Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone. We have a quorum. So I'll call our meeting to order. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? A motion to adopt the final agenda. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our September 2nd, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes? We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We'll now move on to our discussion items. Our first item for discussion tonight is item 3.1. considered a conditional use permit for an accessory structure greater than 900 square ft for the property at 12,200 Highway 7. This item does include a public hearing. I will now turn it over to associate city planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation and after that I'll open the public hearing. Travis. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Uh tonight is a conditional use permit application that was submitted specifically for an accessory structure by the city code. Any accessory structure between 9 or over 900 square feet up to 1,350 ft requires a conditional use clay out. The applicant specifically is looking to add an addition after moving an existing accessory structure we have on the property. The total application or the total design of the structure is for 1,336 ft. Uh as pointed out, public hearings required tonight. We uh posted everything we needed to and then we also mailed a letter to everybody within 350 ft. We did have one respondent reach out that asked how it affect their property. Had that discussion. They're far enough away that it doesn't have any direct effect on the property. So when we look at the proposed site, uh there's two images in front of you tonight. Uh the left one uh comes from the application that's been submitted um for the condition use permit tonight. You'll notice that there's a yellow line going through that. That's actually a drainage and utility easement. The city has a sewer line that runs through this property. Um, and actually goes to a lift station just to the east of there. Um, on the south side, you'll see the blue square. That's the existing location of the garage. The red arrow shows where they want to move it. And then the orange that's on there shows the addition that would be put on it to bring the total size up to the 1336. On the right hand side is the same thing,

but just a larger picture of the property. uh when looking at everything setbacks and that type those type of conditions are met with the application. Um next thing that we're looking at is the conditions design. Like I said, building permits required is uh 200 f feet or greater. Um the garage can't be uh within any required setback or easement, which they've demonstrated it's not. Uh the garage can't be used for any housing. So this is a garage. there's an area where you could have a habitable space, but that doesn't mean it's going to be an occupiable space that would come with somebody being able to live there. Um, if that was to happen, we would receive an application for an ADU and another conditional use permit. Um, as far as all the other regulations, uh, it needs to meet all the other regulations we have, uh, in the city and reviewing the permit that was submitted for it. This does from a zoning perspective. This is one of probably the the shorter presentations that I'll have. Uh but with that, are there any questions on what the applicant is seeking or any conditions or issues? I have a quick question. What's the reason for moving the existing garage rather than adding on to it?

So, that is a great question, Commissioner. So in the current spot, if they add it on to that structure, there's pretty steep slopes and heavy vegetation that it that it could trigger other factors that have to come into play. So it's easier to move it across the easement where you have light vegetation, so you're taking down smaller trees, more scab brush, and things like that. Plus, it'll provide better access off the driveway, which is just to the east of where they're proposing to put it. Thank you. So is the existing the blue is already moved.

No, the the the blue that's shown on here is where it currently exists. Without a conditional use permit, they will not be moving it. But with the conditional use permit, they would move it into the new location, which would be to the other side of the easement, then putting the addition on. So the final property would just be the orange. The the blue part wouldn't exist in the picture to the right. And so do they need the conditional use permit to just move it or do they need it because of the addition? They need it because the addition will bring the total size over 900 ft. Okay. So if they don't get the conditional use permit, technically they don't need to go through any hoops other than like some permits to just get move the garage. Correct. Okay.

Do the square footage of the existing I'm assuming there's an attached garage to the house to the attached garage of the home. Uh we unfortunately commissioner we don't know the size of the attached uh to the home because underneath the current zoning regulations uh the attached garage um doesn't weigh into the factors of the exception. I mean in the new I guess in the design file it the house is listed at 2800 the garage is listed at 536. I don't know if that's the existing one or if that's I I don't know but that's what's listed in the design file. Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm just thinking of the new

Yep. that that would be underneath the proposed regulations. Underneath the current regulations, an attached structure doesn't or an attached accessory structure doesn't have a size limitation as long as it's attached foundational and things like that. Um, we we went through a situation last year about it. So, sure. Thank you. And I assume that like all the other like impervious is still under code and everything,

right? there. We did a full review of the application and worked with the applicant even prior to just to make sure all the rules were understood and then a check to see if there was anything goofy or weird that could come up. Um, and that's one of the reasons to move it to the other side of the easement. But as far as impervious, as far as our other zoning regulations, they're well within the bounds of those zoning regulations. Very good. Any other questions for Travis? I guess is it is it two story or is it just showing that like A-frame design?

