Based on the names provided and the internal context of the meeting (where the Chair and Staff address participants by name), here is the transcribed townhall with speaker names added. **Note:** The names **Commissioner Whitman** and **Commissioner Powell** were mentioned repeatedly in the audio/transcript but were not included in your provided list of board members; they have been labeled as "Commissioner" accordingly. *** [0:00] **[Music]** [0:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday May 23rd 2023 please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States America and to the Republic which it stands one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions or modifications to tonight's agenda? [1:29] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Uh Madam chair staff would just recommend moving the discussion item behind new business. [1:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I have that noted. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on our public hearing agenda this evening? Moving on we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Are there any comments or questions from the commission on the consent agenda? [2:01] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes chair Kenninger, I'd like to um I'd like to make some changes some suggested revisions to the minutes. [2:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, pull that from the consent agenda. We will pull the minutes of the April 25th 2023 regular meeting from the consent agenda. Are there any other comments or questions on the consent agenda which now consists of just the request by Schaefer Richardson for their final plot? [2:16] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [2:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Second? It is moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Reed. [2:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We will now move to discussing the minutes of the April 25th 2023 regular meeting. Commissioner Whitman, I'll now turn it over to you and you want to share your modifications. [2:34] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes thank you chair. Um yeah I just have a few modifications. I read the minutes I I saw some things that I think were inaccurate or just kind of jumbled up and so I sent staff some requested revisions. I think you all have of those same revisions a copy of them. Uh these appear on first of all page five of the minutes um page six of the agenda but page five of the minutes the third full paragraph starting with commissioner Whitman—if we can strike "requirements of 50 from the building" and replace that with "requirements that apply to the use." Also strike the word "onerous" and replace that with "loud" and then strike quote "or anything abrasive" and replace that with quote "venue." I re-watched the video and those are more accurate words that I stated um and uh that Mr Schmidt stated as well during my interactions with him. And then page 10, page nine of the minutes, page 10 of the agenda, the heading for 5c just a typo error that I thought I'd throw in there too but it should be "conditional use permit" rather than "condition use permit" so if we can change that as well. [3:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Perfect, thank you commissioner Whitman for your thorough review of the minutes and catching the those items. Are there any other comments or questions on the revisions to the minutes? Seeing that, I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the April 25th 2023 meeting with the revisions outlined by commissioner Whitman. [4:27] **Commissioner Powell:** Second. [4:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It is moved by commissioner Kenninger or seconded by commissioner Powell. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? The motion carries. We will now move to the public hearing section and this evening we have one item on the public hearing section. It is a request by New Horizon Academy for a site plan review and I will turn it over to Anthony. [4:55] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** All right, one moment Madam chair. [5:00] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So this is a request by New Horizon Academy for a site plan review in order to construct a Child Care Center on a parcel located Northeast of the intersection of Business Parkway and County Road 42. The applicant is requesting a site plan review as required by the city code for commercial uses in this zoning District. Child care centers are a permitted use and the applicant is not requesting any variances or deviations from the code. Staff does find that the site plan is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance subject to the conditions staff has prepared in the recommended action section of the executive summary. [5:45] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So as I said, the site is located in the Northeast quadrant of Business Parkway and County Road 42. This is just east of South Robert Trail and west of Biscayne Avenue North of the Rosemount Business Park. The site itself is zoned Highway commercial; it's similar to General commercial that the rest of the area is zoned in. Originally the background on this site was that there was an anticipated development of a gas station on the site and so it was rezoned to that Highway commercial zoning District. When it became apparent to the potential developer that the access here would be limited in the future to a three-quarter access—meaning any Vehicles entering 42 from Business Parkway to the North or to the South would not be able to make left turns—staff does want to note that there is a future signal planned to the east at Biscayne Avenue that would allow for full traffic movements. [7:02] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Some differences between the highway commercial and the General commercial zoning District also are the highway commercial zoning District allows for more Auto oriented uses as well as some outdoor storage, but as I said earlier child care facilities are a permitted use in that zoning District as well as the General commercial zoning District. The site plan will be laid out with the principal structure in the central southwest corner of the site facing the Northeast. Access into the site will come from a drive from 149th Street West. The site will also contain some outdoor play areas surrounded by a fence