Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Good evening. I'm calling the Monday, July 28th, 2025 planning commission meeting to order. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. All right. Uh any changes to the agenda tonight or do I have a motion to approve the agenda this evening? Motion to approve the agenda. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor approving the agenda say I. I. I. Opposed. Agenda is approved. Uh looking at the minutes from the July 14th meeting. Any concerns about the minutes, edits, or emissions or seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I'll move to approve the minutes. Have a motion to approve the minutes from July 14. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I.

Anyone like to abstain? No. Okay. Minutes are approved. All right, first up, we have two public hearings this evening. The first one is Prairie Village Pet Hospital Edition 2025-08. This is a planned unit development concept review on 46 acres. Planned unit development district review with waiverss on 46 acres. Site plan review on 46 acres. Will proponent of the project please come forward. Good evening. If you could state your name and spell for the record and tell us about your request, please. My name is Alan Hup. Uh, Hu Alan Nu P. Okay.

Thank you.

Well, first of all, thank you for having me this evening. It's uh good to be here to present our project. Um, we have a couple slides. Um, we're calling this Prairie Village Pet Hospital version 2.0. The hospital's been in uh place for 40 years as a full-ervice veterary hospital. Um, and now it's time to grow. It's time to take another step forward. Uh, before we get into the project, I just want to take a moment to introduce myself. Um, I've been a resident of Eden Prairie for 32 years. We put three kids through the system. Uh, they're all our children are all four years apart, so the high school got really tired of having these hup kids go through. Uh, they were all captains of their respective sports, and we're very proud of them. Happy to be here. Uh we're also very involved with uh helping pause and I say that only in the context of we're dealing with veterary medicine and uh we've been very involved with helping pause which is a service dog organization that maybe some of you folks are aware of. Um my personal career as a business professional uh lastly is a vice president with laws and software over in St. Paul. Uh about 15 years ago, I got involved in investing in real estate and doing development work. And my last project uh you can see a picture here was called Cottages on Dale. And if this was an infill site um in the old part of St. Paul that sat vacant for 60 years. Um I thought there was a lot of potential to do what became a cluster development. So really there are five dwelling units on this 40 by 170 foot site. Very small and very tight. The ones you're seeing here are backto-back duplexes, three bedrooms, two bedrooms. Um as a result of the effort, we received an award from Finance and Commerce magazine of one of the best small projects in the state that particular year. Uh I will say and you folks would appreciate this, it took

me three years to get this project entitled working through the city of St. hall and a lot of uh challenges along the way, but we did it. Um, back to the pet hospital. Um, it the existing pet hospital is 1995 square feet. Uh, it was built in 1985 at uh Terry Pine Court and the map um shows a visual image. I don't know if everybody knows where that is, right? It's right uh by 212 and Highway 5, right? Not too far from here really. Uh it's kind of tucked back in with some uh other medical buildings. There's an orthopedic practice and and all the rest in that area. I purchased the property last summer and about a year ago. Uh the current tenant is a company called Carevette, which is a national company. Uh they have over 200 veterary clinics across the country uh in 35 states. Um they're actually headquartered I think out of Illinois. Uh but the Eden Prairie Clinic is one of their top performers. Um but they recognize as well as the clinic staff that it's really time to take it to the next level. It's a it's challenging to run it. Uh and so the project will remodel the current space and then we're looking at adding 1100 square foot addition. Um so it the intent is really to kind of reimagine the space and get more space. One is the surgical and treatment areas will be enlarged. a better staff flow through the building, a better client-f facing experience, and in the end, they're hoping to preserve their position as one of the leading veterary clinics in the prairie market. And you may be aware that this is getting increasingly competitive. There's been two brand new clinics open in the last year and then there's been two emergency pet clinics open in the last year as well. So, you know, it's like any business, they need to continue to grow in advance.

