Based on the context provided for the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting, here is the transcript with the speaker names identified. [0:00] [Music] [0:59] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, March 6th. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:42] **Adam Kienberger:** None, Madam Chair. [1:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes three items: the minutes of the January 23rd, 2024 regular meeting; a request by Maplewood Development for approval of the Amber Field 16th Edition final plat; and a request by Spectral Alloys Corp for approval of their Spectral Alloys Third Edition final plat. Are there any comments or questions from the commission on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [2:17] **Michael Reed:** Second. [2:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda this evening is old business. We have a request by Independent School District 196 for approval of a rezoning of the site from AG Agricultural to R1 Low Density Residential, minor subdivision, conditional use permit, and a site plan review for an elementary school. And I will turn it over to Julia Hogan. [2:31] **Julia Hogan:** All right. So, um, the commission did see this item at their January 23rd meeting, and they did motion to continue it to the next meeting. So I'll go over the overview of the item request for everybody. So, the applicant is requesting the following approvals to construct a new elementary school on a 34.51-acre site west of Akran Avenue and south of Bonaire Path. So they are requesting a rezoning of the site from Agricultural to Low Density Residential, a minor subdivision, site plan and building design review, and conditional use permit. So a little overview of the site location: the property is located west of Akran Avenue and south of Bonaire Path, located near the Ardent Place and Carmore Crossing subdivisions. Also a little bit of overview of the rezoning: the applicant is requesting the site to be rezoned to R1 Low Density Residential, and that is because elementary schools are not allowed within the Agricultural zoning district, but they are a conditional use within the R1 Low Density Residential district. So that is the rezoning request. This site is also guided for low density residential, so that R1 district does fall into that land use designation as well. So the minor subdivision process is a platting alternative that combines the approval of the preliminary and final plat into a single process. The subject site is currently unplatted, so city staff did recommend the applicant plat the area to clean up the site boundaries and easements located on the site. So the overall site plan: the property is 34.51 acres in size. The site is currently vacant with residential development located directly west and south of the site, and there is a Union Pacific Railroad track that follows along that south boundary as well. The site will contain the main elementary school building, which will be shown on the northern portion of the site, and then two parking lots you can see that are located east of that main school and also south of the main school. The site is also shown to have a playground area, hardcourt area, and a ball field as well. The site will be accessed on the western side, which you can see here, that will loop throughout the site to the east to that main parking lot area, and then also stormwater ponding is shown to be in that southern area of the site, a little bit north of the railroad tracks. So access and parking: like I had mentioned, the one access point is off of Ardent Avenue and Carmore Trail, which are streets that go south of Bonaire Path. There are two parking lots like I had stated—the eastern lot, which will be that main lot which is shown to have 153 stalls, and then also a lot that is south, which will have the bus stalls and then also 77 stalls within that busing area, which is a secondary lot. The site plan does also show a network of sidewalks and trails throughout the site which will provide access to the playground area and hardcourt area and also the main building. Their off-street parking requirements are met; we were provided the number of classrooms that were proposed for the school, which is 38, and the 638 students—all that being combined, they are meeting that off-street parking requirement. So a little bit on the traffic study: the applicant did provide the city with a traffic study and we were able to review it. Some takeaways from that: there is adequate space internal to the site to contain drop-off and pickup; additional traffic and peak hours do not substantially impact the level of service provided by the intersections at Bonaire and Ardent or Bonaire and Akran, and no changes to the intersections are needed at the time. The city and school district will need to continue to collaborate on examining and developing plans for pedestrian safety along Bonaire Path and will need to continue to work with Dakota County to address the same along Akran Avenue. City staff are requiring two conditions to be included in the recommended actions which state: requiring the applicant to update the traffic study to address staff and reviewer comments prior to City Council approval, and then also require the school district to undertake a supplemental and more detailed examination of pedestrian safety solutions and must implement them prior to opening of the school. Last week, we did receive an updated traffic study from the applicant that did touch on some of those comments that were initially concerns by city staff as well. So utility and stormwater plans: detailed grading and erosion control and stormwater management plans were submitted to the city with the requested applications. The plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and city consultants, and the engineering memo and stormwater management memo were completed with comments regarding those concerns. The landscape plan was also updated; they did add—now it was 311 trees proposed for the area. The plan did increase from 153 to that 311, so fee-in-lieu replacement is no longer needed as they did meet the requirement for that replacement. And then 160 foundation plantings are proposed for the site, which also meet the requirements as well. And then the city's Park and Recreation Department reviewed the submitted development