with the parking lot in the northeast corner of the site. [7:53] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The site plan as provided by the applicant meets all of the setback requirements for this zoning District including the additional 20-foot setback from County Road 42; that's a requirement for all Parcels that abut an arterial roadway so that setback is 30 feet as required. Parking on the site: the requirement is one parking stall per 20 children plus one per staff. That equals 34 stalls based on the anticipated number of children the applicant has provided. The site itself shows 30 stalls and there is a small expansion here—a future expansion of the site which would contain three classrooms with 22 children each and a total of six staff. [8:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Anthony, you just had 30 stalls but you meant 50 right? [8:58] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yes, okay thank you. Sorry, that's okay. The expansion would require an additional 10 stalls so between the initial phase and the expansion, that would be a total of 44 stalls required which would already be met by the site plan as shown. The applicant did provide a proof of parking in the Eastern portion of the parking lot that extends South that would increase the total amount of parking provided to 72 stalls if those are constructed, but based on the requirements of the code, that proof of parking would not be necessary although the applicant is free to do so. [9:36] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** This plan also shows the utilities of the site: stormwater, Wastewater, and water, and will be brought in from existing stubs in 149th Street West. Stormwater will be managed off-site with the majority of storm water traveling to the existing stormwater Pond to the east with some additional drainage down to the South. The city storm water consultant is reviewing the assumptions made by the applicant with regards to the capacity of the existing storm water Pond and if that will need to be expanded or not and if so, that would be a requirement of the city engineer. [10:19] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The applicant provided a landscape plan that contains 41 trees which is the amount required by the city code. Based on the area of the site of one tree per 3,000 square feet, 32 trees are required. The city code also requires a certain amount of the parking lot to be landscaped and within that landscaped area—which is comprised of an island Peninsula and some of the perimeter area—based on the size of that, an additional nine trees are required. So therefore the 41 trees required by the code are met. [11:05] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The code also requires one foundation planting for 10 linear feet of building perimeter. Based on the size of the building, that's a total of 50 Foundation plantings. The applicant's landscape plan includes 75 Foundation plantings along the front of the building. There's some additional plantings provided: shrubs within the parking lot Island and Peninsula, and some perennials in the southwest corner just behind that storage shed just outside of the play area—probably the more visible part of the site—and then finally some Shrubbery here planted as screening from the parking lot around 149th Street West. [11:47] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Site lighting will be comprised of 10 foot high wall mounted lights and 20 foot high pole mounted lights. Those are within the maximum allowed by the code of 20 feet for pole mounted lights within 100 feet of a residential use. The applicant also submitted a photometric study which was included in the packet that shows the maximum illumination at the property boundaries to be 0.3 Lumen. The maximum illumination is 0.5 Lumen at residential property boundaries and one Lumen at non-residential property boundaries, so the site lighting falls well within the maximum set by the city code. [12:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The exterior elevations provided by the applicant show a mix of materials: Stone, board and batten siding, lap siding, some additional fascia, and a blue architectural band around the building. The city code requires the elevations to contain 50% stone or brick, so staff has included a condition that the elevations be updated to provide that 50 percent minimum stone and brick, and the applicant has been aware of that requirement. A breakdown of the percentages of each material are in the lower right hand corner, with the stone comprising 26.43 percent of the exterior. The maximum Building height in the central area here is 22 and a half feet; the code allows up to 35 feet and the majority of the building is 17 feet in height. [13:17] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** A little clearer depiction of the materials that will be used on the building, or at least the stone and then the colors of this different siding shown here. And then the applicant's plans included a trash enclosure with materials that are consistent with that of the principal structure as well as the storage shed which is in the southwest corner of the site—also materials that match the building itself. The applicant does show a sign here on the storage shed as well as some signage on the structure itself. Signage is handled through the sign permitting process and approved administratively, although staff's review does indicate that likely there will be no issues getting the signage as shown approved as it falls well within the maximum size allowed by the code. [14:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So with that, staff is recommending approval of the site plan review. As the Planning Commission may be aware, the commission is the sole reviewer of site plans and so after this, the city council does not need to take any action for work to move forward. But there are some conditions of approval that staff is recommending. The developer of the overall Rosewood Commons development is in the process of getting the plot recorded so until that's done, the site work can't begin. Also there's some existing easements; the council will be reviewing the vacation of those at its June 6th meeting and then there are some additional requirements there related to conformance with the requirements of the engineer's memo, Park dedication requirements, and then as I said, the architectural elevations should be