All right, welcome.

I'm gonna call this meeting to order.

Ryan, can you call the roll?

Roll as noted with Braun absent.

We'll now uh approve the agenda.

Can I get a motion a second to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion on the agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to propose that we add an item.

We had talked about it last month about onboarding and training discussion.

I'd like that to have a discussion topic and maybe move that forward to next month for full discussion with the full board.

Mr.

Chair, uh staff would also like to discuss a potential subcommittee on reviewing the bylaws.

So it'd be a similar discussion at the end.

I think once we're done with our items, we can discuss that and a bylaw discussion.

So we'll put that after 7D.

We need an amendment for that useful.

Okay, we'll uh add those to the agenda.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All posed.

Now move on to approval of the minutes from last meeting.

Can I get a motion and a second?

So moved.

Second.

Told them.

Any discussion on the minutes from last meeting.

Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All posed.

Item four is open forum.

At this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation.

Uh request time on the agenda for an item not listed.

Okay, seeing none, move on.

Item five disclosure of conflicts of interest relationships to the applicant or ex parte communication.

Seeing none move on to item six, uh, convening as the board of adjustment.

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 uh 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.

The 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.

Financial disadvantage to the property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship.

Move on to uh item six A, a variance request.

Also known as 404 Martin Boulevard.

The request is to build a six-foot fence in the front yard per section 94-398.

Fences and walls shall not exceed 48 inches in height when located between the front lot line and the principal building.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The first item is a variance for a fence at 404 Martin Boulevard.

The applicant, Dakota Dodds, uh located at 404 Martin Boulevard.

Uh, this is located within a residence R1B single family district.

Uh the property is a single family home.

The request is for a six-foot fence with a 10-foot front yard setback to Western Avenue.

As mentioned in your uh in your introduction, it's a 30-foot required front yard setback in the R1B zoning district.

Staff recommendation is approval, and the Board of Adjustments action would be to improve, amend, or deny.

For uh variances, uh, we take a look at the following um conditions for variances 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.

Uh the property as mentioned is 404 Martin Boulevard, shown here at the corner of Martin Boulevard and Western Avenue.

And the proposed site plan here shows where the fence would be located.

It would have a 10-foot setback to the east along Western Avenue, and then a five foot setback from the property to the north.

The part that would require the variance is that part east of the home in the secondary front yard of Western Avenue.

Uh that portion would be limited to a four-foot fence and the requesting a six-foot fence.

As mentioned, staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Um, I'll entertain a motion in a second.

So moved.

Second sole.

Thank you.

Now open the to um public comment if the applicants here and like to address the board.

Okay.

Apply for this.

And then do the easy to try to take advantage of that space to utilize the key.

Uh the safety of my kids in the backyard as long as considered a front yard on that east side because we're touching western, but it's just so that that four foot four footprints doesn't give the opportunity for say my dog, a bird dog to jump it and run and come loose, and then getting complaints or citations or violating ordinances for a dog on the loose or whatnot.

Thank you.

Um we have any other questions, we'll call you back up.

Anyone else here in favor of the motion?

All right, anyone here opposed to the motion.

Seeing none, we'll close public testimony, open it up to board questions, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Just a quick question for staff.

Uh, is the uh the recommendation for approval with the condition of that 10-foot uh that 10-foot offset?

Is that to observe a utility easement or what is the rationale?

Yes, there are there's a 10-foot utility easement along Western Avenue and a five-foot easement on the north side of the property.

So the proposed fence uh the applicant is proposing to place that fence right along the easement lines.

Uh so that that is the the applicant's plan, and that is the staff recommendation to approve it according to plan, which is a 10-foot setback.

Appreciate it on that same uh image.

Is that black crossed outline in existing fence yes?

Yes, to the west, there is an existing fence on the neighboring property 2115 David Cove.

There's an existing fence there.

Um the applicant would just be tying into that on the northwest side, running it towards western, and then around their secondary front yard.

Any other questions or comments?

All right, seeing none, Ryan, can you call the vote?

Schmeichel?

Yes, Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Buddy, yes, Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, we'll now move on to item seven and convene as the uh planning commission.

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

The commission makes a recommendation based on the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and surrounding areas.

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 give their reasons.

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

Now move on to item 7A rezone.

Heron Cove LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings and Brookings County, South Dakota.

Portion of Outlaw 2 in Southwest Quarter, Northwest Quarter, Section 23 11-50.

The request is to rezone portions of the above described real estate from a residence R1A single family district to a business B3 heavy district and residents R3 apartment district.

Brian, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The next item is a request to rezone a property known as 1120 Western Avenue.

The applicant is Heron Cove LLC.

The property is currently zoned.

Residents are 1A single family, and they're proposing to rezone portions of that property to business B3 Heavy District and residents R3 multifamily district.

The future land use map for the property shows that as business park with an overlay of open space wetland.

The staff recommendation is approval.

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

The property in question is the blue area on the uh map here.

Again, located on Western Avenue, uh, just north of the existing Heron Cove apartment development.

The existing zoning in place, it's currently R1A.

Uh, there's also R1A to the north and west.

R3 to the south and AG to the east.

There's also civic zoning to the southeast for Sex R Park.

Uh I didn't put the future land use map on here, but I did put the floodplain map on here.

Um this would show where the existing floodplain and floodway are.

So the red area on the kind of western two-thirds of the parcel, the red is the floodplain, and the uh pink area with the hatching on the eastern third.

That's the floodway, which kind of aligns with the uh six mile creek.

This has submitted along with a preliminary plat, which we will um see in our next item.

So this is what the preliminary plat would look like.

This just shows where the zoning would change and where it wouldn't change.

As mentioned, a portion of it would be rezoned to business B3.

That portion would be uh the northwest corner, uh, which is proposed as a lot one in the preliminary plat.

Uh kind of the middle portion would be the R3 area, uh shown as lot two here, and then the eastern portion, which um kind of aligns with that six mile creek in the floodway.

Uh that would be no change on the rezone.

That ends staff's report, and we would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh entertain a motion and second for approval.

So move solemn.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh now open to public testimony.

The applicant would like to say anything.

Uh good evening, uh, members of the planning commission.

My name is Jacob Mills representing Harren Cove of LC.

I've got Justin Booker with me from Banner Engineering.

Um, I'll just kind of give a brief high level of this property and what we're looking to do, and and happy to come back up and answer any questions uh now or later.

We uh purchased this property a couple years ago.

Uh it had um uh a beat up old house uh that had a damaged roof, I think back from the Derecho, hadn't been repaired, had a hole in it, had a basement full of water, um, had several outbuildings that were about to fall over, so yeah, we demolished all of that stuff a couple years ago just to kind of clean up the mess and then started down the process of trying to work through some of the regulatory steps that we knew about um uh related to the floodplain in this area.

I was on the planning commission when some of the rules were implemented a few years ago.

Basically, sort of knowing that if you're going to develop in the floodplain, you have to do it in a way that causes no further flooding impacts for others.

And we own the Heron Cove property to the south of this.

Picked actually the lowest density of some of the plan options that they gave us.

And then through working with Justin and Banner on some of the floodplain and the balancing of the cut and the fill, we actually reduced some of the density even further from there.

Tried to do everything we can to do a nice plan that adds to what we have in Heron Cove.

And then the small piece of B3 is kind of intended to be like a man, it's designed as like a man cave sort of storage building with doors facing to the south.

