All right. Good evening. Um, and welcome to the May 14th, 2026 meeting of the Minnotonka Planning Commission. Uh, the commission generally meets twice a month, always on a Thursday. Uh the schedule and tentative meeting agendas can be obtained by calling the planning division or checking the city website at the minnotonkamn.gov. Thank you, Susan. Uh tonight we do not technically have either a chair or vice chair to present. Uh so under the commission's bylaws, tonight's first order of business is to designate an acting chair for this meeting. Uh would someone like to make a motion to designate an acting chair? I'd >> like to designate Mr. Banks. >> All right. Second. >> I'd second that. >> All right. Uh motion made by Commissioner Minion, second by Johnson. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Thanks. All right. With that done, uh we will proceed with our other order of business. Uh the commission holds public hearings on land use applications. For all land use applications, the city notifies property owners within at least 400 feet of the site and posts plans and information on minnotonka mn.gov. For some applications, the city also places signs on the properties and also places notices in the sun sailor. Uh for a specific process standpoint, the commission makes recommendations to the city council on resonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations. We also make final decisions on site plans, signage requests, variance requests, and expans expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council. In that case, the council makes a recommendation and the city council makes a final decision. In addition to these formal actions, the commission also provides informal feedback on development concept plans. Anyone agreved by a final planning commission decision may appeal the decision to the city council. If you wish to appeal, you must submit a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. From a broader standpoint, the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and community responsibilities. Individual rights are easy to understand. However, community responsibilities are more subtle, but the idea is that we as members of this committee uh agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group. The planning division, the planning commission, and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask you to keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. To make meetings more efficient in 2026, the city's boards and commissions have introduced a new process for public comments. If you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, please fill out a public comment card available near the staff seating area. Be sure to include your name and the agenda topic you wish to uh address. The cards will be collected before the public hearing item and I will announce your name when it is your turn to speak and I apologize in advance for any misprononunciations. Again, welcome to tonight's meeting. Uh staff, please call roll. >> Johnson here. Minion >> here, >> Cher >> here, >> Banks >> here, >> Brink >> here. >> All right, great. There there are five of us here tonight. Uh, one absent. Um, the next item on the agenda is the approval of this agenda. Uh, staff, are there any, uh, changes to the agenda? >> Uh, yes, Chair Banks. Uh, three changes. The first you took care of already by, um, designating an acting chair. Um 7A, the cover sheet on your peak agenda software suggested that staff was recommending denial of that request, but the report correctly notes that we're recommending approval um of that request. Staff generally doesn't place items with a denial recommendation on consent. So this just um clarifies that. And then item 8A, we did receive an email um with some comments after the report was published. Um that is the the majority of your change memo this evening. Um no changes from staff's perspective on recommendations or conditions. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda with the changes noted by staff? >> Make a motion. >> May I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Brink. Uh second by Commissioner Johnson. Uh all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? All right. Motion carries. All right. Next item is the approval of minutes of our April 30th, 2026 meeting. Uh commissioners, any changes to those minutes? Anyone? Okay. Uh may I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> I'll make the motion. >> A second. >> Second. Okay. >> All right. Uh motion by Minion, uh second by Shear. Uh all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All right. Any oppose? No. Motion carries. All right. Next up, we have a report from staff. >> Thank you, uh, Chair Banks. I'm just going to pull up the city council previous um agendas because I think I was going to update you on a wrong agenda meeting. Um I apologize. Let me make sure I have the items correct here. Actually, the reason I was going to update you is the the council has not had a regularly scheduled meeting uh since your um April 27th meeting. So, if you want to hear about everything they did on April 27th, I can go over that again. The one item I will comment on is coming to your next meeting. Uh if you'll recall um from the April 27th update, the council has directed staff to prepare a ordinance as it pertains to short-term uh rentals in our community. And so at your next meeting, um you this group, even though it's not a zoning ordinance, it's actually a licensing type ordinance, this group, what you're very very good at is holding a public uh forum and a a public input session. So, this is the forum that the council chose to have that public input on the short-term rental ordinance. So, that will be in your packet um for your next meeting. Um and your next meeting will be on May the 28th. All right. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Um now, any um um reports from the commission? Commissioner, any reports for this meeting? Nope. All right. All right. So, we'll move on to the next item, which is the consent agenda. Um, city staff places items that are considered routine on the consent agenda. No staff or applicant presentations will be made. The commission will hold one public hearing and approve all items on the consent agenda with one motion subject to the staff recommended conditions of approval. Before voting on the cons consent agenda, I will open the public hearing, announce each item, and ask if anyone wishes to have a separate discussion or vote on that item. If so, the commission will then remove that item from the consent agenda and hold a separate hearing after voting on the remaining consent agenda items. Uh, I may allow informational questions uh without removing an item from the consent agenda. So at this time I will open the hearing on the consent agenda. All right. The first item and the only item we have tonight uh is a front yard setback variance for a detached garage located at 1032 Lake View Drive West. Is that correct? Yeah. Uh, and this is a recommendation by staff to adopt a resolution to approve the front yard setback. Um, does any commissioner wish to remove this item? Okay. Any member of the audience? All right. Uh, okay. So, as no one wishes to speak, I will close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda? Motion to approve the items on the consent agenda. Uh >> a second. >> I'll second that. A >> motion by Commissioner Shear. Uh second by Commissioner Johnson. Uh staff, please pull the commission. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Sher, >> yes. