Roll is noted with all members in attendance.

Deborah Spears attending via teleconference.

First we'll uh approve the agenda.

Can I entertain a sec a motion in a second?

So move solemn.

Any discussion on the agenda.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Aye.

Next item, uh approval of the minutes.

I get a uh motion and a second.

Motion to approve.

Second, Aiken.

Any discussion on the minutes.

Seeing none.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

We now move on to open forum at this time.

If any member of the public may may make a brief announcement or invitation and request time in the agenda for an item not listed.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll close the open forum.

Now convene as the Board of Adjustment.

Uh the Board of Adjustment is a seven-member board which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions.

The concurring vote of two-thirds of the full membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board.

A seven-member board requires five votes, a six-member board requires five votes, and a five-member board requires five votes.

In accordance with Robert's rules of order, we require a motion to approve a request before the request can be debated.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive board under specific powers granted it by the state shall authorize variances from the zoning requirements where special conditions existing on the land will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

Thank you, Commissioner Heinert.

Any discussion on this?

Thank you, Commissioner Speer.

Noted.

Any further discussion on this.

Okay, we'll move on to item 5A variance for an accessory building.

The request is for a larger than permitted accessory building and residents R1B single family district.

The floor area of accessory buildings on lots with an area of two acres or more shall not exceed 2,000 square feet for all buildings combined and all floors combined, or 100% of the largest floor area of one story of the principal building, whichever is less.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The first item on the agenda is a variance for an accessory building proposed at 1231 West 8th Street South.

The applicant is the property owner, Mason Winterboer.

Properties located in a residence R1B single family district.

Request is for a 3,645 square foot accessory structure.

In this zoning district, the maximum allowed for an accessory structure is 2,000 square feet.

If the lot is greater than two acres, in this case, it is a three-acre lot.

The staff recommendation on the variance application is denial, and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny.

Section 6515 of our uh municipal ordinance um lists the criteria for um variances.

Uh one, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and the variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance, and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance.

Unique circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district.

The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

The variance requested as the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter.

The property in question, 1231 uh West 8th Street South, is um highlighted in the blue box on the left map, and a rough site plan is presented on the right half.

Uh it's the general location of the proposed accessory structure.

Uh this does show that it would meet the required setbacks.

This would be uh a site layout of where the accessory structure would be located.

Uh there's currently a two-stall garage uh with the dashed uh box kind of to the left of the proposed structure.

The proposed accessory structure would be a garage with a cupboard patio, office, and storage areas, as well as a bathroom.

Uh here are the elevation drawings presented showing the um proposed design of the structure.

The north elevation on the top left would be the front uh facing side, the side you would see from 8th Street South.

East elevation uh would be uh facing towards the primary structure.

West elevation would be facing towards the neighboring property.

Here is a proposed uh floor plan for the structure.

Um it would show a 60 by 40 garage along with uh a covered patio, office space, uh bathroom, and uh storage areas.

I mentioned uh the total square footage does then come up to that uh 3,645 square feet, and that does end staff's report and would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

I'll entertain a motion for and second for approval.

So moved.

Second uh now open this up for public testimony.

If the applicant is present and would like to address the commission, now would be the time.

Yeah, you can come up and yep, just come up and state your name in residence.

Thank you.

Uh I'm Mason Winterboer.

Um here with my wife, Katie.

Um I was born and raised in Brookings.

Uh don't intend to ever leave.

I certainly appreciate your guys' time.

Excuse me.

Serving on this committee, I I understand what task you guys have in protecting the overall integrity of the town.

Aesthetically, you know, making sure we don't look like Fort Pier, no offense to Fort Pier, but it's it's not as aesthetically pleasing as as Brookings.

Correct.

Okay.

That included the patio, the bathroom, uh office, storage, and the garage.

Okay.

Yep.

I was going off of like for structure that has walls.

I was going off of the 3284 square feet.

Um, not clown counting the covered patio, but I understand you guys count that.

Um so again, I just want to thank you guys.

I understand what purpose you serve.

Um did a lot of investigation, met with multiple different builders.

Ultimately plan one was just to attach it to the house.

Then I wouldn't have to be here taking up your guys's valuable time.

Um after a couple different contractors gave their opinion, there was really really two consensus with the houses layout on the property.

You would obstruct too many doors, too many windows.

You'd have to um reposition the septic system.

There are multiple 30-year-old trees where the older I get, I appreciate trees because they they take forever to grow.

I really don't want to cut down 30-year-old trees.

Um the main utility feed comes into the house, that would have to be completely rerouted.

There was just too many too many headaches.

Some of them, yes, monetary, which I understand is not qualification for a hardship.

Some of them were also just from an aesthetic standpoint.

It it would not look good with how things are are laid out on the property.

Um the the one thing I scratched my head a little bit about, um, and I understand you can't have a rule or uh uh something in the building codes or the zoning requirement requirements for every single possibility, but right now the um the the language in the in the you know zoning code, whatever you want to call it, you know, really really caps out at two acres.

There's no additional relief given for a three-acre property, a four-acre, a five-acre property.

Um we're sitting at three acres with that.

You know, I find myself constantly accumulating more tools.

Gotta remove snow, gotta remove ice, gotta pick up the leaves, gotta mow the grass, gotta keep the the trees trimmed and whatnot, and find find myself seemingly weakly running out of space to put those things.

Um I don't want to be that property that looks like a used car lot.

I I like to hunt and fish, and with that comes um additional pieces of pieces of equipment.

So you know, we're we're really looking for this variance, so we can protect and preserve um the look of our house.

We can get things of value under a roof where they're gonna last longer.

Um, and we can keep our overall property looking more aesthetically pleasing.

I I feel like we're not going too overboard in wanting to exceed the 2000, just because you know, we do we do have three acres.

Our lot is naturally really really protected and blocked by a lot of mature trees and and other surrounding areas.

So in my own assessment along with conversations with all of my neighbors that I've known for most of them for 20 plus years.

Um, you know, there is not that concern of it being an eyesore.

It's going to match the house.

It's not going to look like a pole barn.

It's going to match the house.