Justin's probably the best one to answer any questions related to the floodplain stuff, but we're still fairly preliminary in the process.

Those are good for about five years.

We have about three years left on that wetland mitigation and would prefer to get all the dirt work done in the next couple of years.

And we also know that uh timing for this type of earthwork might be contingent on the type of uh summer weather we're having.

Some years are dry enough to do uh lower lying sites, some years are not, so we need a little bit of flexibility to uh to get that done.

But there's no you know, there's no plan for buildings going up tomorrow or no major construction, other than uh we'd like to kind of get through things to get the be able to move forward with the earth work on the project.

Thank you.

Anyone else uh wishes to speak in favor of this motion?

Anyone wish to speak in opposition seeing now we'll close public testimony open to board question comments?

Hoping you can come back up.

Thank you.

I'm curious about density.

So can you talk to me more about what the future use of this will be and what the density will be?

Yeah, Ryan, maybe if you want to pull up one of the grading plans that sort of shows uh not like the next page that would I'm not sure we have the grading plan in here, but I'll pull forward to now.

We just have the uh the primary plat.

Okay.

We don't have the uh additional grading and utility.

I brought, I don't know if you want to turn on the overhead if that's still a thing or um, you know, generally speaking, our our plan was to sort of try to continue the model of Heron Cove.

Heron Cove is um a relatively low density complex that has a very residential field, it has a large pond in the middle of it and some trails around it connected to yeah, there we go.

So in this plan, the existing Heron Cove is is here to the south, and so um these two buildings up here would be in the B3 zone.

Um those would be envisioned as the like the man cave condo storage building sort of buildings.

Um these larger other buildings would be uh I believe those are modeled as like uh 12plex.

So this would be potentially about 48 total new units on five acres uh in this area, which is relatively low density, and then there's some accessory garages that would service those uh uh apartment complex units, and then you know, large green spaces.

This is an example of an area where you know we're a lot further away from the road than we could be with that building, but the the floodplain requirements uh having to be two feet above base flood elevation.

If we push that building all the way close to the road, you'd have to have like a retaining wall, and it would it would be a fairly imposing structure, and so we we sort of intentionally would like to keep that building further back from the road.

Same thing with sort of this this space here.

This was an area that we just thought is better to not fill in that area and just let it be more natural and create more buffer from existing things and um and the new uh structures that would be there, and then our compensatory um storage.

We're we're hoping to you know um do some sort of a nice pond amenity over there if possible, and maybe a challenging area to do construction.

That's part of where we may need some time depending on the weather and uh and ambitious contractor who's willing to take on the project.

Um but would really like to turn that into an amenity that might even be able to become an expansion of like uh sex hour park or something like that, if the city was interested in entertaining that down the road, but we'd like to kind of do the work first and and then go from there.

There's two, thank you.

There's two interesting things that you mentioned.

One is a residential feel, and then also giving a nod to Sex Iraq Park.

And I say those two things because recently on a nice day, I was on a walk with a friend who lives in not the Heron Cove property, but a property close by.

And um we were walking to Sex Ira Park, and the walkability is zero.

So on Western Avenue.

And it's a it's an area that is growing and growing.

And so looking back, um, and there's ditches, there's no bike lanes, there's nothing that makes it safe or walkable for any of the residents.

My concern is as we're continuing to develop, as we should, especially in these areas, but talking about residential and safe, and that there's a pro walkability proximity to four different parks.

There's Pioneer Park, there's Veterans Park, there's Sex Hour Park, and then of course the dog park that is close by as well.

My concern is that we are doing this development without any kind of plan for walkability.

So I'd like to hear if you have any kind of plan.

I know that you are well placed because of where your proximity is to Sex Hour Park, but that doesn't do much good for your other property or for the residents around.

Sure.

Um, you know, we're all for trails and walkability and happy to do our part in that.

Um, but we can only do so much as the city has a plan for trails to connect to somewhere.

So if there's a desire for us to add some sort of um walkability to our particular project, I'm happy to explore that.

But if it connects to nothing or there's no plan for it to connect to anything, I I don't always see the point to that.

But I think it's a great point to discuss.

Yeah, and I think you make a good point too.

So my question then to the city is you know, our comp plan stresses that we have connectivity for safe neighborhoods and safe citizens in our neighborhoods.

And so is there something that triggers whether it's density or population or traffic?

Is there something that triggers this?

Because I feel like that I drove back on Western today just to see what it was like to drive, and there were people out walking even in this cold.

And I I'm concerned that we have now made significant development in that area, and yet we put the cart before the horse without thinking long term about all of our citizens.

And it puts, I mean, there were people pushing baby strollers up and down the road and walking their dogs.

And I just feel like is there something that the city has that triggers some kind of investigation or some kind of proposal that we can work with.

Uh Commissioner Einricks, um, I just pulled up our future trails layer on our GIS.

Uh we do the city does have a future trail proposed.

It's not planned at this time, it's just a future um potential route for a trail.

And it would run along Western Avenue uh just to the south side of the existing Heron Cove, and then it would turn east along the south side of Heron Cove through um Sex R Park, and then uh crossing the river at that bridge or crossing the creek at that bridge in Sex R Park, and then continuing further to the northeast.

That trail would also then run south on Western Avenue uh through Veterans Park and kind of coming back around to Pioneer Park potentially along the railroad corridor.

So that's a future trail.

Um it's kind of a long-term plan.

There's nothing in our capital improvement plan now for it, and any project like that would need to be a capital project, something tied in with a future Western Avenue rebuild is where we could see like a trail going through there or sidewalk, whatever it would be, multi-use path.

So there are plans uh long term for trails in that area.

But no defined time because there's not only this project, but I see that we're working on more projects on the road too, which is going to increase housing and people there.

So I'd be curious to know what we can do to really you know hold the city's um commitment to making this happen to make sure that we are safe.

We are in a position that we can start having these conversations and dialogues with developers because yes, it's important to have this development, but it's also important that our citizens can walk safely to and from parks and different amenities.

So I'd be curious on what we could do.

So two things.

Um I guess one with it being in the future trails um plan, um, you know, staff would review future projects for readiness or need, and then start working to get it on a future capital improvement plan.

Um so it'd be more of a as development continues.

Maybe that does get prioritized higher for that trail in this area.

Um, another thing, we also are currently finishing up a master transportation plan.

Um I'm not sure exactly what the master transportation plan called for in this area, but um you know, if it also mentions the need for connectivity or multimodal transportation in here, then that's another plan that could add it, you know, raise it up on the priority scale.

So your first statement was that staff will review projects for readiness and need.

How does this project qualify up against that?

I have not seen this trail area anywhere on a capital improvement plan currently.

So it it's kind of a hope at this time.

At this time, it's just a future project.

Yeah, so I again I want development to happen, but also just having that real world experience of what many citizens over there are really experiencing is um makes me pause to think about are we putting development above what is important to our citizens and their walkability and safety thank you.

Um other comments or questions?

I know bleeding over into the next agenda item somewhat, which is okay.

Uh so any other questions or comments about particularly the rezone request.

All right, seeing none call vote.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear.

Yes.

Heinrich?

No.

Letty Yes.

Solem Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next on the agenda item 7B, preliminary plat.

This would be for the same property.

Heron Cove LLC has submitted a preliminary plat of the following proposed real estate situated in the city of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota, to wit portion of Outlaw 2 in the Southwest Corridor, Northwest Corridor, Section 23-10-50 to be preliminary platted as Heron Cove edition, lots one through three.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this will be the preliminary plat portion of that uh property just discussed.