Uh the objectives are really uh to continue to uh respect the existing land use patterns. Uh it's going to we're not going to profoundly change anything. We're going the exterior veneer is going to be the same. Uh it's we're not adding any height that complements the existing buildings. Um and it complies with the city's comprehensive uh guide plan. We've been we have architects, engineers, and contractors working on it at this point. And we've collaborated with the planning department with Sarah Strain, the fire department because we're looking at uh the requirements for sprinkling on the property working with permitting office as you might imagine uh to make sure we get the space improve the functionality but obviously do that in the context of code and the permitting process. Uh I'm going to privately fund the development and then Carvette is planning on signing a new 10-year lease for the property. Uh the project will require two waiverss. One is around permeability. Um my understanding is that the requirement for permeability today is 70% of the lot area. Uh there's some numbers on this slide, but in the end we're going to um end up with about 48 uh% pvious, 52% impervious. Um I will also say with the slide um we have been in touch with Lori Hawk is it the right hand uh who has been uh indicating that the DNR is talking about actually changing this requirement to make it a little bit uh easier to achieve. Uh that hasn't happened yet might be later on this year. Uh lastly we are contemplating a water garden is being considered as part of the new landscaping to help with some of the runoff. I do think it's interesting if you want to just look at

the slide and look at the green. So our property is in that lower right hand corner with the teal border and that is the grass. You can see we have grass in front grass behind on the side there's trees and if you look at all the other adjacent properties all you see is asphalt. So we already I feel you know are really helping. We're probably getting a lot of the runoff from the other neighbors actually. uh but we do need a waiver uh to technically meet that requirement. And the other one is around parking. So we're okay on the number of spaces. We need 16 spaces given the fact we need uh five spaces for every 1,000 square foot of the building. Um currently there's nine. Uh we are going to build five brand new spaces and then there's going to be two spaces that are going to be considered proof of parking uh but reserved for the future that are shown up on this drawing in red. Existing are yellow, the green are the new spaces we're going to be adding. So we're good on spaces, but we are going to to get those spaces we're going to have to um encroach on the setbacks. And the setbacks for parking is are 10 feet on the left or the west end. And we're going to encroach on that really just in the drive aisle where you'd back out of that one parking lot. You'd probably move into that 10-ft setback, but more on the front on the far right, those three green spaces all sit within the 35 foot parking setback. Um, but that is the was really the only realistic way we could actually get those spaces u put into the site. Um, the driveway um I don't know if you can see where it comes into the site from the right and uh it would make it's logical that you could just pull right into those parking spaces. So, two waiverss permeability and parking setback. And that's really all I had for

comments. Happy to take any questions. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Al right away? Mr. Sure. Commissioner Far you were talking about the parking and is there a reason why you chose to have two proof of parking stalls in the back instead of the front? It seems like the waiver would be an easier pill to swallow if you kept kind of deferred that loss of green space in the front yard rather than the backyard. I think that's a really good question. I mean, really, we still would need the waiver. I understand.

Yeah. But but there would potentially be one or two less spaces uh in into that uh setback space. Yeah. Right. That's a good question. I can go back to the team and discuss that. Okay. I think that would be a good idea. Yeah. Um uh on the site plan, a couple things on the site plan. The south yard where your drive aisle is has a retaining wall. Says existing retaining wall to remain. You right. You've got that protective thing already trying to buttress the wall so it won't fall over. Um I'm assuming that's ripe for replacement. Have you seen the site? Yes, I have. Okay. I'm just curious.

Yeah. Um and we are looking at replacing the whole wall. Okay. Um, it is a little, you can see from the diagram, it actually veers in. Yep. So, it's not perfectly straight as you go down there. And I have no idea why that is, right? That's just the way it was built. Uh, the wall is two uh railroad ties with a plywood veneer. Mhm. The way it's certainly currently constructed, it seems stable. Um, we've had it the property evaluated, but ideally that would be replaced along with the rest of the Okay. We're going to have to extend it anyway, right, to the west, right? So, we're looking at that.

Okay. Not an ideal condition. It it appears visually like it's ready to fail uh from my own observations, but that's I'm not an engineer, but right, seems like it was odd that it wasn't part of your project. Okay, enough about that. Um exterior building materials, it looks like you're trying to match existing, which is great. It's a nice face brick, but um since everything architecturally is just flush, are you planning on replacing the entire roof, all the shingles at the same time so that it matches? Um and same thing with the brick, you probably get a pretty good brick match. But if you talk to your architect about actually finding that original brick and even if you find the original shingle over the years, it's not going to look exactly the same if you just cut it and and start the new roof. So,

what I can say is we're not going to replace all the brick, right? No, of course not. Yeah, I'm just saying be careful with your match on the brick and mortar. With the shingles, it's probably a good idea to re-roof the entire building. I would agree. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me right now. Thank you. Good questions. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Fire. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, Mr. H. Welcome.