It's going to look aesthetically pleasing.

And I guess we're just looking to find some common ground and and hopefully um you know get get the variance for something we've been dreaming about for a very long time.

That's that's the reason we bought the property, the space to be able to do this, but I also do understand that we we have uh you know restrictions in place.

Um we're just asked asking to find some common ground and and maybe come to an agreement on on getting that variance.

So um I provided a lot of a lot of detail.

Hopefully that was helpful.

I guess I'd be open to any questions, comments, concerns anybody might have.

Yeah, thank you.

We'll uh call you back up if we do.

We'll open it up, see if anyone else wants to speak on the issue first.

Okay.

Anyone else that wishes to speak in favor of this uh variance request?

Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to the variance request?

All right, seeing none, we'll open this up to uh board questions and comments.

I'd like to have ask a couple questions of the applicant.

So with the I understand this is mainly for storing vehicles and stuff like that.

Uh would you be opposed to the idea of um changing this up a little bit in terms of like maybe the covered patio is a concession in some of those storage, those other storage areas to maybe get the square footage down?

I I guess I I'd be open to it.

Um we actually we're we're getting ready to renovate the entire house.

It's 30 years old, it's dated.

Uh we kind of see this as a forever house.

So this drawing came from an architect uh and the covered patio just kind of went with for lack of a better term, the the overall vibe or look.

Um, and we just thought that covered patio tied in nice and would alleviate some of the feeling of okay, there's a big there's a big pole shed next to a nice residential house.

Um so I I guess we we would be open to it.

I that that covered porch, I'd kind of hate to lose that to be 100% honest.

Um the rest of the design, I mean, I I guess we would be open to to finding common ground, but I feel like uh unless I park a lot of things outside and then provide kind of an eyesore that I'm trying to avoid.

I I feel like that this drawing kind of represents the the space that we do need.

Um but yes, would would be you know would be open to making some concessions.

So just to validate, you're saying that the primary use of the space is the storage.

Yes.

Um it also has in it a huge office space as well.

So can you tell us more about that?

Yeah, I am a financial advisor here in town.

Um with the evolution of technology thanks to COVID, I find myself working at home more frequently.

Um so I would turn that into almost uh kind of an at-home at-home office where I would see myself maybe on some Fridays, Saturday mornings, it's crappy weather out or have a sick kid, um, be able to conduct day-to-day work um without having to leave out, leave the house.

Yeah, so that it kind of aligns with some of my questioning is the use of the building and if there's anything to compromise what that looks like.

Um hearing you say that it's going to be a personal office space and then also storage.

Um it makes me take a pause to see like what could fit in.

Yeah, and I think we're I I think we're just trying to keep it flexible, like just because maybe I have a desk and a computer, and they're you know, I I'm never gonna bring clients to my house to meet that would be done at my office, but that room would would likely serve multiple purposes where I I would have maybe a desk, a computer, uh, a TV, but then also it would be you know overflow storage space for things we just seemingly run out of run out of room for.

So I I wouldn't be able to confidently tell you like it's it's 100% just serving this purpose or just serving that purpose.

We're we're trying to design it in a way where it's very flexible and can capture a lot of a lot of use to give us our bang for our buck, I guess.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh one for the I was looking at the when I look through the application.

There's some properties named uh Rasmussen, Moriarty.

Are those within city limits or those joint jurisdiction, maybe Ryan or those are outside of the city limits, supposed to be in the joint jurisdiction area?

Okay.

And and I included those.

I I understand that they're zoned different where they're not in city limits, but they are totally surrounded by properties that are in city limits.

And I'm guessing when my current development was brought into city limits, if those properties wouldn't have stables and horses or other things, they would also be in two city limits.

So I included that just to show like I can hit a golf ball from my backyard to do different properties that have over 7,000 square foot accessory structures or multiple structures where uh again trying to find some common ground.

I'm in my opinion, I'm I'm asking for I think a reasonable amount over the 2,000 allowance.

And there are these people within a five-iron from my backyard that have a lot of square footage for accessory buildings.

Mr.

Chair, I I appreciate that as well.

I understand that our job is to look at this as its own today.

And I also respect that um the ordinance as written, it caps out at 2,000 square feet.

And while we'll we'll discuss and make our determination based upon this in front of us today, based upon the ordinance as it's written.

I I would suggest or make the suggestion that staff or us do look at is this still relevant for properties that are above and to your point that are three or more.

And so I'd have us look what is the impact of the properties that are currently within Brookings, and that does this still stand true for what we would want to do in the future to stay consistent.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions for the applicant?

All right, hearing none, we'll close the public testimony.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Jameson.

I I did have a comment, not for the applicant or question for the applicant.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Yep.

Okay.

Um I appreciate all you've brought to us in your your thorough explanation.

Um and I do appreciate um you know having the extra space and the ordinance capping out at 2,000 square feet for two acres.

I think where I'm struggling is if you take a thousand foot per acre, basically, is how the ordinance is written, and you scale that to three acres, we arrive at about 3,000 square feet.

The request in front of us is for beyond that.

Uh, even if you take out the 361 square foot of covered patio, right?

If you just look at enclosed square footage.

And uh I think to keep this logical and to kind of set a precedent of something that we can apply elsewhere as this happens with the few dozen properties that are over two acres uh in Brookings.

Uh I would like to propose, if you would be willing to to or be open to this, um, propose that we cap the enclosed square footage for this at 3,000 square feet rather than over 2,000, it's just kind of whatever you propose.

It's something to hold it to, and I'd be interested to hear other commissioners' thoughts.

I mean, I appreciate the sentiment and I agree.

I wonder if that's not a amendment to the ordinance itself.

I I think it is yeah, this was something that was brought up once before maybe like a year ago or something, somebody had requested uh, but they were requesting multiple variances all in one go because they were doing something similar to like a pole barn.

Um so I do appreciate the effort that you've put in to make sure that visually it's it's matching characteristically and um the work you've done to make sure that you're meeting all the other regulations and everything.

Um yeah, I think at that time we talked about like yeah, if if you extended it out and just did a thousand per per acre or something, I think this is probably close enough.

