be a very fun event. Uh secondly, we have new artwork in the council chambers. So I left you all a slip of paper to comment on your favorite art piece so that I can give it to our city clerk. And then we are still planning to hold a meeting on December
16th. We have a sketch plat request for some properties on Church Lake Boulevard. So, uh, as of now, the zoning code section, uh, general review and pools that Travis talked about and the sketch ply are the only items that we have scheduled for that meeting.
>> Very good. Thank you, Brian. Commissioners, any miscellaneous items? >> I have a quick question. I'd like to go back to the memo that you read at the beginning of the meeting. Mhm. >> Um there was a statement that that lady made there that there was a threat of some litigation. Has that happened or
what's the status of that? >> Turn over to staff. >> Um chair and commissioners, our knowledge is that it she did file a suit, but that's that's all the knowledge we have so far. >> Very good. We'll leave it there.
>> All right. If there are no other questions, that was our last agenda item. May I have a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make that motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries.
We are adjourned. Thank you all.