It's it's A-frame design and then there's just a small area upstairs. Uh generally you would see that like in type of cottage houses and things like that where you have the garage and then maybe you have like a play space or you have a game room upstairs or something like that. As far as the use goes, it's it's storage but there's also room to do entertainment if they wanted to. Uh, and that is a factor that we looked into. As far as the location of it, it's really not going to have an impact on the neighbors. Um, as far as its location due to vegetation as well as, uh, adjacent uses and throughout the neighborhood where there could be entertainment as well. What's the access point, Travis?

The access point actually comes down this road here and then comes in the driveway right down the center. Is that how they access their main house? Yeah, correct. um this area of the community, these homes were put in. That's a private drive that's up there. Um this is just to the northeast of the variance that we looked at uh for the for the excess impervious out of new construction just to the west. Okay. Would they still be allowed to have that shed there since they're expanding their garage?

All that all that's coming down. That's one of the reasons that's in lighter color is to show it exists, but it would be removing because they have to stay with underneath the two accessory structures. and we did talk with the applicant. Currently, there would be three accessory structures in the site. So, that shed does come down. So, as part of the plan, does that list that in the cup or I didn't see it. I don't see that listed at detailed anywhere. I can list that as a specific detail in the CUP that that needs to be removed. I'd want that as a condition, I think. Absolutely. I can spec I'll specifically state that. Yeah. Because otherwise, they've got more than the number of accessory structures. So, one of the things that we do is we always put a catchall into place

saying that it has to meet everything, but we'll specifically list it off. I think that makes sense. Yeah, that's fine. Good. Any other questions? Discussion. Good discussion. Um, does the applicant wish to speak? Hearing none, I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? Oh, I'm sorry. Um, are you the applicant, sir, or? Yes. Oh, very good. Um, you're you're welcome to speak if you wish. Nothing to say.

Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Um, I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? No. Hearing no additional public comment. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. Thank you, Commissioner Shower. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to raise any additional questions or concerns. Just for my sake, can you remind me why this needs a CUP? I'm sorry, I'm just fuzzy.

Uh, Commissioner, it's typical in most communities that after a certain size of an accessory structure, you would need a conditional use permit. The main things with that is conditional use permit. It's a permitted use. They're very difficult for us to say no to, but it allows the city to take a look at and say, "Okay, this could create an issue or there or there could be a special circumstance and allows the city to put on that type of restriction or um making sure that the shed's being taken down so it's all within code and whatnot. It's just a way to formalize what's going on for the bigger one and avoid some potential concerns that could happen with it.

And do cups transfer from so like owner sells next year month whatever cups transfer with sale of property commissioner that's correct conditional use permits is considered a land right and it travels with the property. Um, the only way that a conditional use permit goes away is if the use isn't there for or if the CP is not being used for a year, then the city could revoke it. Um, as well as looking at if there's some drastic issue that goes to where the city feels it's appropriate to revoke it, but those are very far and few between and I don't foresee us having those type of issues. Very good.