I didn't even necessarily think that we covered uh covered patios in square footage, so I wasn't even thinking of that one before coming here, but um yeah, I just wanted to say I appreciate it, and I think I think the 3,000 square feet is definitely a good number.

Um I'm not sure how to phrase it.

Is that something can we do that legally?

Like, is that that's okay to do?

Like I'm just asking, I'm generally asking, like, I don't can we put a cap on a project of variants and say we'll allow anything up to 3,000 feet on this property?

You can make an amendment to the motion with uh so I mean a similar example.

I think uh I think we've done that with like a sign in the past where we've capped it at a certain square footage for the variance of a sign.

You can make an uh an amendment to cap it at a certain square footage if you're comfortable with the number.

That's okay.

Thank you.

I would like to propose an amendment then to limit the square footage to 3,000 square feet of enclosed space that not without the or without the 361 square foot of the cover patio.

Need a second.

I'll second that.

Yeah.

We'll uh need to open this now for public discussion.

You have thoughts on this?

Uh something's better than nothing.

Put it that way.

Any other audience members wish to weigh in on this?

Okay, we'll close public testimony.

Open back up to the board.

Thoughts or comments, questions here.

All right, Ryan, call a roll, please.

On the amendment, uh Aiken?

Yes.

Jameson, yes.

Spear?

Yeah.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Ron?

Yes.

Letty?

No.

Solemn?

Yes.

That motion passes.

We just did that.

So call the remote vote on that.

On the main motion.

Spear.

Yeah.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Bronn?

Yes.

Letty.

No.

Solemn?

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Move on now to item 5B.

Mount Calvary Lutheran Church has made a request for variances on sublots A, B, and C of the North 10 feet of lot 8 and lots 9, 10, and 11, block 2 of Morehouse Edition, and the South 55 feet of lot 8.

Block 2 of Morehouse Edition, also known as 629 and 621 9th Avenue.

The first request is for variants to expand a non-conforming building by more than 25% of its gross floor area as permitted under section 94-4 C1.

The second request is for a reduced front yard setback.

The residents, our two district requires 20 a 25-foot minimum front yard setback.

The third request is for reduced off-street parking.

The fourth request is for a variance for the location of the garbage receptacle and reduced landscaping requirements.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The church is located within a residence R2 two-family district.

Churches are allowed as a permitted special use if they are located along a collector or arterial street.

So the first request for a variance would be to expand the non-conforming use beyond the cap of 25% expansion for non-conforming uses.

Again, um section 66 uh 15 of our ordinance states that uh the following should apply for uh variance requests due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and the variants will not validate the spirit of the ordinance and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance.

Unique circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district.

The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is essentially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter.

The church property uh it's currently uh a number of parcels on the corner of 7th Street and 9th Avenue.

Uh it does currently contain um the existing church and a parsonage home to the south of the church and a parking lot to the south of the parsonage.

Uh the expansion plans would be to remove the parsonage and expand um the church um building a new uh primary um congression area on the south side of the property.

Looking at the four variances that are requested.

Uh the first was a 25% expansion.

Uh they would be well beyond uh the 25% for gross uh square footage of expansion.

The second variance would be for that uh front yard setback uh for the car port, which is proposed to be a covered um extension of the building, uh covered car port on the east side um along a drive-through um drop-off pickup area along 9th Avenue.

The required front yard setback there would be 25 feet, and the carport would have a minimum setback of three feet eight and a quarter inch.

The third variance would be for reduced um off-street parking.

Uh currently there is a parking lot on the south side of the church.

There's also a row of uh diagonal parking to the west along the alleyway.

Um there would be some of the alleyway parking spots removed in this uh site plan.

They do show um a request for boulevard parking that would not count towards the required off-street parking, that would be considered on-street parking.

And so there would be a net shortage of 26 off-street parking spaces for the third variance.

And that fourth variance, as I mentioned, would be regarding landscaping.

Uh for a civic use like a church, the required landscaping would be uh 10 foot of landscape area along a front yard, in this case along 7th Street and 9th Avenue, and a five-foot dedicated side yard landscape area, which in this case would apply to the alleyway to the west of the property, um, being that the property does abut that alleyway with the parking, and uh there's really no way to apply that landscape uh dedication along that alleyway as as the current uh site is built out.

Elevation drawings shown here, uh the north elevation on the top, east elevation on the middle, and south elevation on the bottom.

Those give a uh you know an elevation visual of the carport noted on uh two.

That's the second request for variance.

Here are some renderings, design renderings of the of the project using those elevations.

And I would note uh before I close my staff report that this has gone through the historic preservation commission.

Uh this project is in the um university residential historic district.

They were required to go through uh state historic review through an 11-1 review process.

Um they did uh meet with the historic preservation commission a number of times and ultimately submitted a report to them that the historic preservation commission did accept.

And with that, I would uh end my staff report and stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh at this time entertain a motion and second for approval.

So move, so second.

Thank you.

Uh we will now open for public testimony.

If the applicant is present, could please address the commission.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Kyle Rausch with Dakota Land Design, and I'm representing the owners on this project.

My name is Matthew Weiss, architect on the project with Design Art Group.

Uh all right.

So, you know, Mount Calvary Church, they're pretty excited to get to where they are currently with this design, and as you guys know, they've been through years of iterations on this project.

Uh the church has been uh considering uh several different designs, and I think what's different about this design is we're uh fully keeping it inside the current land footprint.

And and most of these variances that we're talking today have to do with that, and I'll I'll get into that kind of why we got there in a minute.

Um, the uh north portion of the church is 75 years old, and so I'm I'm guessing it was built before it was a non-conforming use, and so it's been here a long time.

It's definitely due for an expansion and some updating uh uh hopefully this year.

So the congregation is adamant that they wanted to be a compliment uh to this neighborhood uh and to the state historic or and to the uh the historic district and as and as far as they wanted to uh be a compliment to the neighbors as well.

We spent a lot of time going back and forth, getting a lot of neighbor feedback, uh making sure that we were kind of checking the boxes uh that uh we're hopefully hopefully needing to check.

The original design that they had a year or two ago when they started, it met most of these variance requirements.

