[0:15] Hey, hey, [0:26] hey. [0:48] I call to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, January 27th. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. [1:10] >> Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? >> There are no addition additions, madam chair. >> Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes the minutes from the November 25th, 2025 meeting. Is there any questions or are there any questions or comments on the consent agenda? [1:36] >> Okay, seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor, please say I. >> I opposed. The consent agenda passes. We will move forward to our public hearing section this evening. We have two public hearings. The first one is a request by Brian for Kinderin. I apologize if I said that wrong. For variances to allow for an accessory structure to exceed the maximum allowable aggregate area for detached accessory structures and to allow for the installation of a second driveway and curb cut on the property. I will turn it over to Julia. [2:29] All right. So, a little bit of the project summary in front of um the commission today. Okay. So, the planning commission acting as the board of appeals and adjustment is being asked to consider a request uh by the property for a variance to allow for an accessory structure to exceed the maximum aggregate detach accessory structure area allowed within the rural residential zoning district and as well as a variance to allow for a second curb cut to be installed from 12475 Danberry Way to uh the Danberry uh way right ofway. Uh so, a little overview of the site location. So, you can see um the uh parcel is outlined in red. Um, so it is located north of McAndrews Road, east of the Valleywood Golf Course, which is located within Apple Valley and then west of Danberry Way. Um, the site is 2.54 acres in size and like I had [3:15] stated previously, this property is zoned RR rural residential and the land use designation for that site is also rural residential as well. Uh, this property is part of the Mickelson's first edition plat which was platted in 1979. Uh there is currently an existing single family home located on the southern portion of the property. Um I'll zoom in on it further on in the presentation, but um that existing single family parcel is located um just north of McAndrews Road. I do also want to point out um that um like I stated, that house is on the southern portion of the parcel. Um so a little overview, here's the property survey um in front of you. Uh so the property owner did approach the city um asking for um what they would need to do [4:01] to construct a new single family home on this existing parcel. Um since the existing home on the property is in good condition. You can see on this property survey that existing home is located on that southern portion um just north of McAndrews Road. Uh the property owner was hoping to retain that existing home and convert it to an accessory structure um after the construction on the of the home on site was completed. Uh so you can see the proposed home on this site would be on the most northern portion of the area. Um so uh the proposed accessory structure would be used as a storage facility, workshop and temporary office. Uh the existing kitchen and bathrooms within the um existing structure would still be utilized but on a smaller scale as it would not be a second dwelling on the home. um that existing structure is 2,194 [4:49] square feet in size, which the maximum um accessory structure area allowed within the rural residential zoning district is 1,200 square ft. Um so that would obviously exceed that 1,200 square feet. So that is the need for the variance with that. Um would also want to point out that the property could not be further subdivided as the minimum lot area for a parcel within the rural residential zoning district uh for platted loss is 2 and a half acres. So that is a reason why that this would not be able to be subdivided further to accommodate another um dwelling on the property. [5:27] Uh so kind of wanted to show a couple aerial images. You can see this is kind of a zoomed in photo of the existing parcel. You can see the existing structure on the southern southern portion of the property and as well as on the right hand side you can see uh the different contours on site. Did want to also point out that blue area on this right hand side are um easement areas. [5:48] So there is a easement area due to wetlands um within the central area of the property that does kind of um limit where a new existing or a new proposed home could go. So that is why the property owner um was proposing a new single family home on the northern portion because there are restrictions with the wetland and easement area within the middle portion of the property and as obviously the existing structures located in the southern uh portion of portion of the site as well. [6:18] Uh do also want to point out that um the city does uh permit for internal or attached accessory dwelling units but detached accessory accessory dwelling units are not allowed. Uh so this um ex uh accessory structure when it would be converted to would not be allowed for short-term or long-term rentals as that's um against our zoning code and we do have um different requirements and standards in place that that would not be allowed again per our zoning code. [6:49] Kind of just wanted to show a little bit of a different aerial. So, um, on this, um, picture on the right hand side, you're looking towards McAnn Andrews, looking at the existing, um, home on the property and then, um, kind of doing kind of panoramic images around, uh, Danberry Way as well. [7:06] I do also want to point out that, um, a second variance is being requested tonight by the property owner. Um, so obviously you can see in these images that there is an existing curb cut and driveway that gives access to the existing home on the property. Um but due to the location of the proposed single family home on the northern portion of the property, a second curb cut and a second driveway is required. [7:27] Um so within our zoning code, the rural residential zoning district does allow uh for horseshoe or loop driveways um with no more than two curb cuts. But due to the restrictions of the wetland in the easement area in the central portion of the property, obviously there are restrictions to doing that horseshoe/loop driveway. So that secondary access point is needed to access that second home on the site. Um so that is why that variance request is being requested as well. [7:56] Um so also there are five criteria for the board of appeals and adjustments to review when considering a variance request. Uh while weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are also two key issues to consider as well. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without the variance and the second being whether the project can be uh redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need of a variance. Um so there were five findings that staff um did uh provide findings for which are in front of you. I'll kind of go over them. So that first finding is the variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Uh so staff finds that the request is consistent and in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Uh the rural residential zoning district is intended to provide a large lot rural residential lifestyle that is separate from and not [8:42] in conflict with commercial agricultural activities. The zoning ordinance anticipates and accommodates the lifestyles for permitting larger accessory uh structures on rural residential lots due to their increased minimum lot size requirements. Um in addition, the ordinance allows for multiple driveways and curb cuts within the rural residential district to serve the functional needs of large residential properties. uh findings. [9:04] Number two, the variance is consistent with comprehensive plan. The site is designated for rural residential and the variance is consistent with that designation. Uh three, the property owner uh proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Uh staff uh finds that given the information received from