updated to meet that minimum 50 percent. Staff is happy to take any questions otherwise I know the applicant is present so I will definitely defer to them if I am unable to answer. [15:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. I just have a two quick things. Um the parking—just our refresher—parking is not allowed on 149th correct? So there would be no— [15:37] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I am unsure the answer to that question. [15:39] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, I mean they should have plenty of parking within there that we shouldn't have any issue of that anyways. Um and then the the 50 percent of the brick—I would like to—I don't know if the applicant has plans for how that's going to be but I noticed that the two sides of the building, the west facing sides of the building that are primarily going to be seen driving um along 42 and Business Parkway, there are planar—or more plain, maybe that's the right way to say it. So if we could add brick, like if we could recommend to them to maybe that's some areas to add the brick that would be excellent. Sure that's my my comments not really questions. Is there any other questions from the commission on this item? [16:40] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I had I had one. Do you have any information on the on the fence that'll be in back the playground? And I'm just maybe minor risk but um I was actually surprised to see the playground more adjacent to the highway. There's a few mentions of a 30-foot setback but I'm curious about what any requirements there are around that fencing—safety precautions and so on? [16:53] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So the applicant's fencing will consist of a four or five foot black steel decorative fence—five feet in height around the perimeter and then four feet in height in between the different play areas. I definitely could defer to them on their experience with outdoor play areas but the city code doesn't speak necessarily to the location of those play areas in relation to adjacent— [17:21] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Is it—are there any city or ordinances around the strength or material other than what you've described? [17:29] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** It would be it would be up to the building code. [17:33] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Okay, property line for this property is that right? The edge of 42 there then? [17:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well the the it abuts to the right-of-way. Okay so there is still some further setback from the highway then? Yeah it's not going up to the 42. There's a little bit of—right, I mean that's the right-of-way so who knows? Yeah the aerial here shows the parcel boundaries. This is the existing parcel; when it is recorded with the Rosewood common second edition it'll be in line with this parcel boundary. So in addition to that boundary line there's an additional 30 feet setback for the structures. [18:24] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** For the structures but what is the what is the boundary—there is no setback required for fencing? [18:36] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** To the where the boundary line will be? [18:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Do you know what that— [18:45] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I don't know yeah. [18:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I think that's what you're kind of thinking right? Like yeah yeah okay kind of the net distance from the highway to where that fence would be. [18:58] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Nope, that's fine. [19:08] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any other comments or questions or are you done with comments questions? [19:12] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I'm done thank you. [19:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, yes yes commissioner Whitman. [19:15] **Commissioner Whitman:** Well thank you chair. Um just for clarification on that setback then—is the measurement from the street to the structure or is it from the edge of the— [19:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** It's from the property—yeah the right-of-way to the structure. And then the site plan here shows a setback—it's hard for me to see—but it's about 12 feet from the property line in addition to the setback from the highway within there. So 12 feet plus whatever the ditch is. [19:53] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay got it. A couple other minor questions comments here. Um one I I had spoken with Anthony today but just to—just for the record—I noticed that the the Landscaping requirement which is 10% of the parking lot area must be landscaped. I noticed in the staff report that it states that the parking lot area is 22,816 square feet which means 2,283 square feet must be landscaped, but actually 10% of 22,816 is 2,281.6. So it seems to me it would be 2,282 square feet. Anthony pointed out to me that on this page which is up right now for us, it looks like the architect might have made a mistake there and so it should be 2,282 square feet right? But but that doesn't make any difference practically, it's just something I noticed and I guess my math mind was was thrown off when I saw that. [20:39] **Commissioner Whitman:** Um the other question I have is—so the in-lieu Park fee—is the applicant content with that fee? Does the applicant believe that's reasonable? [21:11] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** You'd have to ask the applicant. Um it's my understanding that there are no Parks anticipated for this site and therefore instead of land, cash would be dedicated. [21:23] **Commissioner Powell:** Okay. Madam Chair, based on the engineer's memo it appears that they haven't had an opportunity to determine whether or not the adjacent Pond has capacity. And if that pond does need to be expanded, which condition would cover that? Because number six "conformance with all comments contained in the engineer's memo" doesn't specifically state that the applicant would expand the pond if it's found to be deficient. So I'm just wondering how we would tie up that loose end. [21:58] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well if you want to update the recommendation, add a condition that's a little more clear that makes