Um this would be um again the applicant Herring Cove LLC preliminary plat.

Um existing zoning is an R1A proposed zoning would be an R3 and a B3.

Uh the staff recommendation of the preliminary plat is approval with the following conditions uh requiring a 30 uh 35 foot right-of-way along lots one and two.

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

Same area in question here in the blue outlined area.

And as we saw on the uh rezone, uh it's a similar map, it's the preliminary plat here.

Uh so this would lay out um the proposed um subdivision of this parcel into three lots.

Uh lot one on that northeast or sorry, northwest corner.

That'd be about a 49,000 square foot, just over uh about 1.1 acres.

Uh that would be the proposed B3 zoning.

Um lot two towards the middle would be a 4.4 acre parcel for the R3 zoning.

That's where the plan showed a number of the potential apartment units going in.

And then lot three on the far east side, that'd be a 4.3 acre area.

That zoning would remain the R1A, and that's where the proposed compensatory stores were shown on the previous map shown by the applicant.

As mentioned, staff recommendation is for an increase in the right-of-way for Western Avenue.

Currently it's a 33-foot right-of-way on the east side of Western Avenue.

And the minimum for a collector would be a 70-foot total right-of-way, so 35 feet on either side.

So the recommendation would be to approve this preliminary plat with the additional two feet of right-of-way.

And that would be along lots two and one and two along Western Avenue.

And that would end staff's recommendation and we'll stand for any questions.

Yes, the motion should either uh include staff's recommendation or not.

I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Please indicate if you're including the staff recommendation or not.

I'll move to approve including the staff recommendation.

A second.

Thank you.

Um now open this to public testimony.

I don't know if you have anything additional to add at this time.

Um anyone else uh wish to speak in favor of this motion?

Does anyone wish to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing none, we'll open this to close public testimony and open to uh board questions and comments, Mr.

Chair.

Yep.

Uh Jacob, is your plan on the man?

I see the I know the parking lot area is a very rough uh probably sketching this.

Is this are these planned to have doors that are like garage doors that are drivable up into, or is it more of a parking along the street and walking in?

Uh I think what's designed.

Um maybe you have something different.

I I was just looking at the utility plan.

And I can put this back up that we were looking at before.

Um, what's what's designed doesn't it would be that this would be a drive aisle and this would be paved up, there'd be south facing doors, and so you'd be able to drive, you know, there'd probably be maybe three doors in a building of this size and maybe five in a building of this size.

But um, yeah, they'd have about a you know, you we usually like to see 50, 55 feet uh between the drive aisle and uh and the building there just to make sure there's adequate turning radius and stacking space before the driveway.

That's what I was wondering about.

Was the turning rate if people are backing trailers in or anything like that with the drive-through?

So uh my question is do the conditions the staff uh uh suggest that conditions change the project in any way for you?

No, the two-foot right-of-way request is is um is fine in this case.

I appreciate that question.

Any other questions or comments?

Thank you.

Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Spear.

Yes, Heinrich.

Uh I would like to say yes with an amendment.

I think we've already called the question.

Sorry, then yes.

Letty.

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

We'll move on to item seven C amendments to section 94-362 home occupations.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This is the um final draft of the home occupation amendment changes, uh, which the planning commission has reviewed a couple times.

We are now going to move it on to a public hearing.

Um hoping to get a recommendation of a recommendation from the planning commission that would advance to the city council.

So these should look familiar.

I'll walk through uh these changes again here.

Uh so home occupations are related to occupations from you know occupations within a home, so uh remote working, um occupations that uh you know, artists or others that uh do a majority of their work at home and and don't have a storefront.

So these would be changes related to those types of occupations.

We've added a section for general standards, which kind of reorganizes some of the overall requirements for home occupations as well as the overall prohibited activities.

So the general standards, one signage is allowed per section 94473.

This just shows that any signage would have to comply with our sign regulations for residential districts.

Two, sales are permitted in all categories provided they comply with inventory limits.

In-person sales of goods or services are permitted in the major and minor categories, provided the home occupation complies with the client customer traffic and inventory limitations.

Three dedicated area for no impact and minor home occupations, the use may not exceed 500 square feet of the dwelling gross floor area.

For major home occupations, the use may not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of a single story.

For allowable storage, storage of inventory intended for sale shall not exceed 10% of the permitted home occupation area.

Five, compliance with state and federal laws.

All home occupations shall comply with applicable state and federal regulations, including but not limited to licensing, taxation, health and safety standards, and any industry specific requirements.

The issuance of a permit under this section does not exempt the applicant from obtaining other permits or approvals required by law.

And six prohibited activities, and this is moved from a few other locations in our current ordinance and kind of relocated here, and we we specify at one time rather than in all the other categories.

The prohibit activities are use of residential property as a business, in which the business activities are the primary use of the property.

Exterior display, exterior storage, or exterior indication of the home occupation, internal alterations or construction of features not customary in the dwelling unit.

Toxic explosive flammable combustible, corrosive or radioactive materials are prohibited.

Any process or activity which causes offensive odors, dust glare, noise, smoke, heat, or vibration detectable to the normal senses off the property, and any equipment or process which creates visible or audible interference in radio or television receivers.

And F employees, clients, customers, or activity that would be visible or to adjacent neighbors between the hours of 9 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

That one was added as a prohibited activity.

So previously our home occupation ordinance, we had a minor home occupation and a major home occupation.

And if the applicant met the requirements for a minor home occupation, it was an administrative permit that they could complete by coming into city hall, meeting with staff.

There was a small fee, but it could be handled administratively.

The major home occupation was a conditional use, which was required to go through planning commission and city council.

We've switched up now to three different categories.

There's going to be a no impact occupation and then a minor home occupation and major home occupation.

So category standards, all home occupations must comply with the general standards in Section B, in addition to the specific requirements for their category.

So the no impact home occupation, a no home, no impact home occupation does not require a permit and shall be allowed upon a premises provided the occupation complies with the following.

Such only residents of the dwelling unit may be employed or may participate in the home occupation.

The occupation must be conducted entirely within the principal building.

Such home occupation does not include on-site sales of merchandise or on-site training.

Such home occupation does not cause on-street parking, and no external alterations are permitted.

So if they meet these requirements, this is essentially a use allowed by right.

The occupation must be conducted entirely within the principal or accessory building.

Client and customer visits shall be limited by appointment only, and only one client may be pres present at a time.

Um site, one on-site parking space in addition to those required for the dwelling unit, shall be provided for the home occupation.

No external alterations are permitted except for a separate entrance provided it maintains residential character and complies with building codes.

And mechanical equipment, which is not customary or ordinarily used for a household or hobby purposes is prohibited.

And then finally, the major home occupation.

Major home occupation shall be allowed upon a premises provided occupation complies with the following.

Residents of the dwelling unit and no more than one non-resident employee may report to and participate in the home occupation at the site at any given time.

The occupation is conducted entirely within the principal or accessory building.

Two on-site parking spaces in addition to those required for the dwelling unit shall be provided for the home occupation.

Storage within a garage shall not displace parking spaces required.

The home occupation may have two clients, customers at any one time.

No more than one home occupation shall be permitted within a single family dwelling.

The permits and procedures, um, as mentioned, the no impact.