the applicant, the property owner uh does propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. And then four, there are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the land owner. [9:28] Staff did find that there are existing uh unique circumstances. The site cannot be further subdivided to accommodate an additional dwelling due to the minimum lot size requirements. Additionally, the presence of wetlands um in the topography um does limit feasible locations for new construction. Um and then also the existing home on site is in in good condition and can be repurposed as an accessory structure which further contributes to the unique circumstances on the property. And then the last one, granting the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. uh granting the variance would not alter that uh character of the localities. The subject parcel is consistent with other rule uh large lot properties located in the northwest portion of the city uh properties zoned in the rural residential district are permitted larger accessory structures and other uh zoning classifications due [10:15] to their greater minimum lot size requirement. And then additionally, single unit lots of record within the rural residential zoning district may um include a horseshoe or lube drive uh driveway with up to two curb cuts. Slimmer driveway um configurations with multiple curb cuts are commonly found within uh this zoning district throughout the city. [10:36] Um, so the recommendation in front of uh the board of appeals and adjustments is a motion to adopt a resolution approving variances from sections 1167 and then 1173 to allow a 2,194t accessory structure exceeding the 1,200 foot maximum aggregate area for detach accessory structure in the rural residential zoning district and to allow for the installation of a second driveway and curb cut on the property at 12475 Danbury Way. I did also want to uh make a make a note that uh staff did receive a public comment which was provided to the commission before this meeting. Um I do know that the property owner owner is in the audience and as well as his contractor. So if you have additional questions that they might be able to answer better um they are here. [11:20] Um but I am here to answer any other questions that the commission may have as well. >> Thank you Julia. I've got just a couple um to start with just to confirm. So that if the prop current property owner was to sell this property, that building would could still be there, but would not be able to be marketed or anything as an additional residence or anything like that. It would just purely be an accessory building um with no no abilities for that to be used as a residence. [11:48] >> Correct. Yep. Um so within our zoning code within our accessory uses um it does outright say accessory um or um ADUs so accessory dwelling units and it does specifically say only internal or attached accessory dwelling units are allowed and that detached are not um so so since detached accessory units are not allowed um they would not be able to be permitted for short-term long-term or anything to that nature. [12:14] >> Okay. um the the property limitations with the wetland and such make it so that they couldn't build and connect this very easily. Again, why they're looking at the north, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah, you can kind of I kind of pulled up the property survey again. You can you can see that there are limitations with the topography as well on the northern portion. You can kind of see the contours are a bit steep. Um but that main area is a wetland with the drainage to uh the west with the golf course and then obviously you have that ponding to the east. Um and then there is that easement that bisects the property as well. So there are limitations with where um septic can go um a different or a different single family home could go. So there are limitations that the property do present. [12:59] >> Okay. And then the new driveway that's being proposed is just a single curb cut single driveway in no horseshoe for the new driveway. Correct. Yeah. It's just more of a formality as within our code, it outright states that within the rural residential, a horseshoe or a drive or a horseshoe or a loop driveway, no more than two curb cuts um could be um on a rural residential property. So, it's more of a formality with um with the land, it cannot physically be a looped or horseshoe because of the limitations of the wetland. So, >> right. Okay. Thank you. There are other questions from the commission. I I had one. Um I think you answered it as far as the subdivide. That was kind of my first question. Um but because of the minimum is it 2.5 acre? [13:46] >> Yep. >> Um otherwise that's the typical process would be to subdivide if it was not necessarily under this rural >> depending on um what the property was zoned or the size of it. that could have been an option to potentially subdivide um to allow for a a second home to be or you know another home to be on that property >> if it wasn't the minimum 2. [14:11] >> Yeah. If if the property was larger in size correct >> I have a question on the the five conditions like condition four. Can you go to that one? So the unique circumstances like I guess my question is on the couple of them. So like I get the I get the wetlands one is unique, but if somebody were just to say, "Hey, my lot size is not big enough." Is that really qualify as a like a unique circumstance to build like an additional structure? And then also like if uh uh the existing home can be repurposed if if it's in good condition, I I guess [14:57] to me that doesn't necessarily qualify as a unique circumstance. Like if I have I have a good condition house. So if I wanted to like build an extra house on my land, like is that just a unique condition? >> Well, staff interpreted the way the house is in good condition right now. So it's the fact that they would have to tear it down and then you're not utilizing a perfectly good structure that's existing on the property. um at least that's what staff understood from what the applicant was um presenting. Um also there's larger lots that are larger rural residential lots that could accommodate that could be further [15:42] subdivided. So um that was also a unique circumstance because there are larger platted lots within the city that are real residential that could be further subdivided. Um, and then also just the circumstances with the easement and also the wetland was probably the largest unique circumstance on the property because there's no other area to put proposed home >> like were they able to expand the existing structure or were the wetlands preventing that? [16:11] >> There are limitations with where the existing septic site is also um on the site. So that does limit to where they can expand on the property. Um, also you can kind of see these are more estimates on the property lines. Um, but they are somewhat close to the existing property lines and rural residential um, zoning district does have um, larger setbacks compared to other res residential zoning districts as well. Um, so they are limited more this close to the southern property line than to the north. [16:46] >> Yeah. So I guess for me like the unique circumstances like I can understand the uh the topography part of it but I just feel like the other two items it's like well anybody can come then at this point if we say well that's a unique circumstance then like anyone can basically come to us at that and say well that's my my lot's not big enough um or you know my existing structure is good but I want something else. And I'm sure the applicant could also speak to a little more on why they're wanting this project and why they're uh looking more into building a new uh single family home in the northern site or northern side of the site compared to expanding on the existing home. [17:30] Yeah, Commissioner Beer. Um, and Madam Chair, I would say that, uh, in the initial conversations that I had with the applicant, uh, the fact that the home is now so close to McAnnrews is, um, uh, contributing factor and certainly I would I would defer to the applicant on that. But, um, when