Um it it had much more room for parking.

Uh they were expanding towards sixth street, so uh getting towards if they can build on sixth street, it can become a conforming use, being an arterial uh, which would require that uh wouldn't require that variance for a gross increase, uh 25% increase, and then they had more room for trash receptacles, landscaping, and everything else.

Um however, after meeting with as many neighbors as possible and coordinating with the state and local historic preservation boards, uh the number one concern that everybody had was uh to save uh conforming historic homes uh in this district.

And so we've modified and improved that design to accomplish those historic district needs, and we met most of our neighborly design requests.

One thing I want to say to neighbors that are here or that are listening tonight is that we really appreciate everybody's feedback, and uh we've got decisions that we still need to make ongoing, and so we want to keep communication open and make sure that you guys are reaching out and we're reaching out and definitely keeping communication.

We don't have every answer as we go through selections, uh whether it's uh landscaping or lighting and things that we need to do.

We still want to we still want to get some information on that and make sure that we're getting your feedback.

Um so Ryan, uh well, I guess this this sheet here would work.

So the first variance, and I think you're voting on all the variances at once, so I'll just go through kind of all my notes on each variance.

Uh the the first variance requiring the 25% expansion, of course, that's because we're not on an elect on arterial or collector street.

Um and essentially uh back to what I was talking about earlier, it's just because we wanted to stay within our land footprint.

The church does own a few properties south of the alley that's south here, and that was the original plan.

Uh at this point in time, all of those homes are going to stay preserved and uh uh be kept as homes.

Uh the second variance request regarding uh front yard setback exception, uh, as Ryan stated, the only thing that it is outside of our setback lines is the covered drive up.

And this was a very important concern for the congregation when they hired us to uh Matt and Ida work on this design.

Uh, you know, they just wanted something that was safe and convenient.

And as we had parking constraints because we are minimized on our site, uh they just they just wanted somewhere where they could drop off, pick up all mobility levels and ages.

Obviously, there's all ages uh that go to this congregation, and then that way if they need to park on the street or park a little bit further away, and they can do so.

Um we considered cantilevering the covered drive up, and uh what we found was it doesn't fit kind of our historic appeal we were going for.

It kind of modernized it, and so you know, essentially what we're asking for here is uh variance for the two columns in the front of the covered drive because it you know being cantilevered wouldn't have required a variance, but it is something that's very important to the church.

Uh the third variance is requesting a reduction of on-street park of uh off-street parking.

And as Ryan talked about, we're currently working with the city, and that's kind of our next step is to finalize uh some boulevard parking uh instead of uh building a sprawling parking lot outside of our boundary.

And again, I mean this was actually brought up by the neighborhood uh by all the neighbors that we spoke with, and they said that that they offered that as a solution that they would said most of them, anybody that we talked to and asked said that they would be in support of boulevard parking uh in lieu of us building a parking lot off-site, which was the original plan.

Uh the fourth the fourth variance uh as Ryan discussed, requesting uh reduced landscaping requirements.

It's a continuation of just the same comments is that we you know we're tight here, we're trying to we're trying to be conservative of our property that we have.

Uh but we're cons we're uh we're surrounded on four sides on this lot by driving lanes.

So we've got the West Alley and the South Alley, and then we've got uh 7th Street and 9th Avenue on the east and the north, so we're essentially a constrained site.

Uh uh and as I discussed earlier, we're condensed our design to fall entirely into that church footprint.

Um the trash receptacles on the west side.

You can see that the existing church, which has their current trash receptacles on the west side, uh, we're we're doing basically what they were doing, what they are doing now.

Uh we're just we're it's we're moving it slightly and making it conform with our site plan, but it'll be screened, it'll need city kind of city spec as far as it'll look really good, and it'll kind of be in the same spot.

Uh we're we're tight to that alley, the existing building was tight to that alley, and so our building is just a continuation of the existing building there.

Uh, and then the 10 foot landscape requirement on the on the east side again.

That is uh that's that's challenging because uh as you know, we're trying to fit in that boulevard parking and stuff.

So uh I think that's it.

The fifth variance, as Ryan said, is being removed for tonight, and that was just kind of a uh typo on our original variance request.

But the church as a whole will be the exact same height as the existing portion of the church.

And so we tried to match that just to minimize uh make sure we're not blocking light from the neighbors and make sure that it's kind of a cohesive design.

So thank you.

You got you have anything?

I really just want to echo um some of the thoughts, but you did a great job, Kyle, as always.

Um the the big thing here is that this was a very constrained site with a lot of different variables, one of which is grading, which we really have not talked about either.

But um this is uh really essentially kind of like an infill lot, and it usually those require some degree of flexibility to see things happen.

Um the the church desires a high degree of accessibility.

It's one of the big reasons they're going forward with this addition to get more of a slab on grade type and and uh the drive-up canopy is a big part of that.

And um this is designed to fit within a an historic district and and not disturb the houses to the south, which was the big issue really that BHPC had on the um original design produced a year ago.

So we look forward to your review and comments.

Thank you.

Um we may call you back up, but we'll open it up to anyone else that would like to speak in favor of these variance requests.

Actually, before that point of order, we confirm that this uh motion was for all the variances together.

Okay, so if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this, please come up.

All right, we'll open it up to anyone that would like to speak in with concerns or in opposition.

Okay, that's fine.

Sorry.

Hello, my name is Sandra Khalis, and I am an a neighbor at 8116th Street.

So I came to speak in favor um more, though I would like this opportunity to help educate our community.

I'm a professional architect.

I have practiced for um I think at least 17 years in the built environment.

So I would like to speak a little bit about um supporting a less parking um for this project.

So um bringing the strong town's mission to this discussion of parking lots, straw the strong town movement of people across America.

Um they've demonstrated the impact and flaws of suburban development patterns in our communities.

Our communities collectively have parking mandates that have led to a lot of overbuilt and unnecessary parking lots.

This is a neighborhood, right?

Um cities like Brickings must end minimum parking requirements.

Building mandates stifles the creation of homes and businesses.

So this doesn't remove any housing other than the parsonage that the church has owned for a long time.