Um there'd be no permit required, allowed by right determined by completing a city provided checklist to confirm compliance with all applicable standards.

Uh the minor home occupation.

Application for a minor home occupation shall be made to the community development department on a form provided by the city.

The application will be evaluated using the criteria established for a minor home occupation, which are the minimum conditions for approval.

Um site plans required, and we just we go through the the you know the permitting process.

Uh major home occupation.

Um this would uh scroll down here.

Uh application for a major home occupation shall shall be made to the community development department on a form provided by the city.

The application will be evaluated using the criteria established for a major home occupation, and is subject to the requirements of Article uh five of this chapter.

So it's still required to go through the conditional use process, which is at Article 5.

Uh we did move the garage yard and rummage sales, but no changes.

And we did um update our table here to uh basically explain what I just read out loud in our ordinance changes.

So those are the changes.

Staff will end its report and stay in for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

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

So thank you.

Now open for public comment.

Um anyone here wish to speak in favor of this motion.

Anyone here wish to speak in opposition to this motion?

Seeing none, we'll close public comment, open to uh board questions and comments, Mr.

Chair.

Yep.

Uh Ryan, what are the business zonings that we have?

B1, B2, B3.

Is it B1A that's supposed to be the buffer between residential and commercial?

Is that what the B2A is our office districts?

We have the B1 downtown, B2's general, B2A, off.

B2A is what I was thinking of.

Do we have set hours set in that for when businesses can be open, closed?

And the reason I'm asking is because I thought that was office hours.

That's supposed to be a budding residential neighborhood.

Well, this one says 9 p.m.

to 6 a.m.

Let me pull up our B2A here.

We might force specific uses.

We do not have hours of operations specified in our B2A.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Mr.

Chair, I just make a comment.

I know City staff put a lot of work into this, and we've talked about it a lot, and I think we've uh worked through a few drafts and I support what we have in front of us and think it it does a lot of good clean things up and clarify a lot of things.

Anything else?

All right, can you call the vote?

Heinrich.

Yes.

Letty.

Yes.

Solemn?

Yes.

Aiken.

Aiken?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Move on to item 7D.

City of Brookings submitted amendments to Chapter 51, Article 6, Sections 51 through 61, Sections 51 through 62, section excuse me, 51-61, section 51-62, section 51-63, section 51-64, section 51-65, section 51-66, and section 51-67 related to subdivision improvements and design standards.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The next ordinance discussion here is related to our subdivision improvements and design standards.

Staff has been taking a look at our ordinances for a while in regards to connectivity.

And we were kind of looking at different ways of trying to improve connectivity as been has been discussed tonight.

What are some things we can do to address connectivity and improve it?

This is also going to be a public hearing, so I will walk through all of our changes here.

I know you haven't seen these yet, but I'm gonna walk through all the changes first, and then we will have our our public hearing and time for discussion.

Um so section 5161 we have added as uh streets and circulation.

Umnectivity of streets, sidewalks, and trails, subdivisions shall provide a continuation and extension of arterial collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in order to ensure connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes, resulting in the diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian traffic routes to neighborhood neighborhood destinations.

Um, the arrangement of streets and sidewalks was added in here, and trails in the internew subdivision shall conform to the major street plan and master trails plan and provisions shall be made for the continuation of existing streets, sidewalks, trails, and adjoining areas, or their proper protection where adjoining land is not subdivided.

There will be occasions where new streets and trails are proposed, which were not included in the major street plan or master trails plan when it's occurs, the major street plan or master trails plan may be amended to include those new streets or trails.

So we just added sidewalks essentially into that section.

No changes in two and then in three.

Um again added sidewalks in undeveloped or vacant areas, streets, sidewalks, and trails will be identified and classified through the transportation planning process.

The location of major streets shall conform uh to the major street plan.

Section 5162.

Um we amended the title from street design to streets sidewalks and trails design.

Uh we removed some of these um items around here, so we're gonna skip down to 5163 is what would be the next section of our ordinance, uh street plans and specifications.

The developer shall submit street plans and specifications and all supporting documentation in accordance with the developer accordance with the city of Brookings Manual of Engineering Standards to the City Engineer for approval.

City engineer will only approve street plans and specifications for street rights of ways that have been final platted.

Section 5164 was just a numerical change to that section.

No changes to our street name standards.

Section 5165 will now be our street standards section.

There were a few changes made here.

We have different classifications for streets in the city of Brookings.

Previously, we had minor and major arterials, minor and major collectors, locals, frontage roads, cul de sacs, and eyebrows, and alleyways.

With our transportation plan that we are currently finishing up, the major and minor arterials will go away.

They're now going to be defined as local arterials and regional arterials.

And then we also removed eyebrows from the cul de sac definition.

So going down then to that cul-de-sac and eyebrow section.

An eyebrow would be there are some roads where you may see kind of a little bump out on a street or maybe on a corner.

You'd see like an extended corner that's almost like a cul-de-sac attached to a street corner.

And that would be removed from our subdivision regulations.

So cul-de-sacks will be allowed where one or more of the following criteria have been met for the reasonable development of subdivisions.

One, physical site conditions warrant a cul-de-sac.

Physical site conditions include but are not limited to steep slopes or hills, natural barriers such as bodies of water, rock outcrops, or cliffs.

For the purposes of this chapter, man-made features do not constitute a physical site condition that warrants approval of a cul-de-sac.

Two, a through street is not physically feasible or desirable due to environmental considerations, access limitations along our adjacent artillery streets, or where other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to the interconnection to the streets within or abutting the subdivisions.

So we tried to lay out what sort of allowances or exceptions there would be for a cul-de-sac.

The maximum length of cul-de-sacks will be reduced from 600 feet to 400 feet, measured along the center line between the radius point of the turnaround and the right of way of line of the abutting street.

Below the property owner or agent shall place street signs on all private streets.

We removed or pay the city to place street signs for private streets, so it would be now be the property owner's sole responsibility for private streets, private street signage.

Below street signs shall be of such style and material as specified in the public works engineering specifications for street signs to ensure that they are reasonable easily readable at night as well as day and are subject to approval by the city engineer.

Subsection seven down below.

In addition, all streets considered for acceptance must be inspected by a licensed engineer and deemed to have pavement condition index of 80 or higher unless otherwise agreed to by the public works engineering division.

Subsection H discusses mutual access easements.

Nothing changed until subsection four.

Mutual access easement areas shall be paved by the owner or developer and maintained in all weather passable condition.

So in all weather passable conditions was added.

Or we further described, I guess, passable to include all weather passable.

I believe section J was moved.

Section K, secondary access.

Similar to the previous change, we added all weather as a requirement for any approved secondary access.

So each residential subdivision with a projected trip generation of over 400 vehicle trips per day shall have an all-weather secondary access.

All right, and now we're getting into the street acceptance ordinances.

So 5166 street acceptance and transfer of ownership to the city.

One, the developer shall be responsible for constructing the street to the city approved plans and specifications.

This shall include all street signs, traffic control, signage, ramps, roadways, and curbing, and the stormwater management for all street runoff.

Two, before the street can be accepted and ownership of the street is transferred to the city, the developer shall be responsible for the following.

A retain a licensed professional engineer with responsibilities, which will permit the engineer to provide professional opinion that the construction of the streets and associated work was constructed in general accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and the city of Brookings Manual of Engineering Design Standards.

B construct utilities and stormwater in the street at least one construction season prior to paving the street.

C was renumbered.