plans and is recommending that the park dedication not be collected due to public recreation spaces being created on site. And then site lighting: the proposed light fixtures to be used are shielded and will direct light towards the ground and not towards residential properties. The applicant has provided the city with a revised photometric plan—which that was potentially an issue, but they did submit a revised one and it does meet the requirements of the city code. And then architectural drawings: a principal building will have a mixture of brick pre-cast wall panels and/or ornamental metal panels. Since elementary schools are conditional uses within the R1 district, they are subject to the site and building standards of the Public Institution District. Metal paneling and siding is not typically permitted within the PI district, but the metal paneling and siding facade is of quality considered equal to or better than the permitted materials within the code. Also, the applicant has expressed that the proposed school has a similar look to the newly built East Lake school in Lakeville. Then here's an overview of the floor plans; like I had stated earlier, there will be 38 classrooms throughout the building. And then overview of the conditional use permit: a conditional use permit is required for elementary schools or special needs schools within the R1 zoning district. City may approve a CUP upon findings that use for the proposed location would have the eight standards right here, and staff has determined that the proposed elementary school does meet those required findings. There are four recommended actions in front of the commission today: one being motion to recommend the City Council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from AG Agricultural to R1 Low Density Residential; motion to recommend the City Council approve the minor subdivision for Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to conditions approved as part of the city site and building design review for the project; motion to approve the site plan and building design to allow Independent School District 196 to construct a new elementary school in Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to conditions A through H; and then lastly, motion to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit for an elementary school to be located on the Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's site and building design review for the project. I do know the applicant is present as well as their consultants, and then we also do have our Public Works and Engineering Director Nick Egger if you guys do have additional questions for them as well. But at this time, I'll take questions from the Commission if there are any. [10:52] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you, Julia. Are there any questions for Julia at this time? [10:57] **Michael Reed:** Um, yeah, I'm curious about the crosswalks and safety. It says we're going to—the city and the school district will work on revising the plan. Although ideally, we would see it here, right? I mean, this is our purpose is to review the plans and make sure we feel they're safe. So we're kicking that down the road, right? So we're not saying that—then this is probably my chief concern. I think everything to me looks fine, my ongoing concern is about the speed and amount of traffic on Akran and Bonaire. And we've got residents north of Bonaire, big neighborhood there, and we've got residents in the big neighborhood to the east of Akran, and we know kids will be going across Akran and across Bonaire. There's not adequate controls currently. So how do we feel comfortable about what's going to happen and what the outcome is going to be such that we'd feel better about approving this today? [11:39] **Julia Hogan:** I think I'll defer to our Public Works and Engineering Director, Nick, on this in regards to the pedestrian portion. [11:45] **Nick Egger:** Yeah, sure, thanks Commissioners. With regard to working through what happens prior to the school opening, there's a couple things in play there. One of them is determining the right solution, the right type of crosswalk solution for the context—road width, location, devices that are used. That's something that we collaborate on and we do additional analysis to determine what's appropriate there, and that's what the comment in the report is referring to. Similarly, on Akran Avenue, because Dakota County is the jurisdiction of that road, we have to go through a process with them to work on what they would allow and what will be appropriate for that location. So that's the supplemental work that's being imposed by the requirement here. [12:53] **Michael Reed:** Are we expecting—is the city's position going in with the county, for example, that we want a four-way stop at Akran and Bonaire? That we want crosswalk signals? What is our position going in that we want to have there to—from a city perspective—feel it's right controls? [13:15] **Nick Egger:** Well, I think the bottom line is we want for there to be safety accommodations. We can't dictate prescriptively exactly what those materialize into on the county system. We can advocate for things, but we can't say, "We want a four-way stop period, you have to put it in." That's not, unfortunately, the latitude that we get. And it's similar even with city streets, too; we do have to do engineering analysis to determine what is warranted there. There's a whole process that's documented for doing so. So it's a little more complex and nuanced than seeing an example of something somewhere else and applying it in a different location just because it looks like it would work. It's very specific and context-sensitive. [14:00] **Michael Reed:** I mean, what do you think we might expect, though? Like crossing on Bonaire, crossing on Akran, kids going across. [14:14] **Nick Egger:** I would expect both enhanced crosswalks of some degree. Exactly what that means is still work to be done—whether it's flashing beacons or an island or some kind of bump-out affiliated with that. Those are all design details that have to come together and be agreed upon and permitted. From a traffic control standpoint, and the report does bear this out, there was not a meeting of the required warrants to change anything on either roadway based on traffic volume peak hour demands for traffic