Can you flash that sample motion again, please? I would make motion to recommend approval of the condition use permit. Uh, wow. Application for an accessory structure to be no greater than 1350 square ft on the property at,200 Highway 7 to the city council with the conditions presented by staff. Very good. We have that motion. Thank you, Commissioner Croft. Is there a second? Second. So, we have a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Our second and final item for discussion tonight is item 3.2, discuss the proposed zoning code, article 4, overlay districts. I'll now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierly for a staff presentation. Uh, chair, commissioners, this is our next step in the process of doing a full code reviewed. Uh, just to give a quick background, this is all because we found some shortfalls within our current zoning code. um identified over the 500 items. So, this is looking at those. Uh fortunately, tonight's going to be a little less stressful than maybe some of the other nights we've looked at things. And uh last year we did take a look at more immediate factors that have been coming into play and we'll be reviewing those as well in future meetings. Um as always, we want to be transparent. We want to make sure that we're available for questions or comments, especially if there's questions or comments from the the public. We want to make sure we're available to staff for that. We also need to understand we need to be f flexible through the process as this is a lot of information we're going over. It can get complicated. It can get confusing. Um so we want to make sure we do that. This is also in participation in conjunction with looking at the municipal code and potential review and update to that process. Um full process like I said we're going to review the code. We're going to go through it. We're going to go through it again as staffed and we're going to go through it with the planning commission. We'll go through it with the city council and then we'll make sure to track all the changes. That's probably the biggest thing is when we create red lines. Uh it's one of the reasons that we have the folder on the shared drive that everybody has access to. So you can kind of see where staff is with things as well as see the changes as they happen. Um tonight we're looking at article 4 which is district overlays overlay districts uh additional standards on top of the underlying districts. So when we talk about like a shoreland district that is affecting a single family home, there's

single family residential. So our R1 requirements, these are additional requirements specifically with inside a defined area. So up on the screen is a list of all our districts. Again, all our special overlays cover all those districts. Um just in in general when we're looking at things, this is more to look at specific concerns for it. So, if you have property that's on steep slopes or you have property that you're trying to protect the uh more trees or you're closer to bodies of water and things like that or this is what mechanism we use under planning to make sure that we can have those protections and we're still allowing flexibility throughout the community. Uh the first one we're looking at is shorand basically going through this is the DNR. The DNR has a model ordinance that everything's based on. As far as the changes that staff was looking at and part of the discussions that came forward are mainly definitional changes. Uh looking at um accessory structures to include the pools, the sauna, detached garages and shed. That's some updated language that came from the DNR that goes in there because there was some gray area and some questions on it over the years of does it count, does it not count. Uh the other thing that we wanted to do or that DNR wanted to do is make sure that the definition for expansion, improvement, maintenance and repair and replacement regist restoration as well as water dependent use. There's definitions for that. Um because if somebody comes forward and says, "Hey, I want to expand." Well, what does that mean? Well, as planning staff, we know how to look that up real quick and we can look it up, but that leaves it up for interpretation between different people if we're looking at DNR rules or we're looking at statute or what have you. So, this cleans that up. The other thing that we looked at is um removing the 200 square foot exemption from the impervious service definition. Um that is not in line with the DNR and what they're looking to do as far as their

definition, what they had back in 2018 when this was last looked at 2016 as well as the updates which is recent as 2022. We did talk to the DNR as well about that. Uh we're not sure why that was in there. Um but removing and getting back to that DNR standard would be more appropriate. Um the other thing that would happen if you allow for 200 foot exemption now you can have two accessory structures. You have 400 square ft that don't count against the impervious. It it it's a loophole around the 25% maximum impervious cover that the shoreland declares. Um the other thing that uh we did is we amended steep slopes got amended. It's very long definition which is currently in the code. Basically what we did is the DNR is like you know what we can strip it down make it simple. So now it's simple. It says steep slope 12% nice and easy. It doesn't have all the extra language that just causes some confusion. The next thing we look at is a bluffland area. We currently do not have this within our code. Um and that's one of the things uh with inside our shoreland overlay. It does address address bluffs and steep slopes. But if you're outside that shoreland district, which is more than 1,000 ft from the ordinary high water line, and you have a steep slope, we didn't have anything that truly addresses it within our ordinance. The bluffland overlay district covers that. There are a few areas in town where this applies to, but we have so many lakes that most of the community or over half the community is within side of shoreland. We don't have too many areas that aren't relatively flat, uh, so to say. When we do look at a bluff, we're looking at 18% or greater measured over a 25 ft distance. That's important because there's less soil stabilization that's needed on those type of slopes. So, with that, we want to protect the bluffs. We want to protect structures from long-term risk. And then there's also additional vegetation management requirements that are in there just because of that steep slope that go. So, this is in addition to what our subdivision code would say. This is in