One below subsection C, a certificate of completion signed by the developer's engineer stating that in their opinion the streets and associated work were constructed in general accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Brookings Manual of Engineering Design Standards.

Two, warranty security in the amount of 10% of the engineer's estimate of construction based on the approved plans and specifications subject to the certificate of completion.

I removed set forth in subsection 2A for the duration of three years rather than one, naming the city of Brookings as the additional insured.

Three construction lien waivers from all general contractors who worked on the subdivision four, all inspection reports required in the city of Brookings Engineering Design Standards, and five, as built as required in the City of Brookings Engineering Design Standards.

Subsection D.

Upon receipt of the certificate of completion, warranty security, and all supporting documentation required by the City of Brookings Manual of Engineering Design Standards.

The city engineer shall determine acceptability of these standards and site conditions within 30 days of the submission of the documents.

E upon review and approval of the certificate of completion, warranty security, site conditions, and all of the supporting documentation required by the city of Brookings Manual of Engineering Design Standards.

City engineer shall issue a transfer of street ownership certificate to the specific segments of streets listed on the certificate of completion, which satisfy these requirements provided.

One, the three-year warranty period shall begin upon the date of the transfer of street ownership.

Three, once the street is accepted by the city, the developer shall be held responsible for the street workmanship materials deterioration or any other deficiencies for a period of three years.

During the three-year period, the developer shall be responsible for repairing and or replacing all street deficiencies at no cost to the city within 180 days of notice of deficiency by the city engineer.

The city may extend the time required by this section on written request by the developer, showing that circumstances beyond the control of the developer have prevented or delayed street repair or restoration.

B, the city shall have the final approval as to whether adequate repair and restoration has been completed by the developer after repairs are completed in the event the developer fails to repair or restore the affected street in a manner acceptable to the city.

The city shall have the right after allowing the developer a reasonable period of to complete the repair and restoration to make such repairs and restoration.

And the developer shall pay the costs incurred by the city for such actions.

And C, the city may also apply the warranty security required in subsections 5164K to the developer's obligation to pay the costs incurred by the city to repair and restore the street.

The developer shall remain obligated to the city for any costs of street repair and restoration, which are not covered by the warranty security.

51 67.

We'll go back into the kind of the land design and improvement standards.

So this is kind of going back to the uh connectivity portion of the amendments.

Uh looking at blocks, um, we have made some amendment amendments to the block lengths.

Uh block length shall not exceed 1,000 feet, have intersecting streets, and shall normally be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots of inappropriate depth.

We added two exceptions.

One, civic type uses may exceed the maximum block length as determined by the city engineer.

Two, based upon a traffic impact study for commercial and industrial areas, the city engineer determines the transportation network functions at an acceptable level of service to support longer block lengths.

Further down, uh when discussion discussing maintenance agreements, uh, there was one change made uh where a subdivision contains sewers, lift stations, water supply stations, park areas, road systems, drainage systems basins, and other facilities or services which are necessary to the area and which are of common use or benefit and which are not accepted for maintenance by an existing public agency.

Provision shall be made by written agreement for the proper and continuous maintenance and supervision of such facilities.

So we did add drainage systems and basement basins to the types of um facilities that would apply to that maintenance agreement.

And lastly, uh change the numerical ordinance for reserved.

So that completes staff's introduction of the changes, and we'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

I'll entertain a motion and second for approval.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

This time we'll open to public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the motion.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commission members.

Um, my name is Justin Booker with Banner Associates.

Um, I work there as a professional engineer and half for the last 12 years.

And as some of you may know, I've been in front of this commission many times.

Um primary um business that I work in is residential development.

Um, so I I do have quite a bit of experience here.

Um, some of the questions that I have for this include mainly more on the acceptance side of this, so that's 51-66.

Um it just seems that there's quite a swing from the way things are currently written in the ordinance to where they're proposed to go.

Currently, there is a one-year warranty period.

Um, and we're proposing to change that to three years.

That's it's quite a swing.

And one thing I just would add is a one-year warranty is the industry standard in the AEC industry.

Um, there are projects in Brookings that do have a three-year warranty, but generally that is because the owner is willing to pay for that warranty period.

In this case, the city is getting that warranty and they're not paying for it.

Um they're requiring it.

Um other things I want to add is I I do see that this could maybe have the unintended consequence of maybe limiting future development just because developers are going to see this as burdensome.

And personally, I really I don't have a lot to say on the design standards side or the block length, you know, and the cul-de-sac thing.

I think a lot of that's good discussion to have, and if the city thinks they want to limit the amount of cul-de-sacks and the length of them, sure.

You know, I I don't really have a lot to say on that.

It's just more of the regulation side of things and the acceptance.

Um I I just would like to maybe see some more discussion on that, maybe behind the scenes, but we'll see, I guess.

I guess that would be open for any questions as well.

Anyone have any questions for him while he's up here?

I do.

So can you elaborate uh what the burden would be for you having this?

Well, uh, I guess the burden wouldn't really be on me, it would be on the people I work with.

Um generally the longer the warranty period, the more expensive the project will cost because a contractor is gonna have to cover that expense to go back and fix something.

You know, hopefully there's nothing to fix, but you know, construction is a long, messy process and things happen.

You know, some things are in the contractor's control and some things aren't.

Um it's it's just another added cost.

It's it's going to make things more expensive.

You know, in the instances where the city has a three-year warranty period, they're willing to pay for it.

And I that's fine.

Can you talk to us more about what the cost is?

I mean, I don't know.

So is it an absorbent amount that would hinder development?

I I really don't have an answer to that, but I mean my best judgment would be it's a percentage of the project that a contractor is gonna add on, and I don't know if it's five percent, ten percent.

Um I honestly don't know.

I think what could happen is the city is gonna have a longer warranty period, and at some point a contractor is gonna have to come back and do something, and then they're gonna build that into the next project and the next project and the next project, and it's just gonna go down the line and things are going to increase in cost to the point where developers will either not want to do a project or the cost of lots is going to increase to cover that cost.

In your experience, what have you seen that um would fall under this warranty?

What are what are you having or your clients are having to pay for or fix?

It could be cracked curb.

Um that happens pretty frequently, cracked asphalt.

Um cracked curb could come from snowplow hitting it, which theoretically, you know, the city kind of looks the other way on on that sometimes, but it could be from the builder.

And you know, right now the city would look to back to the developer to fix that, even though the developer may not have caused it.

Um those are probably the most common things.

Um other things could be you know, a sewer trench settled or a utility trench settled.

You know, that also happens very f frequently, unfortunately.

Um those are probably the main the main things.

Thank you.

Can I ask a bit of a devil's advocate question regarding that?

If in the case in years two and three with a one-year warranty, um the city would currently cover that expense, correct?

Correct.

So I guess I'm I I'm trying to understand the balance between where a city should take ownership or liability, culpability for repairs versus the developer.

So I think some of the things that aren't in here is the city's engineering standards.

And that I mean it's a separate document that the engineering department is working on, and that document lays out the expectations for what they are expecting on observation from a licensed engineer.

So my personal thought is they're requiring all of that.

I'm not gonna say it's perfect, because things will still happen.

They they do, things will happen.

Um but five years ago, that what even there was no observation required.

None.

There was no certificate of completion, there was no warranty security, there was nothing.

And we're going from nothing to a one-year warranty with security and some observation, you know, enough where the engineer feels comfortable to likely even more observation, which again self-serving, that's not a bad thing.