the home was originally built, uh, it was not McAnnanders was not nearly as busy of a road as it is. Um certainly when they purchased the house it was relatively similar to where it is now but um it is a unique lot in that it backs up to a golf course and there are not a lot of buildable um undeveloped parcels in that part of the city. So so it is it is unique in that respect as well. [18:13] >> Mike we'll open the public hearing and have you speak. Thank you. >> My questions were the same as Commissioner Beer. I clearly see the uniqueness of the property with respect to the driveway question. With respect to the building, the second the second building site on the property, I'm less convinced. [18:34] This might be a question for the applicant, but is so the original house that's there now is you said 2194 square foot. Is the new dwelling going to be similar in size or >> um I do believe I did write that down. Uh the new um home would be a little over 3,000 square feet in size. [18:53] >> That's on the I think 3200 or something on the screen. >> Yeah. >> And and that's the footprint, correct? >> The footprint. Correct. >> So square footage wise would be bigger most likely. >> Correct. Than that. [19:09] >> Any other questions before we open the public hearing? >> Okay. Thanks, Julia. This item is a public hearing item. So at this time we will open 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 and we would invite you as the applicant to come forward during this time. Thank you. [19:31] >> All right. So my name is Brian Verkindan and I'm the resident of 12475 Danbury Way. So I think just to address a couple of the concerns um I know you kind of talk about the house and what it's like right. So, you know, Anthony brought up a great point about um it was built in 1978 and McAdrews was actually probably pretty quiet back then. Right now, uh every time a truck or a house or a car drives by you can hear basically the house rattling for the most part. So, now that doesn't excuse it was I purchased it in 2000, so I kind of knew that was the case then. The second thing is that house is you know that we say it's good shape. um it's not it doesn't have the ability to expand or to build on because the whole thing is falling off the hill basically. So it's good enough to have as an auxiliary building, [20:16] not good enough to have as a house. So that's basically my reasoning for wanting to build something nice is to get off the road, have a nice brand new place and not have a house that's falling. You can drop a golf ball on one side of the house and it'll roll all the way down to the other side. So it's uh not in great shape, but it'll be great use for for me as like a workshop and an office and stuff like that. So, >> and so just to expand a little bit on what you're planning to do with it, it sounds like workshop, >> storage, office, >> workshop, office, storage. I mean, I have golf carts, bobcats, all kinds of stuff. So, it will be filled up very, very fast. I have four kids, um, two dogs. So, this will be my home office basically every single day. And, uh, you know, just I do tons of carpentry and woodworking stuff, so it'll just be perfectly perfectly used for me. So, [21:03] yeah, no intentions. I know there's a lot of things about renting it and and that I have absolutely zero intentions of that. Um, you know, the purpose was keep it as is, right? Just because it's there, you know, why tear it apart and do a bunch of things. We can take get rid of the bedrooms. I know that were talked about, right? And stuff like that, which Anthony and I talked about, which is totally fine. Um, but yeah, just really have it as an auxiliary building. So, >> other question other questions for the applicant? I think you you maybe answered one of my questions that was going to be kind of the space usage and stuff and getting ready some getting rid of some of the bedrooms and getting any of those habitable spaces. Make sure that it's very clear that it's not >> absolutely >> it couldn't be used for a residence or any other dwelling. [21:49] >> Yep. And that's always been what we've talked about from day one is just making sure that it's not a place for that, right? Because you know if I sell it or who knows what happens in the future, right? We don't want renters coming in or the ability of other people to rent it or anything like that. >> So, >> and then just question for more staff like you said that there's like a rental program that has to be approved in order to rent out and then does that include Airbnb as well? [22:15] >> Correct. Anything that's being used for short or long-term rentals would have to go through the rental licensing program. Uh benefit of Airbnb is it's public post, you know, it's posted publicly. Um, uh, short-term rentals and, uh, longerterm rentals are something that, um, we usually find out from neighbors if they're a problem, people coming and going. Uh, but, uh, the the key is that the city does have an enforcement mechanism for something like that if it does come to our attention that it's being used in a way that's outside the the uh, boundaries of the code. [22:54] Any other questions for the applicant? >> Anything else you want to share? >> No, I think I think that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item? [23:12] >> Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Peterson. I live on the property just north of Bryant. And I just want to say that Brian's a great neighbor. He's got a great wife, great kids. love having as my neighbor. I'm a little upset that I have to come in here and now have a problem with my neighbors. Now I'm going to be fighting with him the rest of my life. Not happy about it. People have tried to build a house on this lot 20 years ago. That was the last neighbor. I don't know about the neighbor before that. He's my third neighbor. The problem I have with the house sitting the way it is, the old house. If you take the septic out, it can't be used as a rental property. Now Brian's not going to use as a rental property, but he might move. things things change all the time. I don't know why he would move, but he could possibly move. And now the next people that come in here are [23:57] grandfathered in with another house to rent out. I don't want to have rental houses on my street. So, I don't know what what has to be done here. Uh I hate to I don't want to pop his dream about having a home office and a you know, a whole separate building and run a business. That that's not what I'm here for. But I have to protect what's in the future of what's going on. [24:20] So, thank you. >> Thank you. [24:28] >> There anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? [24:39] >> Um, I'm Josh Risberg at 12375 Danbury Way. Um, we have, my wife, we bought my childhood, my wife's childhood house from 1986. Um, I understand why Brian's wanting to build a house. The road's very busy on McAnnanders. We've had deaths out there. [24:56] We have people speeding all the time. Now it's down to one lane. So, I get his reason for moving down there. Um, for me, I just want to understand some of it more on the process of that the accessory building. So, I do understand that there's a curb cut going in there, but I don't Is there an additional curb cut going in for the U or is it just the curb cuts moving from where it is now? [25:21] Because there is a curb cut down there. >> Sure. So, if you want to ask your questions and state that when we close the public hearing, we go back and we respond to the comments. Go ahead and just list them and I keep track of them and we go back through and answer them. >> Great. And then so my other thing is um my biggest thing is I want to make sure for the ADU that it can't be turned into an ADU. Um I'm not worried about Brian doing renting stuff down there, but it is the future of people renting down there on an ADU. I don't know what your projection is in the next 5 10 15 20 years when it comes to the planning and zoning and your density levels. Um but if you guys start to change that, that's what's going to change on that property. [25:59] So, and it will allow for things to happen after Brian sells if he decides to sell. Um, the square footage of the actual house currently right now, it was mentioned 2,000 square feet. Um, does that include the garage that's there? Is that the footprint of the garage and the house? Is that the footprint of just the house at the 2,000 square feet? [26:20] Um, if you I'd like to know if the density levels are going to change in the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years. Um, and then in the future if you decide to sell and let's say people are renting there and they're not supposed to, what are those consequences? [26:37] How do you guys handle those and the enforcements of that? Um, and then also, is there two wells going to be on the property and two septics or one septic and two wells? And that's it for my questions. [26:53] >> Okay. Josh, before you go, I just want to make sure you mentioned you were interested if density levels were going to change. Do you mean one house per two and a half acre? Do you mean the rural residential density requirements? >> Correct. Okay. >> House per acre. Yep. >> Okay, perfect. [27:11] >> Sounds good. We will at the close of our public hearing, we will go back through and have staff answer questions. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item this evening? Okay. Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [27:28] >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Kenneder, seconded by Commissioner Reid to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. I. >> I. Opposed. Public hearing is now closed. Okay. Um Julia, let's start with the the first one that was brought up um actually by both um both residences that have concerns about rental houses. So, um I know the accessory dwelling unit isn't allowed, but if you can speak to a little bit about what we have to prevent that, um and what the recourse is. Yeah. So, um this uh city did just uh recently back in 2024 update our zoning code and um previously before um our updated zoning code, we did not outright speak on accessory dwelling units. Um but we did [28:15] update it uh in 2024. um to show the requirements and standards for accessory dwelling units which is just internal or attached. We have four standards um with that um and so obviously with that it's a internal or attached are allowed detach is not allowed I know that we had spoken um when with that zoning code update about the potential of detach accessory structures it did not seem um like an appetite that the city council or planning commission wanted. So, we did keep that internal or attached and I do not see that changing um as of now since we recently just updated our zoning code. Um so and also um with this being zoned rural residential and with [29:01] the land use being rural residential which um our 2040 comprehensive plan shows this area is staying real residential. The density will not change in this area as we see for the 2040 and beyond. Um the density on that will not change. Um two dwelling units are not allowed on that property. So, uh, a second dwelling on there would not be allowed. Um, we do have, again, in place with our zoning code, we do have standards and requirements, um, outright that show that detached accessory dwelling units are not allowed. So, >> what about um the consequences if it was to get rented out? [29:42] >> We do. >> What is that? >> Madam, try and answer that one. So, there would be a series of um through our code enforcement process. We do have a fairly new administrative citation process which allows the city to essentially fine um violators of the city code in a progressive manner. Um but also then it could pursue additional civil penalties as well. [30:05] >> So it would be something enforceable by the city. >> Correct. >> Through a process obviously if residents noticed that and called the city and reported then the city can enforce it. Um, one question before I jump back to these questions. I want to stay on this rental house um, piece and not being turned into an ADU. [30:26] Is there something we can do in the variance language that if at some point in the future, let's say the zoning code should change and we decide we want to allow detached accessory dwelling units in certain areas that this one wouldn't be automatically grandfathered in. That their variance would the variance was given in the preclusion that it's not allowed. And if if some future homeowner of this property wants to have that, it would have to come back in and be reviewed. [31:02] Um, Madam Chair, the I guess the first thought I'd have on that is that the applicant is not seeking a variance to use or not use it as an ADU. They're seeking a a variance based on the size of that structure. So if that structure was reduced in size, it could be in compliance with the code as an accessory structure. Understanding some of the questions and the concerns are about because it currently is a house that there's a likelihood that it could continue to be used as a residence which then and I I know the applicant states that's not their intention, which we we certainly appreciate. Um but staff's role and to provide guidance to this this body is to also anticipate hypothetical situations and how those could be mitigated either now or in the future. So from the enforcement aspect [31:47] which I think we covered um but also if the code were to change to add ADUs in there um the variance isn't speaking to that. It's only speaking to the size of that >> the size of the structure. So, so, so even absent of the variance, if he reduced that structure down to 1,200 square f feet, it would be allowed. He could build a new house. [32:14] >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But that accessory structure still couldn't be rented out, >> right? >> Correct. Not today. >> Not as as the as the rules state. As the rules stand currently, like you say, and through the 2040 comprehensive plan, there's no intention. This isn't like some of the other parts of town where we have it foreseen that it's going to change from agricultural to more densely developed areas, >> right? And and I agree, I don't foresee us changing the detached accessory dwelling unit zoning either, but of course, we don't know what's going to happen 20 30 years down the road um with that. So, okay. Um a question on like the size like the 2194. Does that do you [32:59] have a picture of that uh building >> the existing house? >> Yeah, existing one. >> It's a couple different angles. >> Does that include Does that have a garage as part of it? And is the garage actually part of the square footage? >> Yeah, you can see on the breakdown on that um on the survey in front of you um the existing house area, driveway. So the existing house area is incorporating the attached garage. [33:24] >> Okay. So 29 2194 includes the garage square footage. >> Correct. This the square foot uh the base of it. Yes. Correct. >> Okay. >> Madam chair, Commissioner Beer. Um I would also suggest that the applicant andor their representative could answer that too for the planning commission. [33:42] >> I don't want staff's assumption to be >> sure. And Juliet to some to some degree here. We're almost making a decision whether we want to tear this down or not or make it smaller. Right. I mean, if if you know, you could build this house, the new house there. The only real issue is the size really of the existing house right? [34:01] >> Mhm. Correct. >> So, I mean, if if it were 1,200 ft square feet, it wouldn't be a problem. >> And and if it was, 1200 square feet, he could rent it out if he wanted to. >> No, no, it's detached. It's detached. He could not rent it out. But it could be existing if it was 12,200. But it could say we would never see it because if it was,200 ft, we would see it. [34:22] >> It' be the same issue, right? It's like there's that risk, but he's not allowed. >> Madame [clears throat] Chair and Commissioner Reid, uh larger accessory structures that are um that appear to be more than just simply a garage or a shed are not um entirely unique in this area. [34:41] Um, Madam Chair may recall a while ago at the end of Danbury Way there was a very large house that had a very large accessory structure and it was