Jeremy, will you take us through the city report, please? Sure. Uh the applicant actually hit a lot of my talking points. So, thank you. Um as noted, this is there's three requests tonight. One one is the PUD concept, PUD uh district with waivers and the site plan approval. As the applicant noted, there are two waivers. Um the impervious surface and the parking. Um in terms of the question that Mr. far ahead in terms of building the back ones first and then the proof of parking is the front. That's certainly an an option for the applicant. We're we're just looking at it assuming it's going to be approved, you know, so they don't have to come back in the future and get another approval for the proof of parking changes. So, whatever works best for the applicant at the time of construction, whether it's the the back ones or the front ones, that's certainly open to to the developer or the applicants kind of

unless we influence that unless you influence that. But, um, yeah, that's a suggestion at this point.

In terms of the rear setback, there is no waiver required for the for the rear setback. Um, the parking requires the 10-ft setback or the the setback. The drive aisle serving that does not have to meet that setback. and and um based on the site plan just that portion encroach into the required setback. So there's no waiver required for the rear parking or the rear property line. That's why we're only dealing with the front property line. In terms of the impervious service, um yeah, uh the applicant is correct. There is a cap of 30% of of impervious service on a property. This property was developed well before our shoreline rules came into play and um they're proposing with the additional 1100 square feet of building and parking lot area increasing that to 52% uh impervious service which on its surface does sound like a lot of an increase. We generally try to keep those static or or reduce the impervious quality. Um but in this situation, looking at the site, looking at um the scale of of improvement, staff can support the waiver increase to 52% for a couple reasons. Number one, um the uh the applicant has indicated a desire to put a rain guard on the property to help improve water quality on the property. Currently, there is no storm water management on the property. It's it's was developed that long ago. Um and so any improvement that we can do from a storm quarter storm quality quality management perspective improves the situation. also in the the developer highlighted it. Um if you look at the surrounding area, this actually has more green space than any of the other commercial properties in the immediate area. And it's very challenging to provide uh a meaningful development um while meeting the 30% uh rule in a commercial area. Just u based on the size of the lots and kind of the value of those lots and the timing when they were developed, it's very challenging to meet that 30% requirement. So, we look

for ways to improve the situation and we believe that that's the case here with the additional rain garden. We're asking for some additional information on that before it goes to the city council. Um, but that's uh that's how we can support the waiver from the imperous surface requirement. Um, I think that was the main issue in terms of the parking requirement. Um, the two proof of parking step does support that. Um the business need based on the the user of the property suggests 14 spaces are required. Obviously we don't want any additional parking that we don't need. Uh you know try to reduce the impervious surface as much as possible uh for as long as possible. So staff does support that uh proof of parking as proposed here. Um with that I'd be happy to answer any questions but staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Uh thanks Jeremy. Could you just speak briefly to the mention of the city working with the DNR to change the requirement?

Sure. Um so the uh city engineering department um is working on a a rewrite of our shoreland ordinance which you'll likely see later this summer. And um one of the items of area that the the engineering department is is focused on or not focused but has identified as a potential opportunity for improvement is this 30% rule because it doesn't quite make sense in a commercial area. Um, and so there's some discussion going on about raising that number to a different whether that's 30 or 45 or the existing level. I I don't know where where the DNR and the city will land on that, but that's the discussion ongoing now. Um, they've been working on that for for a while now and we are hopeful that you'll see that as a as a ordinance amendment likely later this summer or this fall, but they are working towards that. Uh regardless of those conversations, that wouldn't impact any of this because of timing. Uh the applicant is obviously wanting to move forward before that change becomes ineffective.