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. Chair Banks, >> yes. Motion carries. Um the resolution to approve the item uh front yard setback variance for a detached garage located at 10324 Lake View Drive West is a final decision uh subject to appeal. If anyone would like to appeal the commission's decision, they must provide a written request to city staff within 10 days of the meeting. All right, good luck with that project. All right. Next up, we have the non-consent agenda. So, before we begin consideration of the non-consent items, I'd like to review the steps in the process and the public hearing procedure that will be followed for each proposal. First, the item will be announced and staff will report on the subject. The commission will then ask questions. Uh, next, the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer comments. Uh and then again at that time commissioners may ask additional questions. Uh after the applicant is finished the public hearing will be open to give anyone present the opportunity opportunity to com comment on the proposal. If you wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name address for the record. We ask that you keep your comments brief and try not to repeat points already made. Once everyone has spoken. We may allow speakers to return for additional comments at a larger meeting. Uh neighborhood spokespeople are encouraged and will be given up to 15 minutes to present. All right, with that, the first item on tonight's uh non-consent agenda will be for variances for uh a rear yard, side yard, shoreland setback, flood plane setback, impervious surface maximum, and flood plane lowest floor elevation for the construction of a new single family home, uh which will utilize the existing foundation at 2819 McKenzie Point Road. Uh staff. >> Thank you, Chair Banks. Uh this property under consideration this evening, as you pointed out, is on McKenzie Point Road, which is actually the farthest point west you can go on Lake Minnotonka and still be in the city uh of Minnotonka. The lot is just over 12,000 square feet. It has about 40 feet of frontage on the lake shore. It's considered non-conforming um because it was created in 1914 uh 50 years before the city became uh a city and certainly uh well before the city had its first zoning and subdivision ordinances. We believe that the first structure was built on the property that same year in 1914 in Oh, I apologize. The is this property here. It's highlighted in red on this uh diagram. an aerial, but not on this one. This is the property uh in question. In 1988, there had been a detached garage on the property that was quite close uh to the roadway itself that was removed and an attached garage uh was constructed at that time. It's that 1914 footprint plus the established footprint of the garage that create the footprint on the property that you see today. In the early uh 2000s, the then property owner uh submitted applications to construct a second story over the existing uh home and many variances were required again because of the non-conforming setbacks of that original structure. Those variances were denied by the planning commission. Uh ultimately the property owner appealed that denial and the council did uh approve uh those variances at that time. The second story edition was constructed and and it's what you see um today. The current property owner is proposing to remove the entirety of the structure down to foundation and rebuild within that same footprint. And Miss Rooney, who's the actual project planner, um, but was not able to be here this evening, put together some what I think are really good slides showing on each of these that I'm going to go through. Um, the existing structure is going to be shown on the left and the proposed structure is shown on the right. Again, um, within the existing footprint, meaning at grade uh, of the home. So, this is if you were on Lake Minnotonka, this is the view that you would see of existing and proposed. And then if you were on McKenzie Point Boulevard or Mackenzie Point Road, excuse me, um existing and proposed, you'll notice the one um change you can see here is that the second story goes um straight up from the first story, whereas there had been a um an indent of a few feet for the second story. And then um some shots looking from neighboring properties. So this is from the north what the neighboring property to the north would see. Again existing structure. This is all to scale and proposed structure. Here you can see the addition of a second story over the existing garage. Um height remains the same, footprint remains the same, but again we have that new second story here. And then finally a view from um the south what is existing and then what is proposed. Uh as was the case in uh the early 2000s there are multiple variances that are required uh for this project. The requirements are shown in this column to the left. But I think that what's at least from staff's perspective most illustrative is what's existing and what's proposed. So we do have again multiple variances. It looks like six, but those variances really are um equal to existing situation in terms of setbacks. So, a rear yard setback, which is really the lake, um sideyard setbacks, shoreland setback, um flood plane setback, and then this separation from flood plane, and again, impervious surface all remaining the same. staff uh our large development review team did review this project and found that uh we can support these variances for a few reasons. Um first is the variances again would not change the footprint of the structure. It would really maintain existing development patterns both from the lakeshore view and from um the street and from side property lines. Second, given the constraints of this property, the size, the width, the presence of flood plane, um if this structure were removed entirely, we would certainly be back before you and it were redesigned. We would be back before you um looking for some different variances. There's really not an opportunity to rebuild here um without variances. And then thirdly, and and perhaps um most significant is that under the state's non-conforming use law, this home could be torn down and rebuilt with simply a building permit if they were building asis. So, um it's be this request is before you this evening because of that second story, uh garage edition and that flush wall on on the north side. Let's see what other comments did Miss Rooney want me to make. Um, so I think with with that in mind, um, these things in mind, especially the non-conforming use law, I think the question really before the planning commission is whether it is reasonable to allow construction of a new structure um, on this lot or if it's reasonable to only allow reconstruction of the existing structure, if that makes sense. a tear down and and rebuild of asis. It's the opinion of staff that this proposal is reasonable and we are recommending approval this evening with those series of conditions that are in your resolution. We did notify uh 12 property owners of the request. I've only received one written comment which was provided to you this evening. I'm not sure how many comments we'll receive here in person tonight. I did want to let you know that I've had several uh good conversations with the property owner to the north, Mr. Sorenson. He and I have discussed um his structural concerns about that existing homes foundation uh about fire rating and walls and windows and and construction practices on what is a a tight site and staff certainly hears and and understands those those concerns. I've pointed out uh to Mr. Sorenson and that those are things that our city's building official and our fire marshall would review if uh variance is approved and um building permits are submitted for construction. Obviously, it's those professionals that ensure that the state's building code and fire codes are met not just on this property, but um throughout our community. So, with that, uh I will turn it back to uh Chair Banks for questions. All right. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Uh, commissioners, any questions for staff? >> Uh, Commissioner Johnson. >> Miss Thomas, um, looking at those diagrams, which are really excellent, it appears to me that this is an significant expansion of the house. That is, do you have any comparisons in the finished square footage or anything like that? Uh, Chair Banks and Commissioner Johnson. Yes. After uh we spoke this afternoon. I did um run those numbers and and that contractor can um also uh speak to this a little bit later, but it looks like it's about 830 833 uh specifically uh square feet that would be constructed over um the garage space. That is where that additional square footage is coming in. Is it in does that volume impair the sightelines of any other properties adjoining or say behind it? Uh Chair Banks and Commissioner uh Johnson um from staff's perspective, no because it's on the street side. Um most of the properties uh certainly the properties on either side of this structure have the same setbacks as the the proposed structure. The additional height would be to the rear of the building. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Commissioner Brink. >> Yes. Could you just uh repeat again what year the existing house was built and the foundation? The original home based on our records was built and I should say cabin. Most of the things here were cabins was built in 1914. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Mian, >> just kind of an odd question, but um, I see the roof lines are changing and I can see the direction of runoff will change, but will the volume of imperous surface change at all? >> Chair Banks and Commissioner Minion, no, the volume of impervious surface or the uh, percentage of imperous surface remains the same. I'm trying to get back to my um, chart here. There are um areas and again the applicant can maybe speak to this where um impervious surface is being removed and then um replaced such that uh everything remains the same. Um one item that I did not note and you can barely see it here is the existing actually this might be a better view of it from the lake. The existing home has um a door with a landing area and steps that then go out towards the lake. Uh the proposal here still has a door certainly on the lakeside, but the steps go parallel to the to the home itself. So, um running not away from the lake, but parallel to the lake rather than outward. So here would be some changes in where the impervious surface is but the total amount of impervious does not change. >> Commissioner Brink. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I guess just kind of um adding on to uh Commissioner Minion's question there about uh the roof lines looking like they're changing and even the amount of roof up there is that um you know with the houses there and the lots everything spaced so tight together. Um, I'm presuming the the city the building official or whoever approves the plans will make sure that the drainage from the roof is directed accordingly and not, you know, directly at the neighbor's house. >> Uh, yes, Chair Banks and and Commissioner uh Brink. Uh certainly I do know that in the 2000 I believe um approvals there were conditions about which way rain gutters needed needed to direct. I would have to um take a look at the resolution. I don't know off the top of my head if that's included, but something you could as a a commission ask that that be included to be specifically looked at at the time of building permit should you um choose to approve this tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. question. Do the new steps coming down on the lakeside extend past um the existing foundation in the same square footage as the other steps that came straight out? I mean, are we adding square footage there or getting closer to the lake? >> Uh Chair Banks and Commissioner Shure, we are not getting closer to the lake. We're actually moving farther away about 4 ft further away from the lake. I would have to defer um to the applicant on on square footage of the step and stoop now versus step and stoop um as proposed, but um certainly an improvement from um moving things away from the lake there. >> Yeah, Commissioner Frank. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, you know, it it appears that, you know, with the variance request, it's pretty much just matching, you know, the existing. I just have a question on the on the on the lowest floor elevation. Um, you know, in recent years, um, you know, climate change, however we want to, uh, say it, you know, the lake level, you know, groundwater, you know, those those can really bounce up and down significantly. And maybe this is a question more for the applicant, but I was wondering if there was any thought or need even to consider trying to raise it up every any little bit you can, but I understand with matching the existing foundation there's constraints with that. >> Uh, Chair Banks and Commissioner Brink, I I don't know that this will answer your question and I think do think you should follow up with the applicant. Our water resources engineer did look at um and was out at the site and does feel that there's been some settling around um the foundation and so we have included a condition that they do need to bring in some earth around the foundation to at least ensure that the lowest opening um for the struct the lowest opening at least is uh above the flood plane elevation under proposed conditions. We've included a condition that would require an asbuilt survey before um a final occupancy to to ensure that the lowest floor I have not been uh full disclosure I've not been in the house but I understand that the lowest floor is a a crawl space. It's not a a habitable space. Um so that is one of the reasons that our water resources engineer was okay with the the condition of um raising areas around the lowest openings. Certainly um raising the whole structure would be the the best possible option um but wasn't required here. >> Thank you. >> Any more questions? Okay. >> Um I do have one question. Um you mentioned that by state law um the applicant could rebuild could tear down and rebuild asis. So two two parts to this one question. Um is when we define asis, is is that exactly like it is today or is it asis in terms of square footage size? Uh but they could make some some changes. And then the second part of that is um with that tear down, does that include the foundation? Can they actually remove the foundation and will they have to rebuild that as is? >> Uh, Chair Banks, I'm going to start and Miss Wishnack may jump in because there's kind of two different things at play. One is the flood plane um regulation which um Miss Wishnack is a PE. We call her a pretend engineer. Um uh so she may have more info on that. Um, by state law, when we say asis, it means the footprint of the building and the height of the building, the volume of that building. So whether or not the windows go back in the same spot, Minnotonka has not interpreted that as that that's more of a those are amenity type things, but the footprint, the location, the height of the structure, that volume all has to be the same um for that state law to kick in. There's some additional things with regard to um flood plane which may require um changes only to the flood plane perspective not not to set back not to location but it may be to the um what we pretend engineers call freeboard but I think that's actually a real engineering term too. >> Does that answer the question? Okay. >> Yes, it does. Yeah. All right. Uh if there are no more questions, um okay, at this time, I'd like to invite the applicant up to do a presentation or um offer comments. Uh if you would like to make a presentation or or comments, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm John Neely with revision 153 East Lake Street in Weisetta. I'm the contractor and developer of the project. >> Courtney Hamburger. I am the owner and future resident. >> Uh thank you uh for taking consideration of our proposed project for tonight. We understand and know that there are a lot of variances attached to this and the uniqueness of the property that was created over 112 years ago plus 120 some years ago, whatever it is. um and just how it's been set and what's been set up. As we got into just the the design and development of the project and trying to find the best needs as the house continues, um our our true intent was to try to stay exactly with the footprint of the project or of the existing structure that's there. Knowing just that it's very close to the property lines, it's very close to to the lake and just the disruption that could be caused in to removing that and doing a full dig. So we explored and took consideration to what the current foundation is. Um from our from our guesstimate I can't tell you exact dates but uh I will confirm that that foundation isn't from 1914. Um I don't know the date of it but just based on the condition of it is that it is in its current state to date. Um it's a viable foundation for us to be able to build a structure. We do have a structural engineer uh involved in the project as well as part of construction that will get approved and you know confirmed with and provided the city of Minnitaka's building official department. So I just wanted wanted to know that. So as part of uh understanding what we were working with from an existing uh existing foundation we felt that the best needs were to expand some some bedrooms primarily over the second floor and capitalizing or taking