Um this is about land.

This is a broader discussion that I'm hoping to help educate our community on.

It's about land and money.

The more land that's used for city mandated parking means less land for much needed homes and wealth generating businesses.

A parking parking lot can be expensive to build, costing anywhere between 5,000 and 500 or 5,000 fifty thousand per space.

50,000 is for underground parking, which you're not seeing yet in Brookings, but you will.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else like to speak uh from the public on this issue?

Mr.

Chair, I do want to note that staff did receive a call uh this afternoon with a few concerns from a neighboring property owner regarding the location of the uh trash and parking along the alleyway um along with potential drainage concerns or questions on that alleyway.

Thank you.

Uh okay, so we'll close uh public testimony, open this up to board discussion, questions, comments.

We'll we'll note that we have the um ability to call out individual variances if we so choose, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

I see in the in the picture, I'm assuming is the I just want clarification on this.

Is the for the covered awning?

I can see it in the picture the way the car is facing.

Is that the intended like that's in this in the uh yeah, top left?

Is that the intended path of the cars?

And the only reason I ask is because if they're coming in from the alleyway, I could see a bottleneck there, whereas if they're coming in this way, they have a little bit more.

They'll be coming from the north.

Okay, so that the direct okay.

That's thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Commissioner Akin question for uh staff, I think.

Um I know uh this body doesn't have uh much say over on-street parking, whether or not it gets approved.

We've seen requests come in uh more and more now for on-street parking.

Can staff let us know has the city been receptive to that?

Have those requests been granted in the past.

It's uh review reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Um there have been um a few that get approved and a few that do not get approved.

Uh, I think one that has been approved uh recently there was the boulevard parking approved for the Ivy Center uh just west of downtown.

Um there was one for the um campanile lofts just north of the Bank Star building.

Uh so there have been a couple of cases that have been approved by staff recently, but it's reviewed on a case-by-case basis, looking up you know the volume of traffic on that street.

Um is it a collector that's another local um traffic volume?

Um there have been cases um that have been denied for you know smaller scale ones like you know uh maybe uh um uh duplex or uh condo type development.

Um it's case by case.

Okay, so simply uh seeing it on here does not mean it's a given.

Correct.

This would not be uh none of the boulevard parking would be approved uh by the planning commissioner board of adjustment.

Uh that would be a staff um decision internally, and again it'd be based off of staff's um review of the um feasibility of of allowing that on those streets.

Okay.

Thank you.

Then a follow-up question.

Yes.

Then for the the church, what would be the impact if the city does not approve that boulevard parking?

Yeah, that that is that is a great question.

Um, at that point uh we might have to back up just a little bit and kind of kind of figure out some other things.

I it was something that was very important to the congregation that we uh that we get that boulevard parking and kind of where we are right now, and as as Ryan said, uh we don't have formal approval yet because we needed to get through this entire process for approval.

Uh but we kind of based our design upon that, and we had positive reception from the city when we started.

So we had a we had a pre-meeting and we talked about hey, like we've got a demand to or we've got we've got a lot of people asking us to reduce our parking footprint.

And so uh how can we do that?

And we kind of worked through some challenges and some solutions, and this was a good solution.

Uh the at the time the city unofficially felt like this was a good solution because it did save the homes.

Uh it reduced our parking footprint, and we're we're we feel like we're a pretty good candidate for boulevard parking because you know we need parking on Sundays and Wednesdays, and otherwise it's going to be a pretty pretty wide open space and and pretty uh pretty empty.

And so what's nice about that is that the congregate the church pays for it, uh they pay for the construction, they pay for all the maintenance, but because it's in the boulevard, it will be some city parking there uh open to the public.

And the city, uh the last we talked to them, and again uh the official agreement isn't made yet, but the last we talked to them is they'd like to restrict parking just to church hours just with signage that says um you know, maybe this is uh parking here on Sundays and Wednesdays or or kind of whatever we agree upon.

Quick question, Kyle.

Um go ahead, Scott.

Well, kind of along those lines.

Um have there been any like car counts done like on a Sunday, like how many there Yeah, matter of fact, uh matter of fact, talking with the city that uh they asked us to uh uh show a need for boulevard parking.

And so we've been documenting and and taking pictures of parking counts uh on Sundays.

Were you do you know?

I I can't tell you offhand, but you know, it's essentially what we're doing is we're you know, we're so we're utilizing the same parking lot.

We're rebuilt, we're redoing the parking lot, but we're striping it the same.

It'll be identical in size.

I mean, we'll kind of destroy it and put it back exactly the way it was.

And so um the pictures that we're taking, I can get that for you, just not right now, but um we're essentially just taking photos and doing counts of everything in the parking lot and then parked down the street for those times and just kind of show you how how sprawled out it gets on occasion.

Okay, yeah.

Um and then I guess maybe following up on the concern call, can you talk about the drainage and um is there any other options for the trash?

Uh yes.

Um trash, I don't know if uh trash is a giant sticking point for us, and we would definitely be open to some other options.

So, you know, we didn't come in here saying, hey, we gotta put trash here.

Um trash was there uh originally kind of in this area.

I think it's a little bit more obtrusive now.

So I would love to uh uh we've got some ideas for trash.

We don't have a ton of options, but but I think we've got some really good ideas, and and so my question maybe to Ryan is if we adjusted where trash goes uh and it was uh you know, maybe in some conforming space that made sense.

Do we need to come back here and ask for reapproval of that?

If the uh garbage location were in a side or rear yard, but not within one of the required landscape areas, uh that would be an approved location.

Um so the landscape variants, there's kind of two parts to the landscape variants.

One is garbage uh receptors cannot be located in the the landscape area, which in this case you would need a full five-foot landscape, you know, green space along that entire west property line.

Um you would still need a variance for the landscape area, you know, lack of a landscape area of five feet on that west, but if the garbage receptacle were moved out, you wouldn't need that component of the landscape variance.

Gotcha.