permitted because um, you can have up to 50% of your footprint. You can exceed the,200 ft so long as it's not more than 50% of the principal structures footprint. And this is a 13,000t house at the end of Danbury Way. Well, um, a variance was granted because they, uh, changed the property lines and shifted the ownership of that accessory structure to a smaller home adjacent to the very large one that was owned by a family member. And so when they sold the big one, the the child or whoever it was said, "Hey, we want to we want to get this garage. It's [35:29] a substantial garage. It's two floors." Um so so having an accessory structure that is more than just a shed or a garage is not unique to this area. And I would add that um garages especially in areas of the city that are um higherend or higher value oftentimes do have bathrooms or um kitchenet areas or things like that. So the big thing that um staff focused on was the fact that um it is larger than the 1,200 square ft um but someone could build a 1,200 square foot accessory structure and outfit it pretty substantially too. [36:15] Um but uh as the applicant said their goal and in our initial conversations were that it it can't really be a livable structure. um in in what would one would think of as a a home but it boils down to the size of it more than >> more than anything it's the size. [36:39] >> Okay. Um Julia we had a couple other questions and they might be so we we covered the density levels aren't we have no plans or forecast through our 2040 comprehensive plan to change any density levels. Of course, you know, that is what it is today, but um one never knows. Then the um covered the rental homes. If you can talk a little bit, there was the question about a cur the curb cut. Um yeah, so obviously there's the existing curb cut and driveway on the southern portion of the property to um access the the existing property. So they're just requesting a second access point to the new home. So, they want to continue with that main access point to the accessory structure [37:24] to still have access to that accessory structure. It's just one curb cut and one singular driveway to the new proposed home on the northern portion of the site. So, there so in this zoning district, you're allowed to have two curb cuts typically with a horseshoe or loop driveway. Yep. >> They're going to have two curb cuts. [37:41] They just aren't going to have the horseshoe driveway because of the the >> because of the limitations within the center of the property >> because of the >> Yep. So, the rural residential zoning district does allow for um for single parcels of record to have either a looped or horseshoe driveway with no more than two curb cuts. Um, so this would be at that two curb cut. It's just um due to the nature of the property, it would not be able to be connected to make either a horseshoe or a loop driveway. If it if they were closer or you didn't have the limitations of the the land, you could have a them connected. [38:17] >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, let me see the I don't know if you know the answers of this, but there there was a question of the current square footage of the existing property, which I think we answered. We believe that that includes the garage um the 2194 and I I see the applicant shaking his head. Yes. Um and then the question on the two wells um and two septics or what that septic and well situation is going to be. [38:45] >> So that will need to be um looked at further after a wetland delineation will be done in the spring. Um that has to be done. the applicant and the contractor are aware of that before any building permits are approved or anything um further that has to be accomplished um because there are some things that need to be looked at. So there are no plans to move the current septic site area. [39:08] It's they plan on um redesigning the existing septic site uh to accommodate both the existing structure and the proposed structure. Um but um a new drain field will most likely need to um be installed. um new tanks also um utilizing existing tanks. So there's a lot of different elements that still need to be further looked at after the wetland delineation on site is completed. [39:34] >> Okay. Thank you. And then there was that there Josh had asked something about the process of accessory buildings and I'm not sure that I captured your question there perfectly. Did you have another question on the process for accessory buildings? [39:51] >> I don't Yeah. No, >> I think that was the enforcement process. Okay, >> we covered. >> Yep. >> Okay, thank you. Okay, I think we covered all of the questions that I wrote down. Um, are there any other questions or comments from the commission? [40:07] >> I I had to say I I understand the going concern on on renting that property out. Um, I think it's seems to be a low risk. You seem like you're good neighbors. There's a a process for handling that if if it does seem like that's happening. Um, so I I mean I I'm in favor of supporting this. [40:27] >> I I would agree. I'm um I am also in favor of supporting it. I feel like really what we're debating is is this if he has to tear down the the current house um or change the square footage of it to be smaller, then it would be allowed to be there. And I think that if there's if it's a if it's a house that can be used, albe it, you know, 40 40-ish years old, um, you know, but can be can be put to good use and and used on the property. I don't see any reason to to have to cut it in half or tear stuff down. Um, and I do feel that we have a good process with the city for for preventing any anything of rental. [41:08] Um, and so I I also am in favor of of that. >> I'm also in favor of the the project. It looks like a really nice project. My only I guess comment is uh being on the commission for a few years. Um we are setting a precedents here because we are making it looks like at least three um variances as far as the subdivision of the the lot, the attached building, detached building, uh the driveway. So, I just um I know each each individual thing is looked at as far as what it goes along with, but that's my only I [41:54] guess hesitation is we are for the next person that comes in, they're going to well, you made this variance for this person. So, that's that's where I came from, but I I am supporting of the project. >> I think it was I agree with you on that, >> Madam Chair. I'd like to point out we're not subdividing the lot though. [42:11] >> No, I know. >> So, there's only there's only the two items that we're providing the variance for, right? One is the the accessory structure being larger >> and then the second curb cut, >> right? >> Because of due to the layout of the land that we can't do. So, we're not >> No, I know. I understand that it has to be a 2.5 acre lot. But typically in circumstances where you have two dwellings, there is a subdivision aspect, but we can't because of this >> because we're not having a dwelling. I understand. Yep. [42:39] >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think um the the piece for me similar to what Commissioner Bener and Ellis brought up on on the unique circumstances, the wetland is a unique circumstance to me that that runs it. You can't you can't put it closer. And I feel like they I feel like from what I heard from the applicant too on the age of the house and the structure it it almost like it's not to connect something new to that that 40-year-old home probably isn't a the right plan either and given the topography it it's limiting. So, I feel like those those things and moving the house further north on the land um help me on kind of what those limitations and unique circumstances are. [43:24] I'd say yeah, the wetland for me is the only unique circumstance that I found. Um and I do think it's probably enough to justify the two curb cuts and then make sense on why they can't expand the existing structure. And so for that reason they the only place they could do only thing they could do was to build a new structure and the only place they could build build it was north. So then uh then the question is are we going to force them to essentially cut in half >> their private structure or not >> and I I don't think that makes just from a reasonability sense any sense. So I I'll approve it as well. [44:07] I'm still struggling a little bit with the structure being supposedly sound, but then hearing that it's falling down the hill. So if it's I mean I guess that's kind of what I understood from you that if it's going to be at risk and it's in and it's near the road and you are going to be and people could be seeing it or or if it's potentially dangerous, you know, why why would you want to use a structure that isn't necessarily sound if it's in bad shape and falling down the hill as you stated? [44:42] >> You you can address the podium. Yep. You've got to come to the podium though. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I mean I probably exaggerated a little bit, but I mean obviously it is not in the shape where you could really enhance it by any means. Um it's great. It'd be great for an auxiliary building. [44:58] That's the perfect thing for it. And my whole and you guys I think all touched on this is like why tear it down? Why cut it in half when it can be purposely useful for stuff like that? >> So, >> okay. So, it's in better shape than maybe you anticipated. good. It's okay shape, right? It's not great. It's not >> The bones are >> The bones are pretty good. Yeah, it's it's beat up. It's 40 years old. It's It's pretty dated. [45:26] >> Okay. >> And importantly, you can't expand it because of the footprint and and the existing or the because of the way the land the lot is. >> Yeah. >> You know, the topography as you said earlier, that's the expansion of it to fix it that way is not something that you're able to accomplish. [45:46] >> In all honesty, too, being next to that road, [snorts] um, you can't hear yourself talk in your driveway. It's so loud. >> It's really, really bad. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Are there any other comments from the commission before we move forward on a vote? [46:05] >> Okay. Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion. Make a motion to adopt a resolution approving variances from sections 11-6-7 and 11-7-3 to allow a 2,194 square foot accessory structure exceeding the 1,200 ft maximum aggregate area for detached accessory structures in the rural residential zoning district and to allow for the installation of a second driveway and curb cut on the property of 12475 Danbury Way. [46:33] >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Reid and seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor, please say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. This item is an item that the planning commission hears and makes a decision on acting as the board of appeals and adjustments. This item does not move forward to city council. Um there is a 10day a 10-day appeals period. Anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the planning commission acting as the port board of appeals and adjustments this evening may do so by contacting city hall. With that, that concludes this item this evening. [47:06] We will move on to our next um public hearing item which is a request by Greg Fox for a lot division and a variance to allow for a zero footy yard setback and to allow for the creation of a parcel without frontage along a public rightway. I will turn it over to Anthony. >> All right. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we will be moving on to the complete opposite side of the city uh for this request. [47:29] Um there's, as you said, two components to this. a subdivision of the agricultural parcel uh in order to uh construct a new uh barn on the site. Uh typically agricultural splits do not need city approval uh if they meet all of the the requirements of the city code. Um, in this case, the applicant is proposing to split the property in a way that uh would require variance approval uh related to um the lot not having a frontage on the right ofway. Uh and then also uh variance from the setback standard to allow for the uh the uh the parcel boundary to bisect uh an existing structure for that. Uh I will go through [48:15] the um proposal to explain that in a little more detail. Uh but I would note that um the what the applicant is proposing is unusual uh but not unheard of particularly in the eastern part of the city. [48:32] So the subject parcel is located on Emory Avenue at 15391. This is in the southeastern uh agricultural portion of the city. You can see to the north here, uh, County Road 42, uh, further west, Highway 52, and then south here is County Road 46. On the far right hand side of the screen here, Fiser Avenue is the eastern boundary of the city. [49:00] The applicant is uh proposing to build a new agricultural structure. Uh, the type of agriculture is hog farming. uh this would require the building to have a connection between uh an existing structure and the new structure. The applicant is present. So when we open the public hearing, I would certainly defer to them on the logistics and requirements for that. Uh but it is staff's understanding that there are biocurity requirements uh that uh are needed to basically keep the uh animals quarantined within their structures. [49:33] So this is the proposed parcel being created here in red. Uh you can see that it is bicting this existing building. Um it does provide for appropriate setbacks on the north side here, the east and south and uh clearly the west here. The minimum lot area in the agricultural zoning district is 2.5 acres. Uh the proposed lot would be 4.59 acres. The minimum lot width is 300 feet. The uh on its narrowest side, the proposed parcel would be 400 feet. Uh as I said, it does meet the setback requirements, but for where it uh bisects that existing building uh with uh 82 feet and 46.3 [50:19] feet uh at those other two relevant locations here. uh because the uh applicant is working with their son to uh help uh move this project along and I don't want to get too far into it. I'll let them explain that in a little bit more detail. Uh it is staff's understanding that they are subdividing this property um as is required by a financing agency for the new barn project. [50:46] So, here's a couple examples of other parcels in the city where you see a parcel kind of floating in there, not touching any public rightway. This is Mosaic down on Pine Ben Trail along the Mississippi River. Uh, you can see that building there is on its own parcel. I would assume is probably for a similar reason where when Mosaic or was CF Industries at the time that was built wanted to build that and need special financing, uh they probably had the bank say, "Well, it needs to be on its own parcel rather than tying all the other parcels up with uh that lending uh situation." Here at Flint Hills Pine Bend Refinery, uh you can see a parcel boundary bicting a structure. And then here at um [51:31] Sunlight Investments, uh this is also on Pine Ben Trail. You can see a parcel boundary bisecting and uh building there as well. So uh unusual uh not something that we see all the time, but uh not completely unheard of. [51:50] As Julia said in her presentation and the planning care mission acting as a board of appeals and adjustments is well aware there are five findings that must be made uh to approve a variance. The first if the variance request is in harmony with the purposes intent of the ordinance. Uh this zoning district uh the purpose of it is to encourage long-term continuation of agricultural and related uses. uh the proposed project uh facilitates the expansion of the existing agricultural use and staff finds that uh in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. [52:24] The second one uh is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and staff finds that it is the the site is designated for agricultural uses. Uh the applicant is not proposing to change that. Uh the third one uh the applicant staff finds is proposing to use it in a reasonable manner. Um it is reasonable to be uh to consider and propose a barn on in an agricultural use. [52:50] Staff finds that there are unique circumstances that aren't created uh by the land owner. Uh these are related