over the garage space. So, which is the furthest impacting to any of the neighboring properties as well as to the lake shore. Um, we felt that was a viable solution in doing so. Um, to get that to work with all the other elements in building construction with the con some of the details then and the way that the house was constructed and whatever year it's had some additions onto the approach of taking the house down to the cap, the foundation and rebuilding new walls and new structure. um we felt is the best viable approach both for the property, for the homeowner, and for the overall project. Um we have worked with we've worked very closely with city staff um and multiple departments across the city in terms of of how we're getting around managing the flood plane. Um I think that's one of the conditions we're we're we're in support of that condition of of trying to raise some grades. Um we know it helps us, we know it helps you, we helps FEMA and everybody else involved. Um, we also worked closely with the building official to determine some construction details on the north facing wall that's closest to the neighboring property uh to create a 1 hour uh a 1 hour firewall uh rated wall uh for that condition. So, those are things that that we're in support of as well. We understand the importance of them. Um and just want to made wanted to make comments on that. Um some other details that you that were brought up just as comments I just want to I want to address. Um the roof lines in terms of runoff uh the current roof lines are changing uh in the proposed plan. Um the most concern to the runoff of water is to the both adjoining neighboring properties. And by changing the pitch going this way out to the neighbors to now going this way we're redirecting the water towards more towards the front and the back as we get closer to those neighboring houses relative to what's there today which sheds right off to the lines directly adjacent to the home. So we are trying we did in the design process try to figure out ways to accommodate and to manage that just knowing where we were on the property. Um those are yeah those are primarily uh you know the the thoughts and considerations that we took into it. Um we did try to keep again just existing as closely as possible to what's there. We did feel like we we made a small improvement to reducing the staircase going out to the lake shore. We know that the lake shore is a you know strong consideration of any structure getting close to the shoreline. Um and we did reduce that and pull that back four feet by redirecting and changing the shape of it. The size of uh hard cover that it that's existing today does match to be equal. Um so that the structure that's there we matched in terms of the square footage size uh for that detail as well. I'm happy to answer any questions and Courtney may want to add to that. >> Questions first. >> All right. Thank you. Um, please stand by. Um, uh, commissioners, any questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Shear, >> I have a question about the second floor setback that is the 4ft. Is that variant still in place or is that what we're eliminating? is that required setback on the second floor 4T. >> Uh, chair Banks and Commissioner Shore um that the same setback variance um I apologize. Let me say that again. The 4ft or the very small setback variance from the north side is just over the home. Um the garage is set back much further. Um, so that second story over the garage um is captured um by the setback variance here, but I would note it's significantly further. And we can try to zoom in. The required setback on a lot of this size is typically 7 ft. So, it does in fact look like the um garage addition, the garage itself um would meet those setback requirements. Um which actually the the more I think about it makes sense because when the garage was built, it was just built with a building permit. It did not have to come for or to this body. And that does that apply to the entire house or just to that portion? So would the north side have that second floor 4 foot setback requirement or no? >> Uh the second floor would also be set back uh per this survey it would be set back um almost uh I think this reads 8.4 + 1.2 so 9 ft back from the north property line. The second story over the garage um the second story over the home would have that same 1.2 2 foot setback as the foundation. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Uh questions? I mean, Commissioner M. >> Thank you. Um you talked a little bit about uh water mitigation and and the change of your pitches, your roofs. Can you tell us in your um in your process, are gutters going to be included this property as part of that? >> Yeah. Yes, we do have gutters included as part of this project. >> And then do you see any type of uh excavating being done in regards to possibly damp proofing the current foundation or anything like that? >> Uh not to the current foundation. We do have anywhere from on the north or on the south side of the property anywhere from 3 in to 1 ft of grade change that we're just having to add to to meet with that uh flood plan requirement. >> Okay. Thank you. Did I answer your question? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Question. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, just a question about construction being it's it's so tight there. Um, how do you construct this without going onto the neighbor's property or do you have to get temporary easements from your neighbors? >> Yeah, I mean, uh, that's a great question. Um, so the there is a fence on that property line and so we really have no need or no necessary reason to go beyond the fence. um we can construct the property. That that's also the benefit of not move removing the foundation. Um is that if we were have to remove the foundation that we do have to overdig right up to the property line and that gets to be a little bit tricky. Um but in this case we're just constructing walls and siding and painting and finishes. So it's mostly we can stay within the the area uh inside the fence. So, I know it sounds unique, but I always remind people they build skyscrapers on the edge of a a road and a sidewalk while you walk underneath it in the city street. So, it's a little bit unique, but >> can be done. >> Thank you. >> Any more? Okay. All right. Um, we'll stick around. Um, we will, uh, you can you can have a seat if you want, >> but um, >> thank you. >> We might call you back up for questions. >> All right. All right. Um, so I will now open uh public hearing. So if you'd like to speak, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Uh, we do have one public comment. I will go ahead and call uh Haley Man if you will. I'm Hi Man and my husband and I live on the south side. So we're not the one foot. were a few feet away and we are aware of how close those properties are. We bought our property in 2006 and spent a year with your approval to um renovate obviously not changing the foundation and we actually didn't take down all the walls but we did a lot of renovation inside and we see the value in having a home such as that one being torn down, a beautiful new home being put up next to us increases the property values for everybody around us. Um, we have discussed this property um, with the new owner and we're very comfortable what they're doing. We realize there's going to be some disruption, but I'm sure we caused a little disruption when we did ours as well. I think you've raised some good points of certainly being sure the runoff is not the houses are close. Um, our basement is my height. My husband doesn't like to go down there, but I can. We do store things down there. He sends me. And we did add drain tile to our basement a number of years ago because it wasn't originally drain tiled. And so we do not have problems with water coming in the basement. We had a little bit before and then once we put the drain tile in, we've been very happy that it's um we still keep things in plastic containers down there, but but it is definitely more part of the basement below the lake level. And so we look forward to having a new neighbor and to working along with them and trust that it will all go as smoothly as possible. So we do not have an objection to what's being done. All right. Thank you, Miss Man. Is there any other public comments? Okay. So, um also we'll note that we did receive um for change memo um one public comment on this item. Um, so with that, I will close the public hearing and now back to my fellow commissioners for comments or uh any further questions. Who would like to go first? Commissioner Sure. >> Thank you. Um, it looks like a beautiful project. Um, great location of course, gorgeous house. Um, and I look forward to driving by Senpai, seeing what it looks like. So, thank you. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Johnson. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm looking at this and I looked at it very carefully because of the number of variances that are in play here. But I do see a unique difficulty because this lot is so unusually narrow and constrained by the lake and existing development patterns. I mean these lots should be extremely valuable because of their proximity to the lake and you know their narrowness. Uh it it really does allow a lot of people to enjoy the lake. There seems to be no practical location on this lot to build a home in full compliance without variances. And so um with the runoff taken care of and the conditions that are set forth and the planning commission report, I support the project. I I think it will be beautiful. >> Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. I agree with Commissioner Johnson. Um, all well said. Um, I really like the fact that it's using the existing foundation, that it's not physically growing. The fact that, um, impervious service is staying the same. I think it's a hard thing to make this work and make it fit. I think you've done a good job of putting that together. I think it'll add a lot to the neighborhood as well. Um, I'm in support of it. Um, I also like the fact that I don't know there's a whole lot of other places that you could build this house in this to rebuild it on that lot. So, um, I'm in favor of it. I would like to see, um, some attention into the downspouts and how that's directed and how that's controlled if we could add that somehow in our language. Um, but interested whatever the people have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Brink. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, yes, I think this is a good plan. Um, I'm in favor of it moving forward. I think the applicant has addressed, you know, uh, commissioner's concerns about various, um, questions regarding, you know, impacts to neighbors and, uh, clarification on setbacks and so forth. Um, it's unique, but it's not unusual. I mean, if you take a drive down McKenzie Point Road or even further east along Grace Bay Bay, it's it's there's just many many lots and houses just like this. So, um the fact that they're, you know, staying in the, you know, same foundation, same same footprint is a big plus, I think, makes it a little easier, too. So, um yeah, thanks to the applicant and staff for their work here and look forward to seeing this move forward. >> All right. Thank you. Um well, with that being said, uh it's always said that the um the chair has the toughest job trying to come up with comments that have already been mentioned. And uh so I won't bore anyone repeating all of the good points. Um I do agree. I'm in full support of this project. Um I think it's a great idea to utilize what's there. um doesn't seem like um you know we're being asked to do anything outside of the existing um and unfortunately that does require the variances but um it's all within reason and um it's great to see the support from the neighbors as well. So um I think with that we are um perhaps ready for a motion. >> Okay. >> All right. Um so uh want to a motion to approve the variances for the rear yard sideyard shoreline shore land excuse me setback uh flood plane setback impervious surface maximum and flood plane lowest floor elevation for the construction of a new single family home uh utilizing existing foundation 2819 McKenzie Point Road. I'd make the motion that we approve this uh recommend approval adopting the resolution as written with perhaps particular attention to the runoff as stated by Commissioner Minion. >> Uh Chair Banks, if I may, I I wrote down a potential condition for you that the permit plans provide details or notes related to drainage, gutters, and downspouts. >> Okay. So, are we should I read that with the condition noted? You can ask if if that's if that is um an amendment that uh Commissioner Johnson would like to make. >> Yes, that's a friendly amendment and well stated. >> Okay, I uh anyone second that with the amendment? >> I second that with the amendment. >> Great. All right. Uh motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Shear. Um staff, please pull the commission. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Sher, >> yes. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. Mr. Chair Baines. >> Yes. All right. Motion carries. Uh this is a final decision subject to appeal. Uh if anyone would like to appeal the commission or the commission's decision, uh they must provide a written request to the city staff within 10 days of this meeting. Uh good luck. >> All right. Um on to other business. Next up, um is the other business section of our agenda. Uh this section is reserved for items that do not require formal uh planning commission actions. Rather items may include concept plan reviews,formational topics or trainings. Uh our first other business item is a concept plan for Endeavor Development uh located at 10700 Bren Road West adjacent and their adjacent properties. >> Uh thank you uh Chair Banks. As you pointed out, Endeavor Development has presented this concept plan uh for redevelopment of what staff has always referred to as the Boston Scientific Site in Opus Park. It's technically comprised of four different parcels and some of those parcels are now even further um parcled or biseected by uh the new uh light rail line. In total, there's about 24 acres with frontage on both Bren Road West and uh Felt Road. Development actually started on the site in 1991 and then progressively the building and parking lots uh grew in size as um Boston Scientific uh grew in size or originally American Medical Systems I should say and uh then Boston Scientific. This is a a great um screenshot from some drone footage that the city has of the park just to give some context. So, here is Shady Oak Road. Um 62, the ramp off of 62 is right here. So, um here's Yum Star uh not Starbucks, sorry. Uh Caribou, sorry. Sorry, Caribou. Um uh then you have the shoot the Elcott which is Dominium or a Doran project. Then the Dominium um uh project here the light rail stop is right um past this and then what I've tried to circle here is the Boston scientific site. So, just to give you some some context of where this sits uh in the park, the plan contemplates removal of um that existing 224,000 uh square foot building and the associated parking and then construction of a uh one building 270,000 square ft. Um the specific design and um the tenants have not been selected uh yet uh as we're still in concept plan phase, but I'm sure the developer can kind of talk about their process as they've um built um many similar projects throughout the Twin Cities metro uh area. The company did host a neighborhood meeting about two weeks ago and it was attended by three uh area property owners or tenants, business um tenants in the park. The primary concern they raised was actually an existing concern about uh truck traffic in the opus area. Some of it I think related to um ongoing construction in in the area and some um probably related to just different uses in the area. um trucks if you've been to Opus maybe getting turned around not knowing uh which way they're going using parking lots um to turn around in and so concerns about existing situations and then potential for additional traffic um with a building of this site as the commission is aware since I believe you did a a concept plan uh review at your last meeting also this is a feedback process it's not a process where staff can answer detailed questions or probably the applicant can't even at this time because those detailed plans haven't been drafted. We're simply seeking um your feedback this evening. Kind of what I call your gut reaction um to the project and then answers to three questions. Is there merit to this concept proceeding to formal development? If yes, why? If not, um why? And then what do you think would make this concept