And and just so you guys know, I mean, I'm not uh uh saying it it looks you know better or worse currently than what will make it, but currently that that alleyway is just uh a very small strip of rock, and then they do have a lot of stuff going on on that side, and so uh we're hoping to make some improvements in that area and um yeah, we can we can definitely uh uh think of some alterative options for trash enclosures, and I'm and then I'm guessing if we can move it into a conforming space, we would we would definitely go for it.

You get you can see there's not a ton of options on site.

Yeah, then Mr.

Chair, just to follow up.

I I want to verify that even without boulevard parking, there is access to parking around the block.

Yes, if we didn't do that.

So I you're saying on street parking.

Correct.

Yep.

Correct.

Great, thank you.

And then I I do um want to suggest that we do review.

I think Sandra brought up a lot of good points about our city and minimum parking.

We've had a lot of things over the last year that I've been here that have been around parking.

And so, do we have the right numbers for minimum parking?

And should we potentially look at changing that?

Go ahead.

Okay.

I guess a couple of things about uh, I guess my opinion on parking.

Um, bull boulevard parking is nice.

Um, you know, diagonal can be dangerous.

Um, one thing to keep in mind, and also parking lots are a safer spot, let's say for children coming in and out versus if you have less parking area in in a parking lot.

Now they're you're parking one block, two blocks down the street, walking with your children.

You know, there are advantages to having a parking lot because it is it can be a safer spot too for your kids getting in and out.

Um thank you.

Um Commissioner Letty asked my question about the call-in concerns, which you addressed.

Thank you.

Um variants regarding landscaping.

The church has some really well maintained and tasteful landscaping now.

Uh can you talk briefly about the vision for landscaping in light of the variance requests?

I can.

I can tell you that we don't have anything finalized.

Uh, right now we're trying to meet the landscaping requirements, but we have the budget to uh meet or exceed the current landscaping that the church has.

We have I've I've heard a lot of comments that everybody likes the church's current landscaping, and that is the church's interest to to meet or exceed what they have.

Um we did do everything we can to design the site in a way to preserve trees also.

We're planting a couple of new trees here along the east side, but um that I I've heard that concern that I've heard that our landscaping looks great, and what's I want to make sure the new landscaping looks great, and that will uh absolutely match or better what we've done.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board at this time?

Uh I just want to say that uh I think it looks really great.

I think it's gonna fit in with the with the area really well.

Um and I am also a proponent of reduced parking mandates, so I'm all board for that as well.

Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess we had a little side conversation.

I and I I meant to say it before, but I do think we have recently in the last few years, right?

Reduce those requirements.

Yes.

We did look at our minimum parking regulations a few years ago.

Not all of the uses were reduced at that time.

We focused mostly on multifamily um residential and uh commercial.

Uh I can't remember if we would have changed parking for a church.

I don't think that was a part of the discussion at that time.

But we have, and we'll continue to look into parking for sure.

Anything else all right.

Um call the vote before we do that, just keep in mind you're voting on uh approval of all the variances.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Schmeichel.

Yes.

Jameson, yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Letty?

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

We will uh now convene as the planning commission.

Uh the city planning commission is a nine-member commission whose function it is to make recommendations of city commission regard regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters.

The City Planning Commission is a nine member commission whose function it is to make recommendations of City Commission regarding regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters.

This commission makes our recommendation based on the adopted comprehensive land, uh comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive after a motion is moved and seconded.

It is open for debate.

Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons.

Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons.

After everyone has been given a chance to be heard, the commission shall review the testimony and information presented, making findings of fact and forward their recommendation to the city commission.

And uh just a programming note, we do have a hard stop at 7 o'clock for a county meeting.

First item on the agenda, planning commission agenda 6A.

Legacy storage condos LLC has submitted a preliminary plat on the following real estate situated in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota to WIT.

A portion of lot one of Clark Second Edition to be preliminary platted as lots one-two in blocks in block two and lots one-three in block three of legacy edition.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic, please?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the first planning commission item is a preliminary plat for the proposed uh lots one through three in block three and lots one and two in block two of legacy edition.

Uh this is located in the industrial I-1 light district.

Uh that zoning district was uh approved by the planning commission, and it will go to the second reading with the city council uh next Tuesday.

So assuming that passes, this would be an I-1 light industrial district.

The staff recommendation for the preliminary plat is approval.

Um previously staff had a recommendation on here to um require that the 34th Avenue right-of-way be increased to 40 feet.

Um since then, staff has um spoken with the developer, and their intention is to uh have that 40-foot right-of-way that was shown on their perimeter plat, but not caught by staff.

So the recommendation is to approve as presented.

Uh the planning commission's action would be to approve, amend, or deny, and that recommendation would be a that action would be a recommendation made to city council.

Uh the project area is outlined roughly in the yellow area.

Uh this is the former Clark um addition that um we have recently seen an annexation, feature landings map amendment, and rezone four.

Um this would actually be a second phase of the legacy edition.

We recently approved a legacy edition block one in the green area to the south.

Um eventually this would all be joined together as a much larger legacy edition.

Um, but for now we're looking at this phase two, which is uh a bit separated from block one shown in green.

The proposed preliminary plot would be as I mentioned, um, lots one and two in block two, uh, which would be on the south side of the proposed mission street, and lots one through three and block three, which would be to the north of the proposed mission street.

Uh the mission street um proposed right of way um would be a 60-foot right of way with connections to 34th Avenue, and it is shown on here sort of as a dead end at the end of lots two and block two and lots three and and lock three.

The intention would be that mission street would continue further into this development in future phases, and that would end staff's reports and would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

I'll entertain a motion for approval in a second.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Open this for public testimony if the applicants present would like to address the commission.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My name is Justin Booker with Banner Associates.

Uh we are the civil engineer for the developer.

Um Ryan kind of addressed pretty much everything that I can think of.

Um, other than you know, we do have a utility plan and a grading plan that was attached to this, um, has not shown on the screen.

Um we've also been working with the city on a drainage plan, and there's also some floodplain and some different pieces of the property, and we're kind of working through some of that, and that's partly why some of that's not shown at this time, you know, and is kind of in the few a future phase.

So we just there's kind of uh impetus to get you know these lots moving a little bit quicker, and that's kind of why this is shown the way it is at this time.