you more comfortable and certainly feel free. [22:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, any other comments or questions? Thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [22:26] **Peter Hilger (Architect):** Good evening I'm Peter Hilger I'm the architect, 14 Pheasant Lane North Oaks Minnesota with Rylar LLC. Been representing New Horizons since the late 1980s so we're really pleased to put what we think might be our 100th Center in Rosemount although there's some debate about which is actually a hundredth but um this is basically a representation of the prototypical New Horizon Child Care Center that has been constructed in a number of locations around the Twin Cities and actually outstate as well. [23:07] **Peter Hilger:** Um so to answer directly some of the questions that you had if I can recall them correctly, I'll go right to the storm water. This—we could grow corn on this site that's how big it is. We've got way more room on this site than we really need for a typical child care but because it's a corner site we actually have room—if the pond is an issue we have room to expand, put a rain Garden basically structure on the south east corner of the property before it drains into the storm water Pond. However we've been assured by KJ Walk who did the original design of that pond that's there right now that there was adequate capacity so it's just a matter of going through that demonstration. But I have no concerns that one way or the other we can meet that requirement and I really don't think um I'm not an engineer but I really don't think we're going to need to expand the existing pond. That's just my gut feel. [24:00] **Peter Hilger:** As far as your math there—yes, doesn't make a difference on the landscaping area but uh appreciate your bringing that up. With respect to the exterior materials, this is an unusual site in that we basically have four four fronts which is why we like it because we've got good exposure from all directions. So we're going to—like I said I represented a prototypical facility with the amount of hard surface materials stone brick that we normally represent—but to increase it to 50% is not going to be an issue but we will try to balance it out architecturally. We'll probably end up with a little bit more than that just to make sure that the architecture works and I have to confer with New Horizon whether they want that to be stone or brick or some combination of that. Whatever the materials are approved by Court we don't do not have an issue with that. [24:55] **Peter Hilger:** Um with respect to the fencing and the setback from the highway, we're always concerned about proximity to roadways however the one thing that um is perhaps the single element in the child care center that helps get noticed is the playground equipment and not the building and so that's what people will recognize and that's why we've positioned it the way we have. And the other reason that we've set the site plan the way we have is because we have the entrance on the northeast corner which is very unusual so we basically have to concentrate—rather than going around the site—we have to concentrate our parking and entry on that side which leaves us with three sides of the building for play areas. Again on the visible sides, roughly by my calculation looking at this, we are quite a ways away from the actual Road Edge which is already a shoulder in other words there's a shoulder and then the lane is still farther in. But from the road Edge itself, from what we can tell, it's about 55 feet to the to the fence so that's still a pretty good distance away. [26:11] **Peter Hilger:** The fence is a five foot high decorative picket fence—five foot because of security concerns for reach overs and in addition to that all of the gates within the fence enclosure are provided with an alarm system and basically so kids can't leave undetected while they're in under supervision. So um the expansion that we're asking for here is I'll just say is probably an unlikely event because we very rarely design our centers for expansion. This one just happens to have the opportunity to do so and so we wanted to make sure that we put building placement and where an expansion could occur for two additional classrooms in a place that made logical sense relative to the total organization without really affecting the parking requirements that would be needed for that addition and without affecting the playgrounds as they're presently proposed. Um I believe that took care of the questions that I heard but I'm—I have Susan from New Horizon Academy the district director here in case you have operational questions but otherwise we're here to answer your questions. [27:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Whitman. [27:36] **Commissioner Whitman:** Thank you chair. Um with the fence—so that's a five foot tall black steel open picket decorative fence right? Um is that the typical kind of fence that you would put in one of these facilities? [27:54] **Peter Hilger (Architect):** Okay we've moved away from chain link. It's black, but we've not been put chain link in for the longest time. Sometimes we may consider a chain link between the play areas and those are only four foot because those are all monitored areas—we don't need the high fence in those areas. It's really the five foot high is just for protection from the exterior for the kids. [28:16] **Commissioner Whitman:** And it looks like the maximum fence height in this District could go to eight feet but five feet is what you want? [28:22] **Peter Hilger (Architect):** Yes we're not concerned about the deer here. Okay I mean five feet seems kind of short to me sorry—right about here so it's plenty of height for kids but if you can just imagine it's very difficult and the whole reason for the five foot is the reach over effect. We used to do four foot, we've increased it to five for security and that's been working quite well. [28:54] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay but it sounds like it's the it's the typical customary standard kind of fence you would use in these types of facilities? [28:59] **Peter Hilger (Architect):** Yep. And then I don't know if you're the right person or if I asked the applicant about the park dedication fee question that I had. Oh you know we talked about that today and we're actually $90 under budget so we're good. All right we already budgeted for Park dedication and we're within 90 bucks so