um better? Um with that I'll turn it to the chair and I believe I'm going to pull up some slides that the applicant has also um brought with them and there no um this is just for the commission. Okay. All right. Great. All right. So uh comments from the commission. Who would like to go first? Commission the sher. >> Uh chair if if I may. I think the applicant would like to we'll do a short presentation and then um we would love to hear your comment. >> Okay, great. Um yeah, if the applicant would you mind coming up uh share your name and address for the record? >> Chair, commissioners, my name is Joe Bergman. I'm partner at Endeavor Development. Our address is 200 Southdale Center in Adina 55435. Thank you, Miss Thomas. This is just an introductory slide here. Um, I'll try to keep it as brief as possible. As she noted, we don't have detailed plans yet. This is very much a concept looking for some feedback. Now, would you scroll to the next slide? And as we note here, Endeavor, we we've got the property under contract. We're working on initial plans. We're doing due diligence, namely geotechnical, environmental, and surveying work at this point. We've got some very basic designs, but we don't have, as I mentioned, a detailed plans yet. Uh if you kind enough to go to the next one a little bit about Endeavor. We're the most active developer of industrial properties in the Twin Cities. We've done about 25 projects in the last 5 years across the metro. Most notably would be our we've done roughly seven buildings up at Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove right at 494 694 junction there as well as we redeveloped the former American Family Insurance campus that is in the Opus 2 Opus 2 business park right along Highway 62 there. technically a little remnant parcel in Eden Prairie rather than Minnetonka, but we demolished those buildings in early 2025 and then redeveloped it into two new buildings, both of which have now been leased uh right by the time we completed the building. So, there's quite a bit of demand for what we're doing and I think we're we're trying to take underutilized or obsolete buildings and kind of repurpose those sites as best we can. As she shared, here's the the brief site plan that we've done. roughly 275,000 square feet would be 32 foot clear height. So the from the slab of the building to the bottom of the joist. So it' be slightly taller in reality be closer to 37 to 40 ft tall from from to the top of the building at top of the parapits typically roughly 270 parking stalls. We've we've shown some trailer parking behind the building primarily to take advantage of a part of the parcel geometry which is tricky to make the building bigger there to try to find a way to use that site as best we can. And as Miss Thomas noted, it's planned speculatively. We don't have any tenants in hand yet. We have had some pretty strong interest from a number of different groups, but it's all preliminary at this point until we can figure out what we can build and and how we can build it. And then I've then next slide if you would be so kind. I've got a few representative buildings. Other projects we've done throughout the metro are under construction. This is one that we just started construction on a couple of months ago in Fidley. Uh roughly the same size, 250,000 ft. And this design you see here, it's what would be termed architecturally scored and painted pre-cast. So pre-cast panels that would be erected, detailed with scoring or lines throughout them, and then painted after they've been erected. And our our color palette typically is blues and kind of grays and and and uh light tans. And that's kind of what you're seeing here. We typically also concentrate particularly on speculative buildings where we don't have a tenant in hand. We try to concentrate as much glass as we can on the corners and in the center of the building. So we can get multiple tenants in there and have multiple main entrances. And then in this specific project, we're using a composite wood panel, a niha panel that which is that kind of wood type panel there that runs north south to break it up both vertically and then horizontally. You'll see articulation on both planes there. The nichi and if you would be kind enough to share the next one and this is the arbor lakes project on the right here that is got some additionally has some of that niche panel and also has it kind of it's designed to replicate twotory office. So if you'll see the dark paint, there's glass in that upper tier and then it is extended with the dark paint to make the windows look larger. And so that's something we got the city of Maple Grove comfortable with knowing it was a very high-profile site and they'd initially proposed it as or planned it as office and once office kind of the bottom fell out of that market. They were left with a lot of land guided guided and zoned for office and not a lot of use for that. So, this is something we've done that I think does a nice job replicating the feel of an office while also serving much more functional space for the users that we've seen in the market. And then the one on the left here, this is Nexus at Opus Park. That's the one on it's on was formerly a blue circle drive address, now it's a yellow circle drive address, but right at 62 and 169 there. Uh, and we've got a stone veneer as kind of the accent and again two-story glass. And this is the new home of HM Craig. But so they actually went to a two-story office in that corner. So the glass goes all the way up and they have twotory office all the way wrapping around both sides of that corner. So I think that is the last slide. But those are again representative. They're not intended to be exact replicas for what we're building. But that's a general idea of how we've approached sites like this, particularly high-profile sites where there either has been existing office or it's the expectation is for a more visible site, a more impressive type of concept. So, with that said, I'm happy to take any questions. Uh, Chair Banks, I think because we don't have anyone here yet, you could, uh, certainly ask, um, questions that are, you know, large and conceptual. >> Okay, great. Great. Thanks for taking questions. Um, so, uh, open up for the commissioners, uh, commissioner chair. >> Thank you. Uh, thank you for the presentation. So, um, merit for the concept. Well, yes. I love the idea of of having another use for this building, one that actually meets the needs of prospective clients. Um, I'm concerned, however, that just where it sits on the site, it seems like it really is being slammed into a site that isn't really shaped for it. Um, it's quite hilly. So, it's I've seen the projects out in Maple Grove, beautiful industrial parks out there, a lot of flat land. So, I'd love to see a building that makes use of the environment that it's sitting in um a little bit better. I don't know if that means it's not feasible. Um but just the building being so close to the road um the landscaping, I'd love to see some really great landscaping to see this building fit in and that would to me make it a little bit better. I used to do site plans like this for uh distribution centers in my past life. >> Um and I know that wanting to maximize the space is really really important. Um just looking at how this whole opus area looks. It's so it's so green. There's a school across the street um an academy across the street. So how does this fit into the existing environment, your existing neighbors? >> Sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, anyone else questions? Yeah, Johnson. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I'm concerned that if this ends up being a warehouse for traffic circulation >> because in other areas um of the country where office, which is now very much diminished, is um a desirable build. Um there's been a lot of industrial traffic and that's been promoted primarily by these um online you can order anything online from anything Amazon um a number of places and they have trucks that a lot of truck traffic is potential. So my big concern would be that if this were developed as warehouse that it'd have a very good traffic circulation plan sensitive to the other uses and to the concerns of the neighbors because um your truck traffic is only going to get more. It's going to increase I think with the trends that I'm seeing in retail. So that would be my big concern about it. Okay. >> Thank you. Commissioner Manion, >> thank you for coming tonight. Will you talk a little bit, Again, this is we're talking about big picture items, but we talk a little bit about uh what your company's bringing in regards to sustainability, uh envelope quality, the tightness of the building, uh energy solutions that might help uh be a little more friendly, carbon reduction type of things. >> Sure. And and I'll speak kind of at a general level. >> Just a general level. Yes, sir. Yeah. So, I guess the biggest thing that we do that would be sustainable on a site like this and it was a big it was a very big deal for when we did the uh Nexus project, the former American Family Insurance campus, is that when we're demolishing these buildings, we're recycling all the concrete on site. So, partly because we can reuse that, grind that up and reuse it underneath the building, not only does it mean we don't have to haul it off and take it to a dump, but we also don't have to haul anything in. So, we're basically reducing truck traffic simultaneously, but also the emissions pretty dramatically. Uh in terms of the envelope of the building, we're not pursuing lead certification or anything like that, but everything is very tight and it is modern construction. So it's a much different product with the pre-cast and steel structure than maybe you would see an older industrial product where it was I guess I would say leakier and different materials that didn't have quite the same R value. For example, the concrete panels are in fact insulated. So they carry a a 15 an R15 insulation all the way around and then your roof is typically R30. So it's it's a working from a pretty solid sustainable base. And then once we build out the interior depending on who the client is, typically that's where we see a greater focus on things like LED lighting or other strategies that they can use to sort of kind of make that sustainability stickier, I guess. Um those are the biggest ways we can do it. And again, the recycling the materials on site is it's sometimes can be hard to quantify, but we're talking truly hundreds of truck trips both coming and going that we can avoid by keeping it all on site. So that's that's the the clearest way that we we focus on that. Can you talk a little bit about strategies about reduction of uh truck traffic during the construction process? Uh, one of the things that comes to my mind is possibly just some inexpensive uh, wayfinding disposable signs to kind of help drivers get in and get out. But do you have any theories on that you can share on that? >> Sure. I I can only really speak to kind of what we've done on the pro previous project that was also in Opus Park. And that I guess the one thing that's helpful for having construction traffic is that you tend to have the same drivers coming repeatedly. If they're coming one day after the next, it's the same 6 8 10 people that are making that drive. So the biggest thing is getting people comfortable with navigating the Opus 2 system. That is it's it can be complicated for the first time through, but having repeat visits, people tend to get much more comfortable doing it. The other piece we would I think we would look at doing on this site specifically would be encouraging people and directing them to come up Shady Oak, come down on Smatana and come back in on Felt rather than trying to go through on uh I guess kind I'm not sure the name of the street where it comes off of Shady Oak, comes wraps around the academy and then doubles back up on Bren Road. You guys familiar with that or we have a map by any chance? Yeah, that that one's fine. So, so for truck traffic coming in on off of Shady Oak going up coming back on some tenn down bel this is a road that already has industrial uses or flex uses. So it's it's traffic there expects that type of traffic I guess and then they could enter on the north end of the site without having to go through the entirety of the circulation past the apartments past the academy. That would be something we look at. Some of this is just working with our contractor and making sure that they're working with their superintendent and their superintendent is working with all the different foremen, making sure that everyone understands the most efficient and the safest routes to navigate. And I I guess that would be I think the same type of strategy for whatever groups occupied the building is just getting people familiar with it and understanding how the park works. I think even in its current iteration, it takes it took me a long time to get comfortable navigating as a commuter in that area. So, I think one of the one of the real benefits that we have now that people didn't have 10, 15, 20 years ago is just the GPS in your phone, right? And directing you in ways that so you're not lost in just doing loops. So, I hope that was a little bit verbose, but hopefully that answered your question. No, >> I appreciate it. It's just something I'd try to encourage. I think the best energy efficiency really is building a quality envelope. And, you know, if you could put things into it like uh, you know, a little extra steel in the roof to make sure that the possibility of future of putting solar in or things like that, I think it'd be great as well. It's the concept idea throw out there, but uh I like it. >> That's a good suggestion. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Frank. >> Thank you, Chair. Um this question and comment might might be more directed towards staff but uh when we look at this uh proposal of you know 250,000 square foot business center and kind of looking at the opus area as a whole you know and you know whether it's not necessar well the comp plan but then studies you know underneath that that address opus specifically you know sub area plans um and there's just you know such a variety of uses there. Is this is this a good mix, you know, with with our comp plan and uh as far as the use of the property um and mixes in well with the other properties, other uses there? >> Yeah, Chair Banks and and Commissioner Brink, I'll I'll start and not speak on whether give a staff recommendation on this quite yet and and Miss Mishnack can jump in. I think that this area of Opus, this northwest quadrant, um really has long been kind of a a a light industry quadrant in Opus, the the west side here. And so I think it's um appropriate in in that way. It was kind of light industry and and and remaining. So, I know that um the AUR, which I think you reviewed uh last time, uh did take into consideration um new use on this site and um looked at mixed use for the site. Mixed use being a variety of different uses um may be reasonable. Uh M. Swishnack and I meet with a lot of developers on a lot of different sites in Opus and um almost 99% of them um suggest that they might want to build housing. So um it it is maybe refreshing to see something that's a little bit different and we would like to see now Julie can kick me under the table um uh again just a continued mix of uses in Opus. We don't want to see the pendulum swing um one way too far. I'm not sure that I've ever shared with this group, but I am the keeper of the original 1972 Opus publication um showing what opus was intended to be. It included a Montreal, so we're um we're close. Um but it was really intended to be a place where people could live um work uh do business and have this variety of uses. So, I think that continuation of variety um makes sense. >> Yeah, I don't disagree uh with anything you said, Miss Thomas, but I I think you're right. This variety, I think it's really this balance act that we tried to structure. And I think Susan, if you go back to the map where you were talking about that kind of northeast or northwest quadrant of Opus, that really is a more industrial. You have holiday circuits, you have telekcom, you have an engineering company, you have lots of different uses kind of and and and frankly a school is not a small use either, especially that school. Um, and so lots of traffic with that school etc. Um and frankly the balance on housing um when we think about where that should go and open I mean we have lots of thoughts about it going near the station and so this being kind of across the way I mean I think it's good for employment and all of that that you would have a stop there but the actual residential property kind