Thanks. Questions for the city? Mr. Chair, I have a question, but not for the city. It it goes back to Mr. Hub. Just um Would you mind coming up? Sure. With the amount of Okay. With the amount of remodeling you have to do or you're going to be doing to the existing building and adding on, how long do you anticipate being shut down or are you going to try to stay open while you're working through the remod? It's going to have to be a phased project and we're looking at it about six months. Six months,

right? I mean, the veterary clinic really needs to keep operating. They currently have three exam rooms. We're going to be adding two new ones. And so the idea is we're going to stage it and try to come in and do the remodeling in the one section. Um the new addition, a lot of that space is going to be for surgery and dental and cleaning and that kind of thing. Um so we're hoping we can do the break it into maybe three phases uh throughout so it's not as disruptive. But you still plan on being open and servicing the community. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Commission, do you have a question for Mr. Not for the applicant, for staff?

Thank you. That's right. Jeremy, could you talk more about the planned unit development uh district? Um it's zoned office, I understand. Is the PUD an overlay? That's an existing overlay already. You're we're adding a PUD to it. We're adding a PUD to it to allow us to grant the waiverss as requested.

Sure. Um, often you'll see this on like your green field development where you're scraping and building over. We're doing the whole thing like we're doing today. Um, PUB concept review and PUD district with waiverss. In this situation, the building's already built. Um, has never been there has not been a PUD on the property. So, that's where we kind of have to kind of procedurally do a approval for a concept and then do an overlay for the PUB district. Okay. Can I add on that? if you may. So if you weren't if you weren't doing that, what would be the other option for this chair? Variances. Okay. And and the issue why wouldn't we do that instead?

Well, variances that um the state establishes the standards for variance. Um and they dictate to the city what those standards are and sometimes they're a challenge uh to to meet. Um and so we've elected as a city to when appropriate approach these from a UD waiver perspective with the idea that um maybe we can enhance the project a bit or enhance the property a bit u in favor of granting a variance or excuse me greater in favor of granting a waiver and then in this situation um the additional storm water management kind of goals um that we can impart on the property can be realized because otherwise they would not be required.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. Any other questions? All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward and speak for against this request, please come up now. Not seeing anyone would move to close. Move to close. All right. I have a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? I have a second. All those in favor close public hearing say I. I. Opposed. All right. Public hearing is closed. Further discussion on this item.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. Are we proposing this PUD only on this parcel just because this project is before us or or are there other PUD overlays in the area as well?

Chair, we're um proposing uh and considering a PUD district for this property. There likely are additional PUDs in the immediate area. I haven't done that research to the top of my mind. Um but when this kind of area of the community was developed originally um we approached it from a variance perspective which was had a different kind of requirement then um now we approach it from a like a waiver or a PUD perspective. Um so I my my assumption is many properties in the area crew car wash I believe has a PUB uh G memory um Starbucks has one cross five there or excuse me cross four there um but I don't know all of them at this stage.

Okay thank you any other discussion?

No other than just stating support for it. We've been loyal customers there for a long time and I'm happy to see them expand and increase their capabilities there. Would anyone like to make a motion? I will move to recommend approval for the PUD concept review on 0.46 46 acres, PUD district review with waiverss on 46 acres and site plan review as recommended by staff represented in the July 28th, 2025 staff report. I have a motion for Commissioner Kirk for approval. Do I have a second?

Second. I have a second Commissioner Taylor. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Would anyone like to abstain? All right. Thank you for your request tonight and good luck moving forward. Yeah, thank you and thank you for your suggestions as well. Thanks. Good luck. Don't forget your jacket there. Supposed to rain. Good catch.

All right, we have another public hearing this evening. This is the lower Minnesota River wershed district zoning district change 2024-09 zoning change from rural to parks and open space on 4.2 acres.

Good evening. If you could please state your name and spell for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Linda Lumis. L I N D A L L O M I S. and I am formerly the administrator of the lower Minnesota River Watershed District. I'm planning to retire this year and I'm hoping to get this project wrapped up before I do. Uh we're what we're requesting tonight is a reszoning of a parcel of property. Um I'll give you a little bit of history on this. Um well, first off, the Lower Minnesota River Wershed District was created in 1960. Um and the purpose of it at the time it was established was to act as the local sponsor to uh assist the core of engineers in maintenance of the navigation channel in the Minnesota River. So basically the core of engineers would do the dredging and we would take the dredge material and find places to dispose of it. Um since that time we've become involved as more of a watershed district. So we're actually do projects uh to help uh improve water quality and uh drainage and this project is one that was really brought to us by the city of Eden Prairie. They had done a study of certain areas within the city where they were concerned with uh increasing rates of erosion and um this is one of the areas that was identified. We call it study area three because at the time the city did their study, this was identified as area three. So, um it's basically at the intersections of um Can I pull up the present?