addition to whatever uh shoreland regulations if it's within shoreland. So it gets a little bit more specific but specifically for the slope itself. Um when we talk about protecting structures can't put a structure within 30 ft. Uh the concern would be if the bluff all of a sudden lets go. You don't want someone's deck going. You don't want a shed going or garage or pool or anything like that getting damaged. Uh so we want to protect property as well as people. Uh the next area we're looking at is the conservation residential. This would allow for lower densities than R1. I know I stated that this is an addition to the underlying district. We did actually do this with uh the the shores of Mar not the shores of Marsite, excuse me, with Huntersburgide second edition. What this would go with is a it's an addition to the PUD to allow for that lower density, but the trade-off is lower density means greater protection for for our natural resources. You're not taking down as you can't take down as many trees. You can't be doing as much clear cutting. You're looking for the large your larger wooded lots basically is what's on there. In addition to that, there's language that requires for conservation easement, especially within the outlaws as an additional protection of those natural resources. Uh this is something that staff had a conversation with uh the Met Council about last year and had to go through a process and able to get this these type of regulations applied underneath the PUD that was issued.

The Met Council was supportive. Uh yes, the PUD to get issued for it. So there's approval that was given there. Uh primarily promoting natural resource conservation. Correct. And I don't it's unknown how likely or unlikely this would get used in the future. But the big thing is we want to make sure we have some regulations that can be agreed upon. Um this has not been presented in its entirety to the city council at this point. So there's still some feedback that's going to come from from the conversations with the city council. Okay.

Uh Lake Minnetonka residential that is currently a zoning district in the city. Um, we tried to do some research to figure out the cause and what what brought it all up and everything else. It it got instituted back in the 80s, so it's a little difficult to find some of that information. Uh, but basically, it's just right around Lake Minnotonka and then a few adjacent properties away from it. They have greater restrictions on what you can do with your property. Because of greater restrictions, because there's still single family homes, um, staff thought it'd be best to make it an overlay district. the overall effect that it has with it, it really doesn't change anything. The standards for for the Lake Mitonka residential are still more stringent than what the R1 standards are. And when we looked at performance standards going through the proposed language, we kept in mind that this was an idea of moving uh Lake Minnetonka from a zoning district itself into an overlay. Last thing we're looking at is the flood plane. realistic. This was last looked through in 2017. Uh staff had gone through and uh the city council had approved uh the entire division to be applied at the time. There were a couple minor adjustments that we want to do. Um more or less administrative adjustment or amendments. One is there's a requirement in there that the city clerk is responsible for maintaining all the flood plane maps and they're specifically listed out numbers within the code. All that information is on the FEMA website. Uh, it took me about two and a half minutes to go find it all. So, it's relatively accessible. If you type in flood plane in your address with FEMA, you can look it up. It'll give you a map and show you everything. It's interactive as well. Uh, the other thing we want to do is get rid of the violations and penalties. We're going to have uh general violation or general penalties that'll come forward with violations of the zoning code. So, that type of language isn't needed.

Are we confident that FEMA is going to maintain those maps? FEMA does maintain those maps. because they're going to Well, we get we get all the information from FEMA and we get it. So, if FEMA is not updating the maps, we don't have anybody on staff, nor I would I believe we ever would have somebody on staff that'd be qualified to go out and create those maps.

So, it's not like a federal thing to to have them anywhere. It's just it's okay. If a if a resident needed to find one, the the ordinance currently requires that we have hard copies. But if something changes, if we got a request for a map, it'd be more likely we would provide an electronic copy or we'd print a copy. But we would pull that from the FEMA website anyways just because that's where we would trust the most current map to be and allow the experts to create it. So that would self-impose the hard copies. Uh

from what I can tell, yes. Okay. Thanks. That's what I was curious about. I feel like I would be a little bit more cautious on the side of wanting to still have a copy of a most recent only for the reason of when websites are going to be updated as administrations change in the future. Who knows if it's going to continue to be updated and just making sure that we at least have a copy of the last latest one. Digital is fine. Yeah. and and commissioners, that's one of the things that we kind of discuss as staff is why is this in here? Um, and the big the biggest thing that we want to avoid is creating any type of confusion

or providing information that may be outdated. So, we would want to go straight to the source. Um, the likelihood that FEMA is going to remove flood maps throughout the United States is extremely remote. I I guess is the simplest way to put it. So there wasn't too much concern with that. Uh we can understand the political changes at the federal level. Uh but FEMA as an agency has been charged with making sure these exist. Um if if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to take a look at if if that's under the federal statutes or if it's underneath their their rules. So I I could do that, but just want to make sure that there's a copy somewhere.