of focusing more by the station is really what we wanted to encourage. I think also frankly being right smack dab on the light rail line um I think encourages that kind of industrial light industrial use to keep to that northwest quadrant. I'm not sure that we would do it throughout the park. Um I shouldn't say that like maybe there's a proposal waiting out there, but I'm just saying that it makes sense uh in terms of the location and what was what's currently there frankly with Boston Scientific Building. So, >> thank you, >> Commissioner Sher. >> Thank you, chair. Um, that brings up a good question for me. Is access to light rail. How far away is the site and how easy is it to get there for the whoever might work into this work in this building? >> I can answer that. There's a actually a lovely trail that's already there. Um, and you can connect right underneath uh by Opus uh headquarters. Uh, >> oh yeah, go ahead. That's great. We'll bring up the light rail uh information so you can kind of visualize. Are you going to do the video or what are you doing? >> Oh, what are you doing? >> I'm just giving up. >> Oh, that works, too. Yeah, that's fine. There we go. So, uh, right at Boston Scientific there, there is a trail that goes underneath and you can kind of see it right there and it also goes underneath the light rail. Yep. And connects to the east. So, you can get pretty much anywhere you need to um on the trail system and get to the light rail station. Does that help? Yeah. And those are all intact today. Those aren't uh proposed or anything. Those are physically there. >> All right. I do have one question I wanted to ask. Um do you envision um this property having one tenant or multiple tenants um once completed? >> Yeah, it's hard to say. I think we're always planning for it to be multiple tenants. But I think based on the groups that have reached out and the fact that there's just not this type of product anywhere in Mithona right now, new industrial product that meets these things, I I would not be surprised if it ends up being a single user who kind of views it as a campus type opportunity similar to the way it's being used by by Boston site right now. >> Okay. I agree. And the reason I ask is I think um so a lot of questions and concerns about traffic >> and assuming um one tenant would be probably better to control that versus you know multiple tenants kind of doing their own thing. So um so it'll be interesting to see how what direction you go in with that. >> Um okay. Um any more questions for Okay. All right. Thank you so much. >> Yeah. Thank you for your time and thank you for the feedback. >> All right. All right. Um, commissioners, any uh feedback on this concept plan? Who would like to go first? Uh, I do believe it has merit. I really like the fact to see that developers are coming in reinvesting into our area. Uh with the resource of the light rail and the resource of the trails nearby, I would like to see um I'm encouraged to see people investing here. I think it'll create more jobs, more opportunities for people on the build process, but also uh as a building matures and and becomes full occupants, I think there's more opportunities for uh people to uh um basically grow here in the city. And I think it offers a lot of opportunities to do that. Um, I would like to see some thought given to sustainability. Uh, whether that's uh u more roof insulation. I like the idea of the tip up building. It's a very attractive building with their what their uh process has been in the past. Uh but if there's ways that they can continue to think about uh being a good neighbor as far as the traffic goes in general, ways that they can think about uh managing the runoff and the process and and uh I do like the fact that they're using the recycling right there on site for the products of the old building. It's a beautiful old building. I hate to see it go, but I could see the uh market for real estate, commercial real estate being pressured in the days we're in. And if we can help people become more competitive by approving something like this, I think it's a good thing to offer more flexibility and more variety for people to move into the to uh to our city and I was supportive of it. >> Right. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Sheriff, >> um I love seeing more industry, so I love seeing businesses that can be taxed so at a higher rate than residential. So, I I do like more business coming in, especially it being so close to the light rail. Um, gas prices, people can just take the train out there now instead of driving across town. Um, I always worry about heat sinks and and having the big concrete walls creating sound bouncing around in the community or um more heat. So, I'd love to see something with maybe even green walls on the exterior to try to add some of that sustainability, add some sound suppression, some cooling. So, something something more innovative for this area as maybe a as maybe inspiration for other people who want to come into this area and and do more building and uh and more industry. So, thank you. >> Thank you, chair. Yeah, I think this is a good good concept to move forward. It has merit. Um, I think it's a good use for the property. Um, I think when you look at um this northwest part of Opus, it's it's it's a it's a good use when you consider the other uses around there. There's quite a bit of uh residential and it's close to the the light rail and it seems to be that it would be a good fit for lots of reasons. So, um, yeah, I'm all in favor of seeing this move forward. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I simply agree with everything that's been said. Um I I do like the idea of sort of an Epcot center here in Minnetonka experimental prototype community of tomorrow. Um because it it is with you know gas prices with commuting time the frustrations we have on our highways. It would be nice to have a place where people can live, work and get around on the light rail and also have some recreational opportunities. So I I favor it. Uh and I understand that office is pretty much um dead. You're not going to see any more office buildings. We overbuilt all over the country. So we have to figure out creative uses of um that using those properties. So I support it. I think uh be sensitive to the other adjoining uses and it would be a good plan. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and with that I will say um I also believe that it it does have merit um to proceed forward for a formal development review. Um I do as well as the other commissioners um have the concerns about the the traffic but I believe as you get further down the process um some of those questions will be answered or addressed. Um but it is a great location. And I think um you know replacing uh the existing Boston Scientific building that's there um more of a warehouse um is very suitable for that space. Um what could make the concept better? Um I I I like the um the pictures and the the presentation of some of the existing buildings that um the company has done. Uh but I would love to see what the concept is for this space. Um and and you know what your vision would be for um the materials and and the as you mentioned the height and the the additional um you know 50,000 square ft. Uh it' be great to see what that would look like conceptually uh in that space. But um all right with that any other >> No, thank you chair. Um I've been taking notes here. Uh the next step again is the council will have the opportunity um at their next meeting to not their next meeting uh two meetings from now um to give uh feedback. Um then city staff from our various development review groups. So engineering, public works, um legal, natural resources, they will also give just preliminary big picture kind of feedback. We will meet with the applicant once we've gathered all of that and they will decide how they'd like to proceed. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Well, I think we're all in agreement. We we look forward to seeing this progress. Um, all right. With that, our last item on the agenda is adjournment. Um, may I have a motion to adjourn? >> Make the motion. >> All right. M. >> I second. >> All right. Commissioner Le motion. She second. This is your second. All in favor? No. Yeah. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All right. We are adjourned. >> Great job. Thanks.