movement through these intersections. Again, school operations vary in their peak hours compared to— [14:52] **Michael Reed:** Let me ask—you said there wasn't an adequate volume, but just west of where the school is going to be on Bonaire, you maybe know what I'm talking about, Bonaire and Bacardi, there is a flashing beacon kind of for pedestrians. Why would we—how would we get that one there? Why wouldn't we just assume that we're going to put the same thing further east there in Bonaire? Or is that the goal? [15:43] **Nick Egger:** I don't have an answer on the history of how that one came to be; that was before my time. So I don't know the details of what was even looked at as options for that one. Again, I just go back to—we don't distribute identical traffic control or pedestrian safety solutions wherever. There's got to be criteria that are met to justify them. And we do that in order to help protect against proliferation of these things because their effect will get watered down the more of them we have if they're not properly evaluated and justified. Hence, process being required to evaluate these wherever we're considering an installation of something. [16:34] **Michael Reed:** Is there any point at which the city would say, "We don't have adequate controls here"? I mean, I would think, just one example I gave, we were successful at getting that one in so crossing called the Red Park—was it to Birch Park?—you know, it's going across there. We were successful in getting that in, so I'm optimistic that we can be successful down further east. There'll probably be more people crossing there. Are there any—and this is just curious—are there any minimal criteria you think we have to have for the school here? [17:15] **Nick Egger:** It's typically a number of pedestrians in a given hour of the day that we would look to. And I am pretty confident that this would meet a minimum of, you know, 20 to 50 students most likely coming from that neighborhood to the north. I don't know what the exact number is; that's dependent on year-to-year enrollment at the school, I suppose. But a number of 20 students is a typical threshold for that. I don't think that is going to be as challenging to justify there, and the city has the authority on that one versus working with an external party in Dakota County. I can't tell you where they'll come to in terms of vetting options on their corridor. [18:18] **Michael Reed:** Okay. And last question, just to put a cap on this: I mean, is anyone going to approve that? I mean, once you work with the county and work with the school district, who says, "Yeah, this is going to work, this is going to be adequate"? Is that the city that approves that? [18:34] **Nick Egger:** In terms of which location? [18:36] **Michael Reed:** Well, any of the crosswalks. Either—well, the county would be of course Akran, but across Bonaire, for example? [18:40] **Nick Egger:** That is our decision, yes. [18:42] **Michael Reed:** Okay, so that'd be our department—our city department—approving that? [18:46] **Nick Egger:** Correct. [18:47] **Michael Reed:** Okay, thank you. [18:49] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other questions for City staff? [18:52] **Planning Commissioner:** I have a question about the traffic study. I don't know if it would be best for you, Nick, or for the applicant. [19:04] **Nick Egger:** I guess it depends what the question is. I didn't write the report, so. [19:08] **Planning Commissioner:** Yeah, so with a school going in there, 38 classrooms, and what I understand from the traffic report is that it won't substantially change the traffic patterns at Bonaire and Akran, which seems very unlikely. So I'm just curious sort of about how that's determined that it wouldn't change or necessitate a change to that intersection. [19:35] **Nick Egger:** Yeah, I'll try to answer that as best I can and maybe ask the applicant to jump in on their part. But we—by itself as a standalone contribution to the way that traffic operates—yes, there is volume, yes there are turning movements, all of that. But usually when you're looking at changing the way that an intersection might operate, you have to take more of the totality of impacts from everything that's happening around it because those are contributing volumes and demands as well. We did do a corridor traffic study along Akran looking at several intersections a year ago, and we accounted for some ballpark estimates of what the school would contribute within other data, looking at other pending developments that were happening in there and some forecasts. And that study as well concluded that there wasn't an immediate warrant being generated to change the traffic control at Bonaire and Akran from that. This—the statistics and the data in this report—kind of confirmed what our assumptions were about the school's level of contribution to that; it was in the ranges that we presumed from the prior study. So I think they're complementary to each other in a way that they're showing that the data—the contributions exclusively from the school—were not enough by themselves to trip any thresholds for changing things at this point in time. It may end up over time, as additional development intensifies up and through that area, that we run into tripping those thresholds. But right now with just this project, we're not there. If that makes sense. [21:10] **Planning Commissioner:** Okay. [21:11] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I have a just a tack-on question to that. So with the study that the city did along Akran, did that take into account the traffic that would be generated from the Life Time and from the developments down there as well, apartments and all that? [21:28] **Nick Egger:** All of that's been incorporated into the study. [21:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And then can you—on the report, on the traffic study report—can you, Julia, can you bring that screen back up? There were some peak levels of service that were slated at a D or C. So can you speak to at what rating does it take that it then warrants a change? [21:52] **Nick Egger:** I think I'll ask the applicant to step up on that one. I generally know what these mean, but in the context of the report, they can speak to the specifics about which part of the intersection operation that pertains