that was pretty good. [29:19] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay thank you. [29:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other questions for the applicant from the commission? [29:24] **Peter Hilger (Architect):** One thing I'm sorry—one one thing I wanted to mention that I talked with Anthony about this earlier is we may elect to relocate the trash enclosure to a different part on the site to make it more convenient for staff but that would be on the Southeast corner of the parking lot rather than in the island and so that would just increase the island space. So Anthony said we could work that out at staff level when we submit for permit so I'm just making you aware of that. [29:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you for that update I appreciate it. Anything else? Nope unless you have any of that? Nope thank you. See no one else in the—you didn't want to speak to you okay. Seeing no one else in the audience tonight I will move to close the public hearing. [30:11] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [30:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by commissioner Kenninger and seconded by commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. [30:26] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Uh Madam chair I just want to add to the um future expansion area is of a size where it does not meet the minimum threshold that would require a formal site plan review before the Planning Commission. That does not mean it will not have to meet all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance for all of the um standards that I outlined in the staff report and tonight so building materials and all of those things would still all be required. Staff would review them and give her that additional clarification as well. [30:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Comments or questions from the commission? [31:01] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** I just have a couple comments. Um I've lived in Rosemont a few years now and and honestly when I saw this on the agenda I was like started thinking about—is there any other daycare centers or this sort of building? So it's a nice addition to the community. Um I know New Horizons very reputable; my daughter's 34 and went as a toddler so that's how long I'm sure they've been around, in the 80s for sure. So with that in mind I would I would support this. [31:39] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you commissioner Rivera. I echo your comments. My kids also went to New Horizons; I wish this one was there when they went. Yeah I'll just add too, I mean with Amber Fields right across the road there's a great location—it's gonna be I think a big benefit to the uh the residents there. Mr. Powell, are you interested in adding the condition on the engineering memo? [31:46] **Commissioner Powell:** Chair no, I think it's covered by the catch-all general comment to adhere to design standards for the city. [32:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Motion to approve a site plan review allowing New Horizon Academy to construct a child care center at 2730 149th Street West subject to the following conditions number one through seven. [32:25] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [32:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** All those in favor? (Group: Aye). Include this item this evening thank you thank you. And as Anthony stated earlier this is the final destination for this item; it will not go forward does not need to go forward to city council. With that we'll move to new business. Is there any new business for this evening? [32:44] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** There is none Madam chair. [32:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any—anyone have any items for discussion? [32:53] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Um Madam chair I think um when we had just talked earlier you had indicated some um desire for a maybe joint session with Council and maybe a training session for the commission. Is that something you would like staff to kind of work on and what kind of a time frame? [33:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah so I can I can jump in. Um I did when I spoke with Anthony earlier—it's actually in my interview when I did um when I applied for renewal my term I had mentioned to city council—a couple years ago we had done some joint meetings with them and um yeah we've done some joint projects over at the time and I just thought with—we've got new city council members, we've got new Planning Commission members over the last couple years—so it would be good to maybe do another joint meeting with them. Um the timing I think could be flexible. I know we're getting into the summer and people are busy so maybe we could get it on the books for early fall if that seems to be appropriate timing for what is coming forward and what um city council has as well. Um I also think it would be good just as we continue to move forward with more projects and things coming our way that maybe we do a review—I don't know that it needs to be the entire presentation that that the lawyer has done for us in the past—but do a review of what is in our our purview and what our role is in the grander scheme as we see these items. So we haven't done it for a couple years. I can't actually remember the last time I've done it so it's always good. [34:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Two years okay. [34:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It seems longer than that. But yeah um so I just would suggest maybe to staff to to think about those. I don't know if others have comments on— [34:36] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you madam chair. We'll work with the city administrator who can coordinate with city council and their agendas for a joint um working session of the Planning Commission and city council. [34:49] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Perfect perfect. Um anything else for discussion? Okay I will just quickly review our next couple meetings which I didn't write down ahead of time here. Um we have a meeting on June 27th which will be the fourth Tuesday of June um July 25th and August 28th and please let Riley know if any of those are meetings you cannot attend. And with that I will adjourn the meeting this evening. Meeting adjourned. [35:13] **[Music]** [36:03] **[Music]**