Y doesn't have to be physical. It could be digital, whatever. If if you if you go to the FEMA website, you literally type in flood plane maps. You type in your address and bam, pulls the map up real quick. Yep. And it shows you where it's at. Now, the next question is able to read it. That's more for insurance companies, I guess. And but as I looked at it and I'm like, I know what this says, but I don't know what it says at the same time. And I look at a lot of drawings.

Yep. Um, with that, those are all our overlay districts that we have. Um, what we're'll be looking at in the future is PUDS, which the planning commission, city council looked at last year. Um, and then the only remaining articles we have is signs, which is something that we just did last fall as well. Um, alternative energy systems, that's a little bit new. So, that's like your ground pumps and and windmills and things like that. Making sure as a growing community we have something in place. Um, and then antennas and towers for the same purpose of making sure not only safety but aesthetics. So, with that, I'd be more than happy to stand for any questions the planning commission has on our overlay districts.

Thank you, Travis. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to raise any questions, discuss anything relative to the overlay districts. I have one uh question, Travis. Um on pages 24 and 25 we the regulations speak to water dependent uses. My first question is do we have any in the city of Victoria? Uh water dependent use. Yeah like marina or restaurant with docks. It is interesting. So docs docks is an interesting thing in its own because we have uh I wrote it the lake Minnetonka conservation district. Mhm.

They actually regulate all docks that go into the water and anything that's with inside the or below the ordinary high water line. So, it is kind of interesting that's there. I talked to them. They've been around since the 60s. So, they they've been around a long time. So, those regulations are in place. As far as water dependent uses go. When we look at those, let me get the definition pulled up real quick. Basically, anything that depends on the water, right? So it would be a marina, it would be a restaurant presumably.

Correct. So if somebody wanted to do a restaurant on a lake or they wanted to do any type of business that' be there. So let's say it's boat salvage or something like that, right? And they came in that's a water dependent use and we would look to the DNR to provide guidance on how to make sure that's regulated as far as the environmental protections go.

My only input to that would be to consider limiting the number of moorings. I know that there was a recent situation this past summer, this past year in Excelsier, uh, where a marina wanted to expand its docks and it created a real nuisance for local residents who were there before and didn't want their views obstructed of the water. Um, it might be worth considering as a staff whether we should limit the number of moorings or or come up with a ratio or a formula so that we don't wind up with a dock farm someplace uh on Stiger Lake or someplace within the city. Okay.

Uh for with something like that uh chair uh we would regulate that within our municipal code. We have other regulations. Uh it's something that we've actually reached out to the DNR and I found the the gentleman who actually did the approval for our current regulations such as speed like Kelser ponds an example of not being able to use motorized craft or not being able to run four-wheelers in the winter and things like that. So we would put it with inside that chapter. Um but that's definitely something that we can look at and I'll put a note down so when we get to that section uh we can make sure that that conversation comes up. Good. Other comments, questions about the overlay districts?

I had a I had a question with a bluff land. Um I'm familiar with the 18% slope being pretty consistent across communities. Do we know how many existing sites or or lots that would impact? There are current land owners that would be impacted by that addition. uh commissioner being a zoning code the only impact if if there are property it's difficult to go through every property in town find out what has it without going through engineering um and having them do an entire map which would eventually happen with this but as a zoning code if we create a rule where they wouldn't be able to build in a certain way then what would happen is they'd become a legal non-conforming use and they would still be allowed to maintain and enjoy that enjoy what they have. The other part to it is that we have an engineering and designs and specifications manual that goes with any type of construction that's done. So, it's not just the street. It's not just the sewer and water, but it also looks at driveways and where you can build things and how you can build things. The that manual has a lot of the stuff already in it. This is just making sure that it's within our ordinance so they do line up.