to. [22:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. If I can just get you to state your name and address for the record. [22:08] **Scott McQueen:** Scott McQueen, Wold Architects, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. I'm the architect from the architectural firm. We did not do the traffic study; that's a third-party engineering company that prepared that. So I cannot speak to the detail or those ratings. I assume that's stuff that you guys read and understand or your consultant read. But I will comment just briefly only because this isn't our first elementary school, so I have some familiarity with this traffic topic. There are some just general things to think about when you think about an elementary school: the biggest thing is they operate mostly off-peak. Your road system is built for peak, and schools kind of slide in in that off-peak time, and so the roads are already—intersections are built for that in general. So that's part of the reason it's rare we break down intersections in study terms. The other consideration is that this school and a lot of the elementary schools—those are called "busy streets" in school thinking, and so they offer, by their policy, they offer busing to folks on the other side of Akran or the other side of Bonaire Path. So about 80% of the kids at this school site will be offered transportation, so they'll be arriving by bus. That doesn't mean on nice days we don't get walkers; that doesn't mean on days moms and dads don't want to drop kids off. But the study accounts for some of that; it doesn't assume it's always bad weather and that they're all coming by bus. So those are some of the things that kind of shape how we, or how the traffic engineers, look at it. But also, I think how us lay-folks can kind of understand how it's not as big a development as a retail development or other things that actually are peak attractors of customers. It’s pretty sleepy—by the time 5:00 hits, an elementary school is a pretty sleepy place. [24:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** To expand on that a little bit: just to confirm the students, then—not that they would always 100% ride the bus, they may opt to walk—but those students across the street on Bonaire and across Akran would be offered bus service? So while they may elect to walk, the school—from a safety and school perspective—they would be offered bus service and would not have to cross Bonaire and Akran? [24:44] **Scott McQueen:** Correct. That's correct. [24:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. [24:46] **Scott McQueen:** And that's very typical for most of the elementary schools in your community and the neighboring communities in the school district. [24:52] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I think that's helpful for me, at least. I mean, we still have a safety piece there—students may opt to cross—but that you're not going to have these kindergarteners that are going to have to walk across that street. [25:05] **Scott McQueen:** Right. Yeah, I agree. [25:07] **Michael Reed:** Remember that came up in the last one. Um, I don't think that eliminates the risk there because still, I'm a kid, I'm not going to take a bus to walk home across the street, and I'm going to—I'm going to walk it. Or they're going to go on the playground. [25:19] **Scott McQueen:** Yeah, exactly. It's actually off-hours the school behaves like a park, and so those kind of uses—families coming by bike from the neighborhood—are choosing to cross where they choose to cross. So it starts to behave like designing a park. [25:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? [25:38] **Planning Commissioner:** I have one question. Is there any type of fencing or screening that's going up in between the school and the railroad tracks for safety purposes? [25:50] **Scott McQueen:** There is nothing proposed, and typically there is not a lot of fencing at elementary school sites if you tour around. Those boundaries aren't "hard" boundaries. If you study that site in particular, the railroad tracks are elevated quite a bit; it's kind of an earthen berm where they're setting up much higher, and there's a row of trees, then we have the stormwater management world that's there, then we have the entry road, and then we have kids on the other side. So there's a lot of kind of natural management lines that the district feels comfortable will help manage that interface there. [26:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other questions for the applicant? [26:39] **Planning Commissioner:** I just have a comment, if it's time for a comment. I just appreciate the fact that the city and the county and developers are having that conversation about safety for the children ahead of time. Unfortunately, there was an incident not that long ago in Eagan, you know, where it was a reactive kind of thing after the fact. So I appreciate the fact that you're having those conversations to get it right ahead of time this first time around. So thank you. [27:12] **Scott McQueen:** Thank you very much. [27:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there any further questions from the commission on this item this evening? Okay, seeing none, we can move forward with actions this evening on this item. [27:26] **Michael Reed:** Well, before we do that, I just—yeah, just make one comment, which is: honestly, I don't know why we're not seeing a couple options for the crosswalk at Bonaire. I'm not going to—I'm going to approve it, but my recommendation with City Council is maybe they ask that, too, and we have a couple examples of what might go in there. I think we should know enough now with the traffic study and so on to have some insight, be able to share it. It'll be a common question from the public, so I think we would be best to kind of be proactive with that. But other than that, um, no other comments and I can make some motions if good. Motion to recommend City Council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from AG Agricultural to R1 Low Density Residential. [28:20] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [28:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. [28:27] **Michael Reed:** Motion to recommend the City Council to approve the minor subdivision for Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's site and building design review for the