All right, good evening everyone. It'stime for our June 16th Park and Recreation Committee meeting. Before weget started, we have a new member. JayZeeman. Is that how you say it? And Jay's Jay's joining the group here and whydon't we go around? I think he's introduced himself to everybody butlet's just go around maybe start with Owen justgive us your name. >> Sure. Owen Beckers.>> I'm Jay Zeeman. >> Blake Farber.>> Chris Casey. >> Alex I'm>> Adam Duer. >> Larry Schulz.>> Amanda Cahill. >> Mary Larson.>> Jacob Paul. >> Tammy Leonetti.>> Okay. And we have two staff members with ustoday so why don't you just introduce yourself?>> I'm Brian McCann. I'm the city planner for the city of Victoria.>> And I'm Mark Nies, I'm the recreation coordinator here in Victoria.>> Okay, very good. Thank you. UmI don't see anybody in the audience uh so nobody to address the committee atthis point in time. So, we'll move right on to adopt the final agenda.Is there anyone that would like to uh make a motion to approve the agenda asit was sent out? >> Motion to approve.>> Okay, motion's been made. Is there a second?>> Second. >> Motion's been made and seconded to uhadopt the agenda as it was sent out. Uh all in favor signify by by saying I.>> I. >> I.>> Opposed, say no. Motion carried. Thank you.Regular agenda. Uhthe minutes of the last meeting, May 18th, 2026 were sent out in your packet.Um Does anybody like to make a motion toapprove the minutes as they were sent out? >> Motion to approve.>> Okay, motion to approve the minutes as they were sent out. Is there a second?>> Second. >> Second. Any discussion?Hearing none. Uh a motion's been made and seconded toapprove the committee meeting meeting minutes from May 18th.Uh all in favor signify by saying I. >> I.>> I. >> Opposed, sayOkay, minutes are approved. Motion carried. The main item this evening, in fact, theonly item uh other than the approval of the minutes,is uh review of the Astoria Lake Town uh sketch plat. And with that thisevening, we have city planner uh Brian McCann in attendance to uh tell us alittle bit about that and guide us through that process. So, take it away,Brian. >> Great. Thank you, Chair and committeemembers. Yes, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Brian McCann. I'm the cityplanner for the city of Victoria. Uh looks like there are a few new facessince the last time I was here, so I thought a brief introduction would bebeneficial for the group. Uh otherwise, we can just jump right into it. Tonight,we are reviewing a sketch plat for the project called Astoria Laketown fromEbenezer Development. This is located at 2285 Arboretum Boulevard, which is justoff of Highway 5, adjacent to the Lake Bridge neighborhood. The project areaconsists of four parcels totaling about 56.4 acres.Currently right now, there are two single-family homes on the property. Uhyou can see one here just at the end of Sky Drive, and there's another onetucked into the woods back here. Um as part of this project, theapplicant is planning to dedicate the southern two parcels here, this longstretch of land approximately 7 acres large, to the city as part of the futureLake Minnetonka Regional Trail Corridor. Um the site currently has full access toHighway 5. That's proposed to change with their project with their accesscoming from Sky Drive to the west. There's also significant wetlandcoverage on the property, as you can see with the stream that connects LakeAuburn to the north and Carl Krey Lake to the southwest.Uh we did review a sketch plat and preliminary plat for this project a fewyears ago. It was formerly called the Amira project, consisting of a 147-unitsenior living age-restricted 55-plus apartment building.So, I thought it would be beneficial as a reminder for the large group and forour incoming members on what the development process entails and why youare reviewing this request. So, the very first phase of the development processthat a developers developer submits is called a sketch plat, which is where weare today. Uh it's basically just a concept plan.They're exploring uh development possibilities for a project and gettingfeedback from city staff, planning commission, city council, and the parksand recreation committee. Specifically for the parkland componentswith this group. Uh what this does, it saves the developer costs on the backend of creating engineered plans, which are typically 50 to 100 pages. Umand it saves a lot of review on a project that they want to know right offthe bat is going to be feasible. So, that is the purpose of the sketch platand why we're here. After this, they move towards those preliminary platplans that I mentioned, the more detailed engineering documents. And withthat, they get approval from the city council. Uh but a public hearing occurswith the planning commission prior to that. The city council approvals arecalled land use entitlements, meaning they have rights at that point todevelop the property. And then uh the final step is not citycouncil, sorry about that. It's the final plat, which is the uh finaldevelopment approvals and is typically only reviewed by the city council. So, here is the proposed sketch platthat was submitted to the city for your review this evening. It's a 76-unitcooperative building here, as well as six duplex units, so three separatebuildings, but there's two in each of these, as well as two single-familyhomes, one new