Okay. Okay. I guess my concern was more about maybe a current landowner that has not yet built a home. Maybe they purchased a lot four years ago with the ideas of building a home that now would be impacted by the bluff land. That's good. Yeah. The the commissioner, the amount of changes that would would exist, they would have the same challenges as they would have four years ago or at least a couple years ago.

Um based on our design standards that go in there. So there it limits how steep a driveway can be. and it's how steep a road can be. Uh there is a property that the owner wants to subdivide the property out. Um and it was part of a larger development a number of years ago, but because of slopes that go in and because of the design manual, getting a road there, it's it doesn't need that. So when we would look at the the Bluffland overlay because it has to go through a bluff, it's a real steep slope. We wouldn't be able to get a road through there anyways without significant grading. And that's been one of the challenges with with that minor subdivision. It's one home into three. The the cost to what you get out of revenue just isn't there for that stuff.

But th those items are considered when we go through these. Any other questions, comments? Overlay districts make sense to me. So, thank you. Um, hearing no more discussion. This request does not require a formal motion. So, that concludes our discussion items. Moving on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda. Uh Travis, are there any miscellaneous items from staff?

Uh commission or commission, we do have a couple items. Uh Hometown Bank was approved by the city council at the last meeting. So that project will be moving forward. Um and then for the October 7th meeting, um we will be bringing the R1A to a public hearing. We're currently working on finalizing a flyer that we can get mailed out, something that's more than just a standard letter. and that way it grabs a little bit more attention. Um, so there'll be a few things with that and then we'll be looking at the PUDS uh within the ordinance as well which there's no expected changes that because we just did that within the last year. Very good. And as a reminder, R1A is the revised what I'll call old Victoria Oldtown

area of uh of Victoria. Correct. Very good. Basically affects from St. Victoria Church up to Highway 5 and then going from Trillium Trail over to um or Orchid is where it goes. So, it's our older community. The plats were done prior to 1975. Most of the homes are all or yeah, almost all the homes are built prior to 1980. And the intention behind it is to uh encourage infill and redevelopment of the older parts of our community dating back to homes going to the 19s and 1920s. Very good. Commissioners, any miscellaneous items?

Uh Travis, might not be for you, but maybe just for city planning in in general. I think previously you guys have done like followup or statuses on projects that we've reviewed or approved or whatever. Just wondering if you guys have any expected that you could share at an upcoming meeting.

Uh I can talk to the city planner about it about bringing things forward. I do know that uh the city planner goes out uh with uh one of our contractors to take a look or excuse me, one of our consultants and they do they look at vegetation, especially trees, making sure that that type of stuff is being followed. Um, also when we have issues or when there's concerns expressed from residents within a development, especially our new newer developments, uh, we work closely as a larger staff on weekly meeting and to kind of bring those up and see if and what action should be taken and who would do those. Uh, but if you're looking for something more specific,

yeah, I think in the past it's been more like so like the hometown bank is a good example like you guys pay city city council's approved this. I think in the past we've had ones where it's been like, hey, this is at this phase or whatever like that. I I don't know, maybe I'm making this up, but I think they've done it in the past. I was just curious like if it works in the agenda at an upcoming meeting just to provide a couple updates of the things we've reviewed and recommended for approval in the past, that'd be good. Commissioner, you're looking for kind of more of a higher level eye level. Perfect. Not looking for which got

I went the wrong way with that. So, um I I can I can definitely talk to the city planner about its um and and see if we can put something together. Well, I think that's a really good a really good input and um maybe quarterly we could have an agenda item just to update us on projects that we've seen. Uh we don't always get a chance to fully review the city council meetings. So just an update maybe from Jen or from Travis or from Brian on this state of play. Another example would be Quick Trip. I know that that's going curious how that's going, but I can always reach out via email and get those status updates or Victoria House. Very good. All right. Thank you. Well, we've reached the end of our agenda. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Put a motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second. We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We are adjourned.