There we go. It's basically at the intersection of Riverview Road and Moore Lane, or if you're on the river, we call it River Mile 19.5. Let's see if I know how to work this. There we go. Oh,

there we [Music] arrow. There we go. So, this is uh more of a closeup and you can see our uh extents of our project. Um there is a city storm water pond in the area. Um that was I believe created at the request of the Minnesota Pollution Agency as an enforcement action. We've worked with the MPCA to get that um a permission from the MPCA to redesign that pond or remove it because that's what's creating some of the erosion problems into the river bluff. So you can see this is a plat from the county and you can see where the county originally put the property line. It's now in the middle of the river and that's how far the um river has eroded that uh bluff in the area. So, um here's a historical the blue line is where the river was in uh 1937. Then you can see the red line is where it was in 1969 I think. And now the green area is where it was in 2008 at the time that wank um engineering prepared this report for us. So um the watershed district has planned to stabilize this area of the river or this reach of the river bank and we've gotten some state funding to do it about two and three4 million dollars. It's about a $5.5 million project. Uh we're hoping to bid it this September. In the meantime, because we've got state money, we needed to have

it be public property, not private property. So, we purchased uh a parcel of the property, which is now being going to be subdivided. And um then it's needs to be reszoned to the park and open space since we're going to be in ownership of it in perpetuity so that we can maintain the project once it's completed. And this is these are just some photos of what that area looks like. So you can see there's it's been some pretty stream ex uh erosion. There's some seeps in here. Um there's some gullies and ravines in the coming down from the top. We've been working with some of the homeowners up there on managing their storm water. We've also been monitoring the uh we have uh pometers in the bluff up above so that we can monitor the stability of the slope. Um it's an area that's definitely in need of some protection. And then this is where the storm water pond. It's been a maintenance issue for the city because every time the river floods, the pond gets overtopped and all of the stabilization of the the pond, it fills in with sediment and then it creates these gullies like this. And one of those is the one on the upper left is what it looks like in the fall and spring before the vegetation grows. And then the one on the lower right is what it looks like in the summertime. And I think that might be it. So, we're just requesting a resoning so that we can um get this project done. We've got all of our permits except the permits

from the city that we need and we're working with them on um how we're going to manage the storm water that's being routed into that pond. I think that's all right. Thank you. Uh any initial questions? Thank you chair. I'm just curious how you're going to build it. Is this something that you do from the river? Drake,

that's a good question because we had discussed that, but um the latest plan is to put in an access road from Riverview Road. You know, there Riverview Road used to actually go through. It's no longer there because of the the bluff has eroded away and and taken the the roadway away. Um, but it looks like the plan is to come in from the top and down to the river and and bring material in that way. Thank you. And just another question. Yeah, Commissioner Taylor. And the material is going to be boulders or they're trying to do like a retaining wall plus boulders or

It'll be a lot of boulders. They're going to try to stabilize the toe of the slope. Um, they're not going to go all the way, excuse me, all the way up the slope with it. They're just going to stabilize the toe to protect it because that's where the erosion is occurring down at the river and when that erodess away then the top sloughs in. So look like it's right in the right that curve right there just gets a lot of

Yeah. And if you look at the historical photos, you could see where that curve is moved down the river and uh with the city's pond and they're constant trying to stabilize that pond area that's helped create more of the force of the river going into the bluff rather than moving that bend down the river as it would naturally do. So that's one of the the problems we're trying to solve. Okay. And one more question. Do you know if there's any plans to remove the settlement from the pond once this is the barrier is put up to to open up the pond again and remove any of the settlement that's settled in there

that I I don't know that we would do that. Um you know there might be some movement of earth down there just to facilitate the project. Um, but I I can't say for sure. Thank you. The annual fluctuation in the river level,