and one that's existing. And then they would demolish that onethat was down here that I highlighted earlier on the existinguh map. So, with that, they are proposing asurface parking lot with 63 stalls and an underground parking garage for theresidents with 104 stalls underground there.Uh and then as I mentioned, they would be getting their access from SkyDriveand they would be taking away the access that connects to Highway 5 right now.The reason for that is that the Minnesota Department of Transportationwill not allow a direct access to this property. It's just too close inproximity to the 5 and 11 project just up the streetas well as neighborhoods across the street to allow any sort of access. Then getting into the park trailsidewalk components of this project, they areproviding a portion of public sidewalk here with the extension of SkyDrivenoted in green. And then everything in red is within their property boundariesthat we are anticipating to be a private sidewalk that they would own andmaintain. And then the blue area is a extension ofthat sidewalk that we anticipate to be private with a connection down to thatfuture Lake Minnetonka regional trail corridor. And then just highlighting for thelarger group again, kind of similar to how I did for the development process,what is Parkland dedication? So you will might hear this term. It's called anexaction, which is a reasonable cost of development to put it in general terms.Parkland dedication is a type of exaction. So with that the city isgrowing, we need parks and trails for the added population. So this issomething that we can ask a developers to do.But to do that we have to do it in compliance with our code that we havewritten out. So our municipal code lays out a formulafor dedication of acreage of Parkland or the developer has an option to pay a feein lieu of land, which is up to $105,000 per acre.So, the Parks and Recreation Committee can recommend either land fee or somecombination of those, but City Council is the one who will ultimately make thedecision on parkland dedication. So, I know you all wanted to do somemath tonight when we came here, so I put down a little breakdown here of how wecame to the figure on the next slide. With the senior cooperative building,this is the formula laid out in our code, and any senior project actuallyonly has to provide half of the parkland dedication because they don't have alarge park and trail use typically with a senior project. Single-family homeshave to dedicate um for three and a half units per acre.Sorry, I'm realizing here as well that this does not need a 50% exclusion. Thisis just two standard single-family homes here. Um so, their dedication for thosetwo comes out to less than a tenth of an acre. The cooperative building has toprovide a little over three quarters of an acre. And then the duplex twin homeswould also be senior-occupied, so they would get that 50% reduction as well.They also have to provide less than a tenth of an acre.So, combined between those two, we're talking just under an acre of dedicationthat by code they would have to provide. They are planning to dedicateapproximately seven acres with this trail corridor, so going well above andbeyond the minimum requirement for this uh dedication of the corridor to thecity for future construction of Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail. Uh we'veheard some questions from the public on the staff side if the city is going torequire the developer to construct the trail as part of this project or ifwe're going to require the developer to seek out acquiring the three propertiesthat are under private ownership just to the east within this corridor. That isnot part of the developers plan and we cannot legally require the developer todo either of those actions. So, I just wanted to publicly say that.>> are those properties in this image? >> Uh this one, it's just a segment of thatproperty. There are two other ones just to the east down that line that areprivately owned. There's like six parcels. Uh the city owns three of themand then three are under private ownership.>> Thanks for clarifying. >> Yep. Um with that, I do have a sample motionfor your consideration this evening. Staff can stand for any questions youhave. >> I'll open it up for any questions orcomments that anyone would have. >> What's the current gap? So, with thecorridor proposed to be dedicated and then the effectively six parcels, threeof which are city owned, three are privately owned that to the east, that'sthe gap. What what's the distance there then betweenwhat I gap the gap distance effectively between the corridor dedication and thecurrent LRT? >> Chair and commissioners, that is a goodquestion. Let me pull up the map and we can just measure it together.Um I would guess it's less than a half mile,um even closer if we're talking about just to where the city has ownership atthe moment and not to the existing downtown area.>> So, the city parcels and the private parcels are contiguous?>> Correct, yeah. So, let me see here. Um Mhm.So, this is not the format of our maps that I'm used to, but my understandingis that there's 1 2 3 4 5. There's these six properties that get you to thatbridge that goes under Highway 5. The city, I believe, owns these two,which connect to this park here. >> Mhm.