Personally, we may company may benefit from that, you know, in all honesty.

But there's an increase in liability as well.

Um it's it's it's a lot, I guess, in my opinion.

You know, and then to boot, there's also another line where it says the developer has to construct the utilities at least one year before the street.

So essentially it's a four-year warranty.

Kind of I mean that that's a lot of capital to expend and not get any revenue back.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Booker while he's up here?

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um still in public comment.

Any other uh comments in regard to this.

I don't I don't know that I'm really in opposition to this, but it felt a little better maybe than in favor.

Um I just want to share some experience or offer some.

I I view these things as more trade-offs than you know, yes or no.

I think any time you're looking at stuff like this, you need to say there is a cost to changes.

And typically, in the case of anything related to housing, I would argue anything that you do that makes for a better product, you know, wider sidewalks, thicker roads, wider right of ways, more lighting, those are all good things.

There is a cost.

Someone has to bear that cost.

These documents always say the developer.

Well, as a developer, you're just a business person who's buying things, paying for services, and selling a product.

And so if your services and raw things and requirements become more expensive, your product has to become more expensive.

We used to have three inch thick roads in Brookings.

Now the requirement is for four inch thick roads.

I remember at the time, you could figure that probably added five to seven hundred dollars of cost per residential lot that's going to be built.

So I don't know what the costs are to some of these changes, but um, you know, you one way to think about some of this as Justin was describing is imagine yourself not as the developer but as the contractor for the developer.

If I'm gonna do a million dollars of residential development, um, as Justin said, that essentially is being proposed as about a four-year warranty.

So I have to put the utilities in first, a year before.

It's not a horrible idea, but it does require that I've got to expend probably about half of my project budget, about $500,000 a year before, potentially about a year and a half before I have anything to sell.

So you're increasing the cost of borrowing money and and also the warranty period uh essentially by a year.

And then and then that contractor now, if I'm hiring you as a contractor, and I have to be able to ensure that you're gonna come back in three years and fix whatever the city wants you to, I have to hold something on you.

It's called retainage.

Typically retainage is five or ten percent of the project total.

You usually only hold it for the one year period.

So now if you've done a million dollar project for me and I'm gonna say, well, I gotta hold 10% retainage on you, five percent retainage, that's fifty to a hundred thousand dollars that I'm gonna hold for, I mean, really, if I'm if I'm hiring you, I'm gonna say I I gotta hold it for three years because I might have to do the work or make you do the work or hire someone else.

So again, that's where the cost comes in that Justin is talking about is you as the contractor are gonna calculate your cost of money for that three years for that hundred thousand dollars, and you're gonna raise your price to me.

I'm gonna raise my price to the homeowner who ultimately has to buy the lot.

Maybe that's all for good reason.

But the fact that we often have these conversations and we don't even talk about that aspect, think about that aspect, I think is is missed.

So I I think there's not bad discussion, there's not reason to improve things that are being done, but there are trade-offs, and I would just encourage you guys to just think about that as you're deliberating these things, or maybe ask for an estimate of what those costs might be.

Thank you.

Any questions for me?

We're still in public comment.

Any other comments in favor or opposition?

All right.

See now we'll close public comment open to board questions and comments.

Mr.

Chair, yes.

Um has the city done, or Mike or Ryan, has the city done any analysis of what the potential cost increase percentage-wise per project on something like this for the streets?

We have not that I'm aware of done any sort of gospel now.

Good evening, John Thompson, public works director.

Charlie Richard or Cinder City Engineer is unavailable tonight, so I figured I'd just stop up in case there was any questions like that.

The city uh to answer a question, Nick, uh no.

City has not done any type of analysis on it.

What the city has seen is just I've been here now three and a half years, and what the city has seen is several roads that are three to five years old, like a roller coaster.

So that's what we're trying to tighten all this up.

Uh the reason for the three-year warranty versus a one-year warranty, now we're trying to standardize with what BMU is already doing.

So it's a three-year with BMU for their infrastructure.

Now we're gonna go with the three-year.

Um if you trench the road within the right-of-way currently in the other ordinances uh through on existing right-of-way, it's a five-year warranty.

If you go back in and open up a road and you fill it and we fill it back up, that's a five-year warranty.

So we're this is pushing us to a three-year warranty, so we're standardized.

So what other communities have a three-year warranty in our area?

Uh that I that I don't know.

I don't know what Sioux Falls is or anything like that.

Uh we were just standardizing with what BMU is up and pushing the one year before you pave ensures that we have the settlement in the trenches.

Because that's the biggest issue that we run into is even on uh we go through certain um subdivisions within town, every utility trench, that's where the that's where the uh undulations are at.

And we're trying to relieve that.

And we know if we go through at least one freeze thaw cycle that will show up before you do your final grading your proof roll and pave it.

Uh I have a question since you're up here.

What I'm trying to understand is to me it seems like the cost is the cost.

It's either borne by the city or b by the developer.

One argument I can see is that if you have the three-year warranty security, it requires the developer to be more diligent in their work to prevent the problems from happening in within that three-year period.

Is that is that reasonable?

Is that what you're doing?

That is reasonable.

We're also working on our engineering standards with banner to ensure that our trench designs and their backflows and um are appropriate for this area.

So yeah, that is reasonable.

If we have our standards up to we're not gonna have as much undulation or any type of uh trench settlement.

Mr.

Chair, I I my opinion is that is an unfair assumption.

That's assuming that banner is not doing quality work now.

And so I would say we trust that they're doing quality work now.

What I hear you say is that after that one year, and it sounds like some things are mother nature, some things are not within control, that the city is seeing an uptick in some areas that need improvement.

And so I would not make that assumption that that's on the quality work of the developers.

Yeah, no, I wouldn't want to say that that was the quality work either.

It's it's uh I don't know that it's the quality work or it's or if it's the inspections of it, but we definitely have trench settlement throughout workings.

And who does the inspections?

Um for the BMU's utilities, BMU will do the inspection.

The city does not have the resources to to inspect every every aspect of it.

So what what BMU, what I understand BMU, Justin probably answered this better than me.

Um they they inspect primarily the betting around the pipes to make sure there's no rock or anything around the pipes from the top of the bedding up to the surface.

It's limited inspection, I believe.

Okay, so then based upon that line of thinking, BMU is doing the inspection, and yet we're requiring the warranty to be held longer with a developer.

So I guess I'm I'm trying to understand like what you're saying, like who does it fall within the responsibility, and are we identifying the right, the right organization or the right people?

Could we actually scroll up to that location?

Yeah, because it I mean there's gonna be failures in one of essentially three ways.

It's failure in the design, failure in the workmanship, and failure in the product.

So I think making that distinction of of what what things are failing and addressing that specifically, because if it's not a workmanship thing and it's something about the the design of the Brookings um mandatory like minimums.

Um and that might be something where then the supplier is the one doing the inspections because they want to make sure that the product is being installed 100% correctly according to their requirements.

And maybe that's just something that we need to put in here is maybe it's a one-year workmanship warranty, a three-year product warranty, something like that.

If if I may, the intent of this is to why we were doing this is to prudently use we have limited general funds for streets around here, and we'd love to see our streets last years and years and not within two to three years become undulated roller coasters.

So that's our whole intent to lock that down and get that going.

I I'm sympathetic to the cost for the developer um if there's a cost associated with that.