You know, I I do think we'll come back shortly, you know, in the next few months with the rest of it.

Um there's just some other things that need to be worked out first.

Uh thank you.

We'll call you up if we have any other questions.

Is there anyone else uh like to speak in favor of this?

Seeing none is anyone opposed would like to speak in opposition all right.

Seeing none, we'll open it, we'll close public testimony, open it up to the commission.

Any comments, questions?

All right, seeing none, we'll call a vote.

Ryan, can you call a vote?

Heinrik Yes, Braun?

Yes, Luddy, yes, Solemn Yes, Aiken?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Move on to item 6B, preliminary plat.

PMVK Limited LLC has submitted a preliminary plat on the following real estate situated in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota to WIT.

Outlet outlaw, C D E F G H I and J of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and Section 11, Township 109 range 50 to be preliminary platted as block one of South Haven addition.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the next item is a preliminary plat of block one of South Haven addition.

Uh the applicant does PMVK limited OLC.

This is located in the joint jurisdiction B3 Heavy District.

The staff recommendation of the preliminary plat is to approve with the following conditions.

The proposed Kalani Place must be a private roadway, and the right-of-way for main avenue must be increased to 40 feet to meet the required arterial right-of-way.

Planning commission's action would be to approve, amend, or deny, and that action be a recommendation made to city council.

The preliminary plat area is shown in the yellow shaded area.

It's currently a number of outlots that the applicant is proposing to uh combine into one um block, block one of South Haven addition.

Um the staff recommendations involve the Kalani Place right-of-way and main avenue south.

Uh so there is a portion of Kalani Place that's currently private in the adjacent subdivision to the east.

Uh this would be the Vosk Knipe edition.

Uh that right-of-way is only a 30 the road is only a 30-foot wide road.

It does not meet the standards for a city right-of-way.

So the previous road was required to be a private drive, and staff would require uh Klani Place again to be a private drive in the extended area.

That could change if um properties to the north are ever platted and right of way is added on those sides of the property if it can um eventually meet the requirements of the the width right-of-way, it could become public at that time.

But staff is recommending at this time that Klani Place would remain private.

And then Main Avenue South.

Um, I believe the existing right-of-way is 33 feet.

Staff would recommend widening that to uh 40 feet to meet the minimum requirements for the arterial.

Uh beyond that, staff had no other comments and would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion for approval in a second.

Please note whether you're including the staff recommended conditions.

I'll move to improve, including the uh recommendations by staff.

Second.

All right, thank you.

At this time open for public testimony.

If the applicant is present, could uh address the commission.

Civil engineer working on this project.

Um the two conditions are known to the applicant um regarding the right-of-way on the north side, Kalani Place.

Um currently, as noted, it's 30 feet, um, and that's a continuation, or what we're proposing is a continuation of that 30-foot right-of-way to main avenue south.

Um the applicant is accepting of that being a private uh roadway.

Um, the other condition would be the additional right-of-way on Main Avenue South.

Um that was already known to us.

Um, it just didn't show up on the drawing at this time.

Um the proposed layout that we've been uh looking at uh already includes the appropriate setback for that.

And uh we plan to update that drawing to include the additional right-of-way.

So with that, uh I guess open it up to any questions that you can.

Yeah, thank you.

Well that it I don't think there's anyone else, perhaps, but uh we'll call you up if we have further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else uh would like to speak in favor or opposition of this item?

Seeing none, we'll close public testimony open to commission uh questions and comments.

Uh seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Braun.

Yes.

Letty, yes.

Solemn yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear.

Yeah.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh we will move on to item six C.

Um City of Brookings has submitted amendments to Chapter 94, Article 6, Division 5, Section 94-473 of the zoning ordinance pertaining to the number of allowed projecting signs on a building face.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this next item is an ordinance amendment proposal, which I'm trying to pull up here now.

Uh staff recently um reviewed a proposed sign permit um which did have a previous variance on it to allow an additional projecting sign on a downtown building.

Currently, our sign ordinance uh limits projecting signs to one uh per building face.

And it came to staff's attention um that it doesn't necessarily work in our downtown district where we have um in certain cases um buildings that are um larger than the typical downtown building of 25 feet in width, and so staff's proposal is to amend the ordinance to allow one for every 25 feet in the downtown district only rather than one per building um as a hard hard line.

Oh boy.

Looks like the marked version won't come up, but I'm gonna open up the clean version here.

And that's not it.

Uh that's the home occupation.

So I'll take uh another direction here.

All right, so table four in our sign ordinance um describes the requirements for certain types of signs.

So if you go to our projecting sign, um which you know, our downtown, you know, an example of a projecting sign would be I think like the Pizza King sign is a projecting sign.

It comes away from the facade, it projects out into uh you know above the sidewalk.

Um currently our ordinance allows one per building face, and it must be it's limited to 48 square feet in size, uh, must have at least a 10 foot vertical clearance and at least a two-foot horizontal clearance.

The proposal would be to change um this subscript here to allow um one for every twenty-five feet in the business B1 district.

And staff would uh end our report there and stand for any questions.

Thank you.

This time we'll entertain a motion for approval in a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh open public testimony.

Anyone wish to speak in favor or opposition to this item?

Close public testimony and open to the commission.

Comments, questions.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question for Ryan.

Let's just say we have you know, blue sky state, and everybody wants a new sign.

What would that max us out in in downtown?

So I'm pulling up uh some maps here to kind of take a look at how this would impact downtown.

So for example, the you know, the area that this came into play was a particular building downtown next to the two buildings that did burn down previously.

Uh this building here likely at some point was um you know two separate building faces that was combined into one building face, so now they would be by ordinance required to have one or allowed only one sign.

You can see one here and one here.

So I did receive a variance for that previously.

Um this proposal would allow that by right.

Um so that's the case where that's a 50-foot wide downtown building as opposed to our typical 25 foot wide building.

Um it's not every downtown building has a projecting sign.

Uh looks like these two on the block.

Um did have projecting signs.

Um as you go further north, I think there's less projecting signs.

I guess we would count that one here at the uh roods furniture as a projecting.