>> And then, we own one of these four, and the other three are under privateownership. >> Can weI missed the last meeting that was specific to the trails. I don't know ifyou guys talked about this at the time, butcan you share any of the conversations that have been had thusfar with those three, it sounds like three homeownerswith the properties? >> I Yes. So, I personally have not beenpart of those conversations. I've just heard that none of the three owners, thelast time they were asked, were interested in selling their propertiesto the city for this trail extension. Um it's been a few years, I think, sincethe city has asked, so maybe sentiments have changed. [clears throat]Um but, there's also the scenario that they have not.>> Is there an opportunity to ask the city or whoever, umto make an effort, perhaps, with the HOAI'm I'm on the HOA for Lake Ridge, and I think we would be happy to partnertogether and approach those three properties. And I say that because the 7acres is great, is what it sounds like, but that's still not going to fix theaccess for the trail, right? >> I I think there's a couple issues thatwe need to keep in mind. One iseven if we were able to get those, uh there currently aren't funds availableto do that trail. I mean, it would open itup for future. So, the question becomes one of city staff wants the appropriatetime to approach people to to do that.Um I think that's maybe a a key key factor.Uh the city as council has taken the position offocusing on trails that are becoming parts of uhroad projects like the Arboretum project is uh accomplishing a number of thetrail gaps. This committee at the last meeting actually umapproved this or recommended this trail gap be done at some point in time.Uh but then it's up to the city council to determine and staff when it's the theappropriate time. So, from a committee standpoint, uh you know, we've uhapproved or recommended it that that thesethese are trail gaps that at some point in time should be filled. So, it's amatter of when funding's available and when the time's right. So,I think from a committee standpoint, um we've done what we've asked beenasked to do. And I think that the other decision'snot the decision of the committee. It's the decision of the council. >> UmOkay. So, um so, if if this developmentprovides this acreage, this parkland dedication,um besides these threeparcels that are in question, does itconnect on the other side? Does it is it proposed to>> connect on >> a trail behind Lakebridge that itconnects to and that it dead ends on the other end right now.>> So So cuz I'm justjust want to make sure like cuz it there was a lot of talk at the front like theentryway to this facility would be a private trail and then there was aconnection talked about from behind this facility that would be a privateconnection. So I just wanted to clarify that.Like if this land was given there is is a publicconnection possibility? >> Uh chair and commit or committeemembers, so this is that blue section here. That would be their private trailconnection to the future corridor here. It wouldroughly connect somewhere around here. You can see the general outlineum of where they would plan to do somethinglike that based on what the property owners have been using for accessuh to this area and thenum there is an existing point that thetrail could connect to the Lake Bridge neighborhood to the westum and then further areas owned by the cityto the west as well that could >> are there is trail to the west.>> In that park they access it there's >> Yeah.>> one in that park it's not it's not paved at the present time.>> all dirt. >> That's essentially what's on the map.That's what we're looking at literally, right?>> Yep. Yep. Yep. The gravel path, yeah. >> Okay.>> And you can get to that trail right now from Watermark?>> Yeah. >> very steep hill.>> So yeah, so it's it it it also impacts other neighborhoods.>> Mhm. >> Correct.>> Uh everything beyond that point. >> Yeah.>> Yeah. And yeah, it's it doesn't connect on theother side currently, but in theory that the county's master plan is to connectdown to Rhapsody from the other side of Lake Bridge. >> So, just a a quick clarifying questionon their sketch. So, their future their connection to that trail won't happenuntil those other properties, let's just say the three properties are addressed,correct? >> [clears throat]>> Um chair and committee members, they're still planning to construct that sectionof their private connection down there. They just won't construct the actualtrail corridor down there. So, they won't they won't build on the 7acres that they're giving to the city. They would just dothis segment in blue. It would >> Just be a little path.>> a little path to nowhere, but with the understanding that when that trail getsconstructed in the future, they will have a direct connection to it. >> I'm guessing the surface the trail likethings to negotiate on like the type of surface isn't really an option. It'sstill expensive to level it and all that stuff.>> Correct. Yep, and um any construction of that trail is afuture project. Uh it might be a city and county project. It might be otherentities constructing it. So, um at this point or are you talking about the bluesegment? >> Either if I I don't know if they wouldthey probably wouldn't want to change their blue to be something cheaper totry to help at least pave some or put gravel down onsome. >> Um>> at least in the beginning at least extend it.