Um if we if our standards are good and what we're doing uh is appropriate and the workmanship is appropriate, the road should hold up very well.

Do we do we know what is causing the roller coaster effect?

Is it the utilities being put in the ground first?

Is it weather, what what is causing them that you're bringing?

Well, it's it's my primarily it's trench settlement is what we've seen.

What I've seen so far has been primarily trench settlement.

Every time you have a um utility trench going to a property, that's where it's settled at.

There's some divisions, uh, subdivisions just east of town, uh just west of town that you drive through right now.

I believe that's been a five-year been out there for five years and it's significant.

So is is that not something BMU can inspect for prior to Yeah?

Well, Justin is correct too.

F after five, seven years ago, I don't think there was much of anything for inspections.

I mean, we've we are tightening up and we're continuing to tighten up to ensure that when we do accept roads, they are good standard roads that they're gonna last for a while.

So while we're doing this, are we doing any I don't know how the whole system works?

BMU it sounds to me like it's part of the city, it's not part of the city.

I don't really care.

Are we doing anything in terms of standards for BMU's inspections with along with this with the engineering design standards?

We're we're doing our engineering design standards and BMU is also I believe looking at their engineering design standards.

I don't believe it's really within their bidding area.

I believe it's a from that betting area up to the surface is where we're really having our most issues.

Uh question.

With these issues that we're seeing, are you seeing them predominantly in years two and three?

We're yeah, we're seeing it, we don't generally see them they're in the first freeze law cycle.

It's within two, three, four years.

That's where we're getting to.

How much do you think would prevent that with the utilities going in first for a year?

And then the road going in.

Will that alleviate and could we move this three year to a one-year if like I'm trying to think of of concessions here?

Could we move it to yes, the utilities will be put in the year before, but we're gonna do a one-year warranty on it.

Like what the one year sitting it over for setting it through a freeze thaw cycle is to allow any additional settlement within those trenches to occur before they come into final grade and then proof roll it and pave it.

Um generally within that point in time you have a lot of building still within the subdivision.

So you could look at it that way.

Um we're just we were really kind of standardizing where the c the uh BMU's warranty is a three-year, it made reasonable sense to us to go with three year after it's been paved and except after it's been accepted.

Um that way we would cover that three to four years worth of where we're seeing these settlements at the one more question.

What is the what is the city deeming as a benefit to putting in the utilities the year before?

I I didn't, I'm sorry.

What's the benefit putting in the utilities the year before?

Because that's new, correct?

That would be new.

Well, it's the the utilities would go in, but what's new is that they'd have to wait to pave the road through a freeze thaw cycle.

So the benefit of that is going through that freeze law cycle, the expansion and contraction, you're hoping to get the settlements before they pave the road, not after that's paved.

That's does that make sense?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh I'm kind of curious as to the inspection process as these trenches are starting to get backfilled.

Um do we require compaction as they get backfilled?

And maybe one of the engineers and and uh in my experience with foundations, we backfill in six-inch lifts and then do a compaction test once they're backfilled and and compaction to 90 or 95 percent.

And and that's gonna eliminate a whole lot of the settling and the reason why we have to wait a whole year, wait for Mother Nature to rain so all that dirt just gets wet and sinks into the trench.

So, yes, there is standards on compaction testing requirements, and that is something that's been probably paid more attention to in the last year or so, just with you know some of the issues that John has mentioned.

Um, some developers will say there's not enough testing in the world, you know, do whatever you need to do, you know, whatever we got to do to make sure this isn't gonna settle.

And you know, more is more testing is not necessarily a bad thing, other than there is a cost to it, but ideally you're gonna identify all those things and and address it before it gets paved.

You know, like John said, the point of putting the utilities in the year before is to try and limit that settlement, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I mean it's a good thing.

Um, to the point that Nick said with having maybe some compromise there, I guess personally I'd like to see that, you know, maybe as the next step.

And if it works, great, maybe that's the end of it.

And if it doesn't work, go to a three-year warranty.

You know, keep escalating that.

You know, I I don't disagree.

I think the city is not necessarily wrong to try and protect itself from additional expense.

Um because there is additional expense, and John will verify that.

It's he's probably not super happy with some of the expenses he's going to have to incur on some projects.

Um other kind of side item I'd like to clear up with the inspection thing.

On private developments, BMU does not inspect the pipe or the trench.

That's the responsibility of the developer's engineer.

So on a project that banner designs, most of the time banner would be the one inspecting that project.

You know, it's not 100%, but almost every time banner would be the one inspecting it.

Or it could be a a different license engineer, but it is it is not BMU and it is not it is not the city.

Did they have do they have an engineer on staff?

BMU?

They they do, and on a BMU project, they may inspect their project that they design, or they may consult it out to a consultant, but they do not inspect a developer's project.

They they don't have the staff to do that.

You know, they're doing their own projects and they will inspect, you know, like if you're running a service to a house or a business, you know, they'll take care of that stuff, but on a mass site job, you know, if you're putting in 30 lots, they're not they're not inspecting that.

Mr.

Chair, one more question.

Yeah.

And I don't know who this would go to.

So say I am a new homeowner.

And then I identify the city with a problem.

What happens from there?

Does the city come out and fix it?

Do you work with the developer?

I just want my street fixed.

Yeah, I think the answer is it depends.

Um if it's a brand new street within you know the warranty period, so up to could be three years, depending on how this goes, but the city will go back to the developer and you know explain to them, hey, you have an issue, you need to come fix it within 180 days, and and that's happening currently.

Um that's right, because if you have like a homeowner, you just purchased it, um, and you're saying, wow, man, right in front of my mailbox, I've got this big bird path birdbath every time it rains.

So, yeah, you're gonna call the city initially.

Right now, we are stuck probably on most of these to repair them, even though it may be only a two-year two-year-old road or a three-year-old road.

So we'll go back in there and cut it out, and then it'll be tax dollars used for that.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Chair, it seems to me like development is good.

We want more and more development, and yet we're going to have the potential for more and more damage that are problems that the city has to solve.

So, I I agree with Nick that we've got to figure out a way to um meet in the middle somehow to figure this out.

Thank you for both of you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Spend 20 plus years I've been in the engineering business.

Typical, as as Justin and Jacob said, is the one year warranty.

And we've gone through projects where they haven't put the pavement down or the curb and gutter.

And it's it's a real mess.

You know, again, on a street reconstruction project, you know, development's definitely um different than that.

But quite honestly, in in the case of a development um and street um settlement, to me that's that's a function of the contractor and the developer.

Um there are specifications that are put together, and they're not following them.

They're not they're not doing the correct compaction.

They're they're you know, putting in soil that's too wet or or in some cases too dry.

Um they're not putting enough compactive effort in it.

Um they talk about testing, you know.

Well, they can take a test where you know they can pack it a trench correctly, but then the you know, the next six to ten down, they didn't.

And then as John talks about, you know, you get the waves in the road.

Um it it comes down to having a good contractor, a responsible contractor, one that follows the specifications.

Um bottom line.

But and we've had a lot of successful projects that with one year warranties and have not had any trouble.

Again, it comes down to having a good contractor, a good partnership between um, and in my case, you know, the engineering firm, the city that we're working for, and the contractor.

You know, it's you all we want is a good product out there, and of course, that's what the city wants here.

So I mean the warranties are you know, to me are kind of a little bit of an afterthought afterthought.

It's it really has to happen, you know, when when things are happening.