to the certain uh requirements of the type of agriculture that is done on that site. Uh from the MPCA that regulates the uh farms like this uh to the financing mechanisms used to fund the new building. Um, also, uh, you know, based on the location of where the new building will be, it isn't feasible to expect the the parcel boundary to extend all the way to the front of the site. [53:22] There are existing structures there uh, which we can see uh, on this side. So, if they need to connect to this building, it isn't feasible to to put it up here where it can have frontage on the right of way. [53:37] So uh the existing layout of the buildings is is a unique uh uh constraint that necessitates the need for a variance. And then the last uh finding that must be made is that the variance doesn't change the essential character. And I think the commission can all agree that uh a proposed uh additional barn within a farm uh is definitely in keeping with that essential character. [54:06] So staff is recommending approval based on the findings uh made and and presented before you uh as well as the following considerations here that the impact of approving the variance is minimal given the uh agricultural use of the property. Uh if it was going to be changed in any way, it would likely be with uh redevelopment or development of the uh the other area. So, the fact that there is a parcel kind of floating in the middle of the other parcel, um, it would get replatted into something else if it was ever going to change out of egg. No additional dwelling units would be permitted. Uh, the maximum density in the egg district is one house per 40 acres. Uh, there is already homestead on the site. Uh, so and the site itself is [54:53] uh, just under 40 acres. Uh, there wouldn't be a room for another dwelling unit. Uh also the site as I said if it was ever uh to be redeveloped it would have to be replplatted and the the the proposed plat would not uh exist any further. Uh but most importantly the character in the of the vicinity will be maintained and strengthened. Uh it is an agricultural area. These are the types of projects that we would expect to see in this area to occur. Uh it just so happens that they're requesting some uh uh variances from the code to uh make that happen. Um the part of the city's comprehensive plan uh reflects on the agricultural history of the city uh and the value of the um existing agricultural uses that are in place. So [55:40] for those reasons, staff is recommending approval. Um there are a couple of actions uh that would be needed. Uh uh the first action would be a a resolution approving the variance. Um, this would be the planning commission acting as the board of appeals and adjustments. And then also a a motion to recommend the city council approve that subdivision, which would be allowed with the approval of a variance. So, uh, with that being said, I I'm happy to take any questions and, uh, as I said, the applicant is here who can talk a little bit more in detail about, uh, the project and the specific requirements that, uh, they're dealing with as they move forward with or move through their process. [56:19] >> Thank you, Anthony. Um, I just want to start by saying I appreciate you including some of the other examples of where we've had similar um, occurrences like this where either we've had a floating um, property out there or um, have property lines um, going through build through some of the buildings. So that that is um, very helpful to see other instances of where we've had similar situations. Um, I did have a question. I I read something about the buildings had to being connected and so I was curious on and this might be more for the applicant but is the new building going to be connected to >> Yeah. So >> like this drawing >> shows it. The other one didn't really show it. [56:58] >> Yeah, Madam Chair. Uh not to to speak over you. The this is a kind of a rough sketch when we when I was meeting with the the applicants about this, but uh it does need a sort of hallway or corridor >> that allows them to move between the two buildings. there's um certain requirements for for showers and the change of clothing uh between as they move from one space to the next as well. [57:23] >> Okay. So, there will be a connection there. It just didn't show on the other one. Okay. Are there other questions or comments from the commission? >> Anthony, the um the only reason this subdivision is is being asked for is because the lender requires it. Is that correct? That's my understanding that for them to uh get financing and again I would defer to the applicant understood. [57:45] >> Um but um my understanding would be that the owner of the property it would be his son who is looking to make this expansion on that site and separate ownership from the overall farm. >> Okay. Otherwise the city would not requiring this, right? They could build this building here >> and they would just go through the you know the building permit process. So for egg structure or for egg um uh subdivisions, so just using these uh section lines and things, if someone were to come through and say a farmer would split this in half or or split 80 acres off here, they could go to the county and and just split it. But because it's kind of unique and doesn't necessarily meet the code, a lot of [58:30] times the county will say, "Hey, we're getting this request. Is this in in conformance with your zoning requirements? Mostly for lot size, especially in the egg area. Um, and we just kind of confirm that it is and then they just do the split. But in this case, it does require some city action. [58:48] >> But if if they weren't looking to split it, they were just looking to add this building, they'd be able to just do that right? >> Correct. They would. >> Now, this is there's a financing element and some other things at play here. The sun is going to >> is going to own this building or run this park. So, there's some other things at play, but but if they just wanted to build the building, >> it would just be a building permit. [59:07] >> It would just be a building permit and be good. Okay. >> And and um if it were just a cold storage pole barn, they wouldn't even need a building permit. The state statute allows for those to be constructed without a building permit. >> Okay. >> But, um typically what we're seeing in in egg structures, there's a plumbing component, electrical, things like that. [59:27] Those do require um building permits. But if it's just a a shed to to park a tractor in, they can just build those. >> Right. But this one probably would build permit, but it it >> but it wouldn't require a variance or any approvals from commissioner council. [59:44] >> Okay. >> Other comments or questions? >> Yeah, Anthony, if we could go back a picture or two on the north end of the bill of the lot. Is that a road there or is that I'm just wondering >> it's a field road. >> It's a field road. So, it's not So, if we're talking about access to a road, >> not a writer, >> that doesn't count. [1:00:04] >> It's uh No. Nope. That doesn't count. >> Okay. Yeah. Because I was >> Someday that would probably >> But at this point, they So, we couldn't >> ask them why they don't put the proposed building on the north side of the existing building and just slide everything up because that wouldn't fix the problem. [1:00:20] >> Functionally, it would still be the same um same issue. Uh, and I didn't touch on it, but um, they are uh providing an access easement to the parcel. Um, the planning commission has approved plats with a variance to allow for uh, parcels to only be accessed through an access easement. Um, in the northwestern portion of the city near where the previous item was, um, that plat had a couple parcels that would only be served by an internal driveway and an access easement. So, this is a similar situation there. Other questions or comments? [1:01:00] >> Okay. 