project. [28:40] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [28:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It’s been moved by Commissioner Reed and seconded by Commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. [28:48] **Michael Reed:** Motion to approve the site plan and building design to allow Independent School District 196 to construct a new elementary school on Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to conditions A through H. [28:59] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [29:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed and seconded by Commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. [29:08] **Michael Reed:** And motion to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit for an elementary school to be located at on the Rosemount School District Third Edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's site and building design review for the project. [29:22] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [29:23] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed and seconded by Commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our old business this evening. We have no public hearings on tonight's agenda and we have no new business items. This item, as well as the two items on our consent agenda, will move forward to City Council on March 19th. Items for discussion—Adam, can you give us an update on our work session with the zoning code update and the next steps for that? [30:14] **Adam Kienberger:** Yep, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. So the Planning Commission has been meeting jointly with the City Council as we've been embarking on a code update to the city zoning code. A little bit of context on that is that it's largely being analyzed to look at cleanup—eliminating contradictions or confusing terms within the zoning code, as well as looking at and analyzing some certain types of—blanket on the word here—but dimensional standards and some other aspects of it to bring it into more conformance with developments that we're seeing regularly be approved by Planning Commission through City Council. So the Planning Commission at their last meeting had a work session to discuss those redlines and those edits, and the plan is to bring it forward for part of a public hearing as a part of the initial stage of the ordinance adoption at the Planning Commission's next meeting on March 18th of this month, as a part of your regular meeting along with other regular items on the agenda. And we'll be also working through a public engagement aspect of that so that people are understanding, you know, kind of what's changing, the impact of it, what it looks like, and just trying to explain the "why" better than I just kind of stumbled through right there. But largely it's a cleanup of the city zoning code so that it can be more easily applied, easily understood, and easily utilized by both developers and residents within Rosemount. [31:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you, Adam. So we will have a public hearing on the 18th for that item, so we should anticipate a larger than normal packet with some additional edits—but we've already seen it once in its totality. So, will we be looking to take action that night as well? Are you anticipating as a recommendation? [32:05] **Adam Kienberger:** Again, you know, Planning Commission largely serves as a recommending body on most topics to City Council. So the recommended action would be for Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council for either their regularly scheduled next meeting, or if there is sufficient discussion that there should be additional review as a part of the public hearing process, we always have the ability to push that out to a future or further out council meeting so that we can properly either make edits, engage the public further, or other changes. [32:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I just wanted to make sure we knew what the plan was. We've been talking about it for quite a while, so I'm just knowing what the path looks like. [32:51] **Adam Kienberger:** Yep, trying to balance a very long plan but not rush the ending, but yet still bring some finality and conclusion to it. [32:59] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. Any other discussion items from staff? [33:04] **Adam Kienberger:** Nothing. [33:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I have—real quick—I'm going to do this tonight because we know how life happens. We have two commissioners that are ending their terms with us next meeting, March 18th, but just in case—they're both here tonight—so just in case life brings something down and they're not able to make the next meeting, I do want to thank Commissioner Tarian and Commissioner Hab for your service and your time on Planning Commission. We appreciated having you and having your advice and your counsel on the commission, and we wish you well in all your future endeavors and hope to see you back maybe in a few years. And I also want to recognize Alicia for our recent Community Expo. So for those that didn't know, she planned the majority, if not all, of that Community Expo. Right? All of it? [34:11] **Adam Kienberger:** Every single bit. [34:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Every single bit of that Community Expo, which was a huge success this weekend. I unfortunately was not able to make it myself, but I've heard rave reviews from it. So thank you for all your service to pull that together and congratulations on a successful event. [34:28] **Alicia [Staff Member]:** Thank you. Um, just to give like some numbers, we had about 860 people turn out for the Expo, which is a record number in the past six years. So we're super thrilled with how it went and we hope to improve next year and the years after. [34:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Wow, great! Thanks, Alicia. And just a schedule update: we've got our next meeting March 18th. It is a Monday—it's not a normal Tuesday—so just make note of that. March 18th, we'll see everyone back here in roughly two weeks. And then April 23rd and May 28th, we're back to regular fourth Tuesdays of the month for those two meetings. And with that, I will adjourn the meeting. [34:50] [Music] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Adjourned. [Music]