>> I'm going to I'm going to guess since we're talkingabout a senior facility with a private connection that they're going to wantsome sort of pavement for the residents. >> Isn't that going through a wetland areathough? I was thinking that was going to be a boardwalk or something.>> Correct. There's going to be a small section of boardwalk. Um the majority ofit would be paved, but this area that they would cross here would likely be asmall section of boardwalk. >> Okay. >> Your comments Uh is it for like the private versus publicsidewalk, is there like a standard or code aboutwhen that >> We typically want them to match thepublic requirement, which is a 6-ft concreteum section of sidewalk, but if they're proposing their own private um asphaltor bituminous trail, I think we would still want at least 6 ft wide, but thematerial choice is up to them. >> I just meant uhbetween it being private sidewalk like is there a requirement that projectsbuild public sidewalks in certain cases and in this project is not?>> Um the green section that they would construct here would be public sidewalk,so that would have to meet our 6-ft concrete requirement, but any of the redand blue on the map here umcould be up to their discretion.>> So, I think what you're asking is like can the city ask them like, "Hey, canresidents walk along these sidewalks and trails?"Not >> Not residents of the senior>> residents. Can other neighborhood residents useI think this is a unique we haven't seen maybe this or I haven't in the committeebefore where it's like red, private. >> I've seen it inin Chaska the conference center behind Costco has likeprivate trails that go down to public trails.>> Mhm. >> Um but I haven't seen it here.>> There's one actually right out here from that I don't know what they call it, theapartment building that's here. >> you're right.>> Yeah. It's a It's a short way and it's posted on there. Private.Um >> But yeah, so I thinkwe're asking the same question like um >> Is it just the developer's choice tomake it private or can the city require that it's public?>> It's the developer's choice. It's their private property. >> Other comments, questions?>> Can I Can I see the the biggerum the lane whatever the map that is. Yes.Um So, I I just just out of curiosityum Their property ends or this propertyends at that line that right there where your cursor is.Okay. I'm just wondering if there's another way to construct a trailor a boardwalk to act to bypass any of those properties to get to theone that the city owns. I thought I saw something when the Amirauh developers were talking that there was I thought they had talked aboutgoing I I'm horrible with directions. Sidelike towards where the um Yeah, exactly. Like kind of cutting across that wayinstead of going nowhere. Because I would think their residents would wantto head into town and would want to make space for them to go into town.There's a lot of people there. >> Yeah. UmChair and committee members, so to do that would be working with this privateproperty owner. The city doesn't own this property. UmThat's something that maybe the developer or the city could explore.It's just not what's being proposed right now.>> So, it looks like the the plot This is just a general question for know-knowledge sake, not point of discussion. But like theLet's assume the three plots that are privately the three parcels that areprivately owned are are the three like just to thesoutheast of your cursor right now and then the two to the east of that. Let'sassume it's those three. Those aren't theparcels that the homestead is obviously built on, right?>> Correct. >> So, but it's still part of their yard,so to speak. So, it and it's already beenplotted out for a potential, so you just okay. Understood.>> Correct. >> We We had talked previously as acommittee way back about you could put a boardwalk outaround that, but we're talking mega bucks here that probablynot going to happen anytime soon. Uh so, the best bet is to try to acquirethat those properties at some point in time.>> Has the city explored historically doing conservation easements across it ratherthan an outright sale? I'm just curious as whether the privatelandowners might be more accepting ofan easement as opposed to, you know, outrightselling. Like cuz you're only talking about eight>> Or or even the ones instead of the little threekind of going in the little boxes, the the largerlandowners to the north might be more willing to accept a conservationeasement. >> Yeah, uh chairman committee members,that's something we haven't fully discussed as staff to my knowledge, butit's certainly a possibility that we could explore.>> Okay. Okay, I'm going to get us back onto thethe topic at hand and then then in our the end if we emergingissues want to talk about trails a little bit, we can.But from a the applicant here for Astoria Lake Townum what they're proposing, the question Iwould would ask is does anyone have any heartburn over what they're planning ondoing here? On their property.>> So it's essentially dedicating they only need to dedicate 1 acre. They'rededicating seven for the trail, which means we have todeclare if we're comfortable essentially they're not building a park. It's justgoing to be dedicated for a trail that might not be built in the near future.>> Correct. >> And if we're okay with that.