Um there's not many examples where the buildings are uh wider than the 25 feet, so most of them would still be capped at one.

Um but in certain cases where there's like a double building, it could um allow.

Uh so if you know, for example, 420 main avenue there, it looks like they have a wider than standard lot.

There's a few cases where it may come up.

Um I don't we don't foresee this being like a major increase in projecting signs, just allowing them to occur by right where those buildings are combined into one building from the 25 foot originally.

Just to clarify, so a 49-foot wide building would be allowed one and a 50-foot building would be allowed to, is that correct?

Or a 26-foot building would be allowed to.

It's it would have to be over 50 or over for a second sign.

Is that is that correct?

Do we have the S drive here?

I don't know if we do.

Unfortunately, I couldn't pull up that ordinance as written, but I want to check and see if it was for each 25, is it for each 25 feet or would be the way it reads, Ryan is the business B1 Central District, one sign shall be permitted for each 25 feet of building fronting a public street?

So I think they would have uh if you were 49, I think you would still get two.

You'd have to be beyond the fifth you'd be if you went beyond 50, you could have three.

Um on main avenue.

Um but if it was 49 feet, they could still have two.

If you if you have 25 feet, you get one if you go beyond 25 feet between 25 and 50, you could have a second.

Does that also mean on corner lots?

This would apply to corner lots.

So the side streets, that same formula would apply.

So along the side of it, they could have four projecting signs.

Potentially.

So for example, corner here, I think this is the vault.

You know, they would have 165 feet.

Well, nope, there's ends.

125 feet roughly.

So that's the same would apply there.

Is there maybe a another way to word it too that a let's say one of these buildings that has uh uh apartments up top if there's like a office that decides to open up there and have like a little law firm or whatever on the second floor and they want their own little sign?

Um is there something that could account for for multi-level uh businesses or one door per business or one sign per business or one sign per primary entrance or something like that to make it a little bit more or have some type of way that you can come in here and say, hey, here's why we need a variance and have that easily sort of allowable.

We do have that um in other locations in the ordinance, for example.

Um lots with buildings that function as malls or shopping centers and contain five more than five businesses shall be allowed 50 square feet of additional signage for each additional business exceeding five businesses.

We have something like that, okay.

Which I think applies to our would you see would you envision something like that maybe as an addition?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean uh yeah, because like I said, it doesn't necessarily even have to be written in per se, but something that can be have an exception for needs or whatever.

Don't have to come up with every possible solution right now.

Um just trying to think through some some various things of what I've seen at other cities where more of the downtown is filled in with businesses eventually.

I'd be curious to know how many second stories in downtown actually would have businesses in our downtown specifically.

I'm not sure with the ADA requirements.

I think it's mostly residential units.

Yeah, I can't think of any, but uh yeah, like if that's what I mean by things that I've seen in other cities.

Sure.

Uh you mentioned on the Grunwall building there had been a second sign that needed a variance.

How frequent have we had to allow variances for this?

For this specific um section of ordinance, I think that's the only one that we've ever needed to give for a second projecting sign.

That's the only one I can think of.

But again, there are other down other buildings downtown that you know have a bit wider of a um building face.

If I may, I think one of the other things too is we've we've seen where some of these buildings downtown have kind of become multi-tenant, and so when they do exceed that 25 feet of uh frontage, um, you know, it m historically they've been 25 foot uh lots in the downtown.

When you combine a couple and you have these larger buildings, it seemed to make sense to treat them like as if they were individual lots.

Uh we also have wall signage, which they're allowed a certain percentage.

I think in the downtown it's 20 percent of the wall area um that they can use in signage, which is flat against um we don't see probably as much of the project in uh from staff's perspective.

We'd really like to see the building owners present a uh uh signage plan.

What we typically hear is figure it out with the city, and so um the tenants get caught in it.

So we were just trying to be a little bit more accommodating and and maybe open up the projected signs in the downtown district because it is a little bit more unique for our community than a lot of the other business districts.

How would the uh projected signs uh interact with the overall signage uh square footage requirement?

Overall, you know, in the downtown district, um it's really just you're allowed the the 25 percent of your facade and signage, and you're allowed in addition to that 25 percent, the projecting signs up to 48 square feet per sign, so that wouldn't impact the overall, it would increase the overall signage rates.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

All right, seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Luddy?

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel.

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear.

Yeah.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Ron?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Um have a joint jurisdiction meeting at seven o'clock.

Uh this would be a great place to pause here.

Do we want to move next door immediately after to continue, Mike?

Would that be or do we move this to we move the other items to the uh March meeting?

I think that's a discussion commission.

Um we can certainly move these two items to the March meeting.

We may clean up more of the home occupation and present it more as an ordinance format, um, and maybe open it to a public hearing and then we could certainly amend it if if you're okay with that, or if you would like to after the joint meeting, move next door and reconvene.

We could have the discussion on this.

I I want to be cognizant of your time and also I needed to remind you of February 17th.

Um there will be a city council study session with a training opportunity on conflict of interest.

And so um the planning commission, the historic preservation commission, and the city council are all uh invited to that training session, and um notice will be published of potential quorum at that study session as well to cover it.

So it's up to the planning commission how if you want to stick around longer tonight, or if you it's not super time sensitive, but it is something that we want to you know get eventually to ordinance format.

Um if you want to do it tonight and have the discussion, or if you want us to bring it back in ordinance format in March, we can do that.

The other item is the annual report, which again is not time sensitive.

Uh we can certainly do the annual report in March.

I'm in favor of moving it to next month.

Sounds great.

And just a follow-up on the annual report, should we come prepared um to discuss that as well, or is that being presented to us?

It's uh partially both.

So the inner report will include kind of some statistics from the previous year on the number of rezones and variances that we reviewed, but it also comes with uh some discussion on um challenges, opportunities, um priorities for the following year planning commission.

So come prepared to discuss that.

Great.

Thanks, Ryan.

All right, I'll entertain a motion, make a motion to move those to the March meeting.

We don't need to make a motion for that.

Okay.

Thank you though.

Uh entertain a motion and a second to adjourn.

So move second.

Second.

All right, we're adjourned.