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 who would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. [1:01:18] Uh uh Kevin Fox, 15391 Emery Avenue, East Rosemont. Um I'm a fifth generation farmer and um I'm family century family farm. To remain viable, I need to update, remodel, and add on to our existing hog facility. This building would follow NBCA guidelines and county and state standards. So, >> can you just speak to a little bit about the reasoning that you're looking to create the lot? We've heard that it's maybe finance driven. [1:01:58] >> Uh, yes. My dad owns the property. The goal will be to buy the property from him someday. But, >> okay. to get started. Um the existing building is 2012. That would still be included in this. [1:02:14] >> Okay. >> And they're still um it's still in very good shape. The hallway would provide um a biosecure way to enter the building so we're not passing on any bugs or anything. And yeah, I think >> okay. So, so this is the reason for doing the lot, if I can just summarize, but correct me if I'm wrong on any of it, would be for you to then buy buy that and start start your your business of it and then get the financing to provide for that lot and building. [1:02:50] >> Yeah, that would be the main thing just to >> get started. I mean, I've worked or been in the family farm since I was born, so be a way to get in. Okay. >> Officially. >> Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? [1:03:06] >> No. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any other comments or questions from the commission? >> No. I I unlike maybe the last variance request that I had maybe a little more questions about, I I feel like this is a great use of the space and is just, you know, it's a really fantastic addition to keep moving Rosemont forward >> and thanks for being a five generation farmer. [1:03:37] >> Yeah. >> Yes. I will um Commissioner Reid reminded me I did not close the public hearing. So, let me back up for a minute. [laughter] Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? >> Seeing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. Second. [1:03:53] >> It's been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid. All those in favor, please say I. I. Opposed. Public hearing is now closed. Okay. >> You got to go back and sit all no >> well. Great comment. Great comments as part of public hearing. Yes, I >> agree. Madam Chair, it is it is good to note and and see how um the succession planning and and how these farms are um passed on from generation to generation. [1:04:18] It's not something I certainly come in contact with on a lot of in a lot of my uh dayto-day. >> Yeah, it is it is great and great to see them wanting to invest and expand and continue and have new generations of farmers. It is um a big part of Rose Mountain. So, it's great to see that. [1:04:34] >> I see all five criteria being met. I have no issues with it. >> Agreed. >> Okay. Well, with that, we will move forward. I'd entertain a motion. >> Get up to it and I'll >> It's on the screen. >> Oh, there it is. Yeah. All right. I don't need my computer. All right. Uh motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance from sections 1125 and 1134 to allow for a zero footyard setback and to allow for the creation of a parcel without frontage along a public rideway. [1:05:04] And then >> we we'll move on that one first. Second. It >> has been moved by Commissioner Bugai and seconded by Commissioner Bener. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Before we move on to the next one, I just want to share that that motion was approved tonight um as the public planning commission acting as the board of appeals and adjustments. Our decision here this evening is final on that item. [1:05:26] It will not move forward to city council, but there is a 10-day appeal period. Anyone wishing to appeal our decision may do so by contacting city hall within the next 10 days. Now we will move forward to the next one. >> I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve the subdivision to create a 4.59 acre parcel within the larger existing parcel located at 15391 Emory Avenue subject to conditions one and two listed. Second. [1:05:53] >> It has been moved by Commissioner Bugai, seconded by Commissioner Beer. All those in favor, please say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. That item will move forward to city council for their approval on February 17th, tenatively on February 17th. [1:06:09] That concludes our public hearing section this evening of our meeting. Sorry, I thought I'd get ahead and sign the two variant sign the variance real time here. Um, so then moving forward, we have new business. Any new business? [1:06:25] >> There's no new business. >> Okay. Um, discussion items this evening. I just wanted to take a quick minute to share last Friday. I was um able to attend and Commissioner Reid um also attended the Northwind um event on Friday. Um and that was a great a great event. I learned a lot even though we saw that project come forward. Um I learned a great deal more about the Minnesota Aerospace Complex that they are building. It is an amazing facility. [1:06:52] I am very excited for our city to have that coming here. Um, if I recall correctly, there's this will be the third in the country. >> That sounds right. >> And um, it's I was not aware of the local, state, and federal government involvement, the public and private entities coming together. Um, it was great to hear you more. We hear about UMO and U of M, and they have the land, but U of M has even a greater um, involvement in it more than the land. [1:07:20] They're doing an educational aspect with it. They're going to have a building out there um that they're going to have classes out of. So that just a an amazing I think it's going to be an amazing complex and I sure hope that once it's built the planning commission can go tour it after all of our um involvement in it. It would be great to see it. So that was a great event um held last Friday morning. We had um representatives from the University of Minnesota. We had representatives from Northwind. We had representatives from our county commissioners, city council, um, and the department of defense had somebody there and we had representative Betty McCullum and, um, Senator Amy Clolobashar in present with that event. [1:08:00] So, um, a very well attended event. And then in the afternoon, Omni, our Omni Winery kicked off their um, their event center and opened up um, their event center. and at their property um they had a great little they had a great venue. It's an amazing location. The building is very very nice and they commented on the great community support and it was great to hear their the community support for their existing business. And that really was um one of the drivers in them do taking on this new opportunity and building this event venue center for the city is that they felt that there was great community support for their existing business and felt like that would transfer to this new facility. Um it's an great exciting [1:08:45] addition to our community. So it was great to be able to go out and see that. I know they have um a variety of events throughout the next couple months where you can go see that um venue and so I encourage everyone to to go tour it. Looks great. Any other discussion from the commissioners? [1:09:03] Okay, with that I will call our meeting Oh, wait. One more thing. I almost forgot about our next upcoming meetings. We have our next meeting February 24th and Mike will not be able to attend. Commissioner Reid, is anyone else unable to attend February 24th? [1:09:22] >> We're all good. Okay, >> good. And then we've got March 16th. I call that one out. That is a um different than a Tuesday. That is a Monday because we altered it because of the spring break. So that is a Monday, the week prior to our normal meeting. Commissioner Ellis, I'm I know Mondays are hard for you. [1:09:39] >> I think this one should be okay. >> Okay. >> Sorry, which date was it? >> Um March 16th. >> March 16th. >> Good. >> Okay. And then um back to our regular Tuesday schedule with April 28th. So just a reminder you've got those in your calendar and if you have any um conflicts to let Liz know so we ensure we have a quorum. [1:10:00] Okay, with that I will say meeting adjourned. [1:10:17] [music] [1:10:24] >> [music] [1:10:30] [music] [1:10:43] [music]