it's it's pretty severe. I know back in I want to say 2014 2015, the city had put in bank pins where they went out and drove stakes into the bank. That's must have been 2014 because that was the year that we had very high flows in the river and they all disappeared within three months. So, um it's pretty high increase there. Um part of the reason that we see such high increases in this area of the Minnesota River is because of uh down at river mile 14.2 two, there's the swing bridge and a railroad track and that sort of acts like a funnel. So, it sort of backs up water all the way upstream. So, it's pretty there there's some pretty significant fluctuations in this area of the river.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Far, one other question. We're digging deep into things that don't matter to us, of course. I apologize for adding one more thing on that. You you showed a very interesting graphic that wasn't in the staff report about the years how the river was kind of trending north. Not only was the line on this shore shoreline extending north by taking away land right but on the inside radius there was something they call that agradation where it drops sediment because this as it goes around the north end of the river here the the flow is faster

than on the south side. So the sediment that's in the river tends to drop out on the south side. So you can see by this graphic here how how it's filled in on that side. Okay. So now you're going to keep it from eroding on the northshore, but you're not going to keep it from filling in the river on the south. So I don't know what kind of boats are on there for river traffic barges or whatever like that but do you need to maintain a certain width especially at such a tight curve of the river where start losing the width of the river there?

Yeah. Not in this area. Um we've we assume that the river is just going to come to a new equilibrium once we stabilize that area. And this there may be recreational boating on this part of the river, but there is not any commercial navigation in here. The commercial navigation channel ends in Savage. Oh, okay. I know more than you want to know. And we appreciate you sharing all that because we're we don't know much about the river here. So, thank you. It's more just interesting to hear about. All right. Thank you for You're welcome. Yeah, it's great.

Jeremy, would you take us through the city report, please?

Yes, chair. Commissioners, um this is really just a zone change. Um they're uh as as the applicant noted, um they need to own the property. And to own the property, they need to split it off from the larger 16 acre piece. And to split it off from that larger 16 acre piece, um they need to zone it and reszone it to parks and open space. Um 16 acre piece, um there'll be two there'll be 14.2 acre or 4.2 acre parcel and about a 10 acre parcel. In the rural zoning district, which is where the property is zoned now, the minimum lot area is 10 acres. Uh there is no minimum in a parks and open space. So the applicant is proposing to zone it to parks and open space which is consistent with the comprehensive plan um and then retain ownership. So two birds one stone really they're owning the property stabilizing the site the site and they're also protecting um that portion from future development. Um so from that perspective staff is recommending approval of that zone change. Um there's a a pending uh lots split uh request coming and that can be administrative administratively approved. Um that is um that will be approved once this zone change has been approved. So staff is recommending approval as drafted.

Any questions for the city? All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward, please do so now. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Do I have a second to close? Second. All right. All those in favor of closing public hearing say I. I. Opposed. All right. Public hearing is closed. Any further discussion on this request? Seems pretty straightforward. Someone like to make a motion. I'll make a motion to uh recommend approval for zoning change from rural to parks and open space on 4.2 acres as recommended by staff. represented in the July 28th, 2025 staff report.

All right, I have a motion for approval from Commissioner Duncan. Do I have a second? Second. Second for Commissioner Gro. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Would anyone like to abstain? Okay. Thank you. Recommending approval. Good luck and we hope you get it done before retirement. Congratulations on retirement. Yeah. All right. Um any planners reports? Just briefly, we will not be having a um planning commission meeting on April 13th, I think is the 11th is the next one. April August. August. Boy, planning back in time.

We will not be having a meeting on August 11th. Um but do anticipate um one for August 25th. Okay, great. All right. Any members reports? Just have a question. Commissioner,

can you tell us the status of the Danfos property? Yes. Um, so the council, city council reviewed that and uh and approved that. Uh, we sent the the comprehensive plan amendment to the Met Council. U based on the the scale of the potential development of that, it met their thresholds where they could not they the staff could not approve it administratively. So that will go to a met council subcommittee and a met council comm uh full council in August which we expect that to be on the consent agenda. Um so mid August I believe that will be complete that review will be complete and at that point it will be um changed from a guidance perspective.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other entertain a motion to close or adjourn the meeting. Motion to close the meeting. Second. All those in favor of adjourning say I. Opposed. We're journed. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Nicely done.