>> Yeah, that and the sidewalks are you know, the sidewalks are part of it too.So I mean from my perspective umthey're going beyond what beyond anything that would be requiredof them in the fact that they're dedicating that land. They could keepthat land and then we'd have to purchase that at some point in time. Soat least we're getting some acreage where we have the potential for a trailwhich we'd like to see at some point in time.Um so we're getting that. They're doingthat extra piece by the uhcircle there. Is that Is that a roundabout in there? What is that?>> Uh that's a cul-de-sac. >> Cul-de-sac. Okay, so they're adding somepublic area there that they wouldn't be required to. Is that correct?>> Correct. >> In lieu of uh putting a playground oror donating the 98,000 or whatever it was.Well, anybody else have concerns?>> It's worth getting the land. >> Yeah.>> Yeah, for sure. >> worth getting the land for one of thebiggest, you know, regional trail gap.>> Yeah. >> Yeah.>> Okay. We motion would be in order if there'sno more discussion to recommend to the city council to accept the lightrail LRT corridor's parklandparkland dedication for the this project.Somebody like to make that a motion? >> So moved.>> A motion's been made. Is there a second? >> Second.>> A motion's been made and seconded to recommend the city recommend to the citycouncil that they accept the LRT corridor's parklanddedication for the Story Lake Town project.>> [clears throat] >> Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of saidmotion signify by saying I. >> I.>> Opposed, say no. Motion's carried. Thank you. Okay.Next is emerging issues. So, if we anybody wanted to talk about any issuesthat have come up or want to further discussthe trail, now's the time.>> I had just a follow-up question and direct me to like if this isn't theright forum, I totally get it. Butwould we have we ever can we explore going back to thedeveloper and see if they'd be willing to look at alternative trails?Um Obviously, it's completely up to them,but I I don't know. Unless that's something that I have to take uppersonally with them like as far as far as the HOA, I'm just curious if thatwould be part of this or something we could explore.>> Sure. Chair and committee members, I'm the direct contact with the developer asthey work through their projects. So, I'll let them know about the discussionsthat we've had tonight and see if they would be interested in concerningconsidering alternative trail boardwalk options. And if they docome up with something different, I would be willing to bring it back tothis group and present it to you. >> [clears throat]>> Anything else on that or any other emerging issue?>> Yeah, I did have a question. UmI was reading over um city councilum presentation umconcerning the Hunters Brook and Marsh Hollowpark umrecommendations that we had um worked so very hard on. I think that wasour longest meeting ever and it was like 4 hours long and there was so many of usum invested in that and really concerned about you know, presenting whatresidents, you know, requested for those those parks.And there was just some mention ofuh the pump track in there that said we had only mentioned minor concernover the intersection of pedestrians and the biketrack. And there wasn't verymuch additional uminformation presented on just like the depth of our discussionsand you know, how we Yes, in our motions, we only made motionsthat said here are the things we would prioritize.We said like three things. Here's what we would prioritize.But there wasn't mention of likeSo, in in when I saw like, "Oh, minor concerns." I think multiple committeemembers brought it up that like, "We love the pump pump track.We need that this revised to not intersect uh pedestrian walkways,right? And so, I would just hate for that to move forward andum feel kind of responsible if anything were to happen because somany of us were like, "This Yes, this is our We're looking atthe proposed concepts. We're reviewing [clears throat]them." And I just would not feel right and feelcomfortable if all of a sudden that there was like intersectionsin what was chosen to move forward with. Um so, I don't know if you haveadditional information or insights that you can share. And then, so as far aslike ranking of the the items that we said like,"Yes, this is you know, the the things we wantprioritized." We also had discussion around like things not to be includedand reasoning for that not necessarily justoff the table. >> I I can speak to that a little bit. Iactually watched the meeting. >> Yep.>> And I think they did have discussion about that. Not as in-depth as we did,but I think they acknowledged that the committee had come up with concerns.>> Okay. >> And um I alsothink that our discussion was constrained a little bit by prioritizingcuz we were told that there was only limited dollars.I think that the council, and I think this is a really aa smart move on their part, said, "Well, we have funds in ourpark fund that can only be used for new parks. It's just sitting there. Whydon't we do this right andcuz the expectation is there." And so they actuallyuh moved to go ahead withmore things. >> Yes.>> And uh to do both parks instead of wait. So, and I I think there was thatdiscussion and I I think uh I know one thing that we said we wereconcerned about was the uh community garden piece, the how thatwould look. They They That was brought up that we had said that.>> Okay. >> I believe. I think I remember that.>> And um you know, they uh were aware of that information and saidthat, you know, that neighborhoods out there quite a ways away from the otherplaces in town that have community gardens or other places they could beand decided to figure out a way to move ahead with that. I think there will be achance in the final design of the park to address that issue furtheruh cuz I know that uh you know, they're cognizant of that.>> Yeah. Was there a discussion more on those oflike no intersecting piece of the track and the pedestrianwalkways? >> Chair and committee members, I'mactually on the team that's working with the consultants on developing theseparks. I wasn't able to make the last meeting that they had, uh but I will bepart of the next one so I can bring this up.>> Okay. Um cuz just for for everyone'syou know, sharing and say saying like where I'm coming from isthat it just made me more cognizant to maybe think like if if we only havereally the opportunity to show our work through our motions, then thenperhaps in the future when we're thinking about them to be very specificlike I don't know if we could have done thisor if it would have been appropriate, but to like yes, rank pump track,but must ensure no intersections with pedestrians orsomething of that sort. Can you speak to like just kind of generaluh >> Yeah, I I think>> You know, >> I think we need to>> best practices. >> Yeah, I think we need to depend on staffto bring those things forward when they present them to council cuz that's thelink that we have from the committee tothe council. And I believe they did a pretty good jobof that at the when I viewed that. It's been a whilesince I looked at that, but >> and like I said, I was just reviewingwhat was written. >> Yeah.>> And it said like minor concerns and >> [clears throat]>> Cuz essentially, I suppose we're just providing a recommendation at the end ofthe day. So, >> Correct.>> whether it's, you know, verbatim laid out in the motion or not, they're goingto consider the recommendation, right? It might hold a little bit more weightif it's in the motion, but it's still, you know, recommendation>> of looking for yourinput on and expertise. >> Sure. UmChair and committee members, I can't really say I whole have a whole lot ofexperience with pump tracks. I more so >> like for us And for the motion part.>> Oh, and >> Like like like does it matter? Like dowe need to be more specific with motions ordoes does having our meetings and discussions does thatrepresent enough? >> Having the discussions arerepresentative enough if you say um like as part [clears throat] of your motionthat you would like to incorporate the changes as discussed. That's a commontactic that's used when making motions to get your point across in one concisemanner without listing specific points. >> Okay, super helpful.>> I did want to bring I did have two constituents reach out around the park.One was the general kind of how are we going to get more frequent updates onwhat's happening. Um so there's anything we can do on that. The secondin the the meeting I was watching that too. I did have a constituent reach outsaying they kind of flipped the Huntersbrook park and tried to say itshould be for older kids. So there was concerns that kind of the the feedbackthat we had given didn't make it forward. Soalong with the if they added more stuff in it was like well why don't we addyounger kid playground stuff back into the Huntersbrook side. So I thinkas you're exploring the designs if there is an opportunity to really try to bringthat younger kid aspect back that was an ask that I got from aconstituent. I don't know if if you had the similar thing watching it but I Idid think they flipped kind of the the feedback we had was make it for youngand older kids and then they said in the meeting well we'll just do it more forolder kids and I think it missed what the community was saying.>> Again, I I yeah, I I got that too. I think that that project's going to comeback to this committee. >> Yep.>> So why don't we see what's designed in it and if we still have that concern yepthen I think we pass that recommendation on at thatpoint in time but until we see what's actually in there and itI we kind of you know, flip the I don't think theyThere was some comment about the don't put the playground in.>> Yeah, that was a right right there. >> one person, but that got shut down rightaway uh by the others. So, I I think there'sgoing to be a playground there and we'll just have to see [clears throat] whatwhat's there, but I I kind of took it a little bit asthat they wanted to gear it a little more towards older, but not at theexpense of taking all the >> Yep.>> uh other age group away, but we'll wait till we see the>> Yep. >> project and maybe you can pass>> Even the design team >> the design team, so you canyou know, be cognizant of that as well. So.>> Absolutely. >> Other comments or thoughts?Good good questions? >> Thanks for sharing.>> Anything else for the good of the cause? If not, a great attendance this evening.Thanks for your attendance. And we had enough discussion andhopefully quit raining, you can ride your bike home.>> [laughter] >> Is a motion Motion's in order toadjourn? >> Motion to adjourn.>> Okay, motion's been made. >> Second.>> Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.>> Aye. >> Aye.>> We stand adjourned.