I'm gonna switch subjects just for a second, because I did I did give some comments to Ryan and and Mike, you know, a couple of months ago when this all started.

So I'm not gonna repeat all of those, but two that I still have a little bit of concern with and I appreciate um the table that you guys included for length of blocks.

I still have a concern.

You know, our typical gridded cities that have been in, you know, around since 1800, you know, 18, whatever it was on some of these computers are 400 feet.

And um it allows for you know um your sewers to be put in at 400 feet, which is which is a kind of a typical standard based on you know the equipment for um televising it, cleaning it, um, but also for uh health and safety um and getting emergency vehicles.

You know, if I I drive down timber out in timber line, um I don't I don't know the streets out there.

I I had them in my notes, but my computer died here.

But um, you know, that some of those streets are well over a thousand feet, and it just to me seems a long distance for you know uh an emergency vehicle to get to a you know to my place when you know I'm uh you know in need of in in need of assistance, or you know, there's a house fire.

It just to me I I feel like that's just seems and and I I understand the other communities are are within that line, but there are definitely some that are less than a thousand.

So um I guess I just I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Do you do you have some comments on the thousand foot versus I I'm curious, I'd never even thought of that, but like do you the city have comments on the thousand versus four hundred I think this is probably more my doing.

Um we debated this, we haggled over it, making it I I'm a big believer in the blocks grid system.

I like the core part of Berkings where you can adjust on the fly and make a decision based upon what you're seeing in advance, and you can turn and and there's a road right there.

I like the traditional block system, the 400 feet or whatnot.

But I think it was part of trying to make some concessions and looking at the development patterns and you know, can we live with a thousand feet?

We probably could as long as we have interconnected streets.

Where before we didn't have that interconnected street, and so um we have different personalities when our within our office that really compliment us well, and that we have some that are really good at playing devil's advocate, and he's like, and and staff was like, well, you know, technically a block, you could do a thousand foot block and do another thousand foot block and another thousand foot block, and you have three thousand feet of street with no interconnected streets.

And we're like, oh yeah, we were just thinking of it, you know, kind of like uh the grid system with a block, and so we're open if you guys got ideas.

I mean, I think we would like to see shorter black lengths, but at the same time, is we're all we're also trying to be a little cognizant of you know, is there additional cost and the cost benefit and making sure is you know um you know we're introducing potentially more streets, but on the flip side, can we get more lots?

What does it do?

The pricing of lots, affordability is always a concern.

So, how are we?

You know, we didn't want to completely you know impact the cost of housing, I guess.

So we're um we're certainly open.

Um we looked around and we saw some kind of other communities kind of in the region that we did a comparison.

I mean, you're right, there's some that are range from four to six hundred feet up to some are quarter mile, 1320, and there's everything in between.

I think the average was a thousand nine feet.

Um but we're certainly open to a discussion on it.

So if you guys got ideas, we're certainly open to it.

And I think on the cul-de-sac issue, um, that is a priority of our city council.

Um to kind of reduce the number of cul-de-sacks because it does impact the connectivity within uh neighborhoods within subdivisions.

It's it's also challenging at times on the maintenance side of things.

Um, and one of the concerns we always run into and and I think until about I don't know, I don't know, seven, eight years ago, we didn't have secondary access.

It was always a concern is with a single point of entry into a particular neighborhood, if that is ever blocked because of you know an accident, a hazard or construction, how do we get people in and out of their neighborhoods so they can get to and from their home?

And so that's a similar thing applies on a much smaller scale with a cul-de-sac.

And so I think you know, the preferences is to really improve the connectivity within subdivisions and to adjacent subdivisions and minimize the use of cul-de-sacks unless there's not much for an alternative.

Mr.

Chair, I have a quick comment on something that I don't think is has been brought up yet.

And yes, I I bring this up because we were just talking about this today, um, along with some uh reinterpretation of some um state guidelines for for bonding and and so I see uh what is this number two under says warranty security is what I wanted to touch on.

Um I see that we're gonna require the developer, I think it is here to maintain that warranty security for three years.

What we were talking about today is there is a limit right to the amount that you can bond for a lot of these projects, and I just wonder if there wouldn't be an unintended consequence when you're holding that for three years that some of these developers or contractors might be hitting their limit on what they can get bonded for, what they can get security for.

Um it was uh something unintended that that is that's happened to us um out in my job outside here, and so I just wanted to bring it up.

Um make sure that we're talking about it.

Yes.

So I'm gonna play what I see as a little bit of devil's advocate to this, I guess, since we talked about that earlier.

I I really struggle with some things like this, especially when we're looking at to the extreme.

Uh every year there's a city council election, and one of the top three things that is brought up every single year, how's affordability?

This to me is the exact opposite of what because every time the developer, like they brought up, the developer pays for this, but ultimately the homeowner does.

So let's say a house, when this project gets done is 200,000.

When that house goes to sell two years down the road, it sells for 250,000.

That is included every single time that that house is bought and re and sold again, and every single time that raises the tax assessed value of that property, which also in turns brings in more taxes to the city to take care of some of this stuff.

Now, I'm not saying I don't know a lot about the street, I I do appreciate what Scott brought up about so is there some compromise of instead of having a three-year warranty, because I think that is really extreme, especially compared to what we have now.

Is there some things we can put in place to assure we are getting quality contractors?

How do we do that versus oh we're just gonna blanket three-year warranty?

And it's in ultimately going to raise the cost of everything in town.

Even small developments where you want to try to get a lot of houses in one area, it's still gonna increase the cost.

So I just I feel like this is further than it needs to be, I guess, for right now.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah.

Uh sorry, we're flip-flopping around.

Kind of want to talk uh about the like block lengths and things like that again.

Uh now I'm not a fan like of cul de sacs, I don't want to defend those at all, but I think we should be able to differentiate between connectivity of cars and connectivity of sidewalks.

That they can and should be two separate things.

I really don't mind if there's longer blocks or um disconnected areas when it comes to cars, because really what difference does it make that I have to drive an extra block to go to something, or you know, have to have to go an extra few blocks to take a left instead of having just a direct access into something because I'm in a car.

Tell that to the ambulance.

Sorry.

Yes, but they also have lights and sirens, and you need to get out of their way.

I'm not talking about like going three miles.

I'm talking about like I just mean minor inconvenience for a regular person.

How many times have you possibly driven around the same couple blocks a few times waiting for a parking spot to open?

But that is not acceptable for someone in wheelchair, somebody walking.

So the major always priorities should be walking, biking, ambulances, things like that.

Yes.

Um I just want to maybe I don't know how we necessarily put that in there, but well, I think we've looked at um over the years we've tried a few examples where like on a cul-de-sac, we maybe along the property line, we'll get a dedicated easement or a sidewalk or trail that goes through that area.

It it's it works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't because it comes down to um maintenance of that and timing of the year.

Um, and I don't know how much usage there would be in a typical winter season for some of those, you know, um trail networks that connect through a cul de sac or something like that.

But uh we have seen it in some areas.

Um the challenge is is who's responsible for maintaining that.

Um it's fine when it's initially constructed, but 20 years down the road, does that homeowner really want to pay for a sidewalk that is 150 uh 200 feet deep that runs along their side property line, and then the other thing, there's a little bit of a privacy issue.

And it's easy to say, well, that put it on the city's responsibility, but now all of a sudden we're out trying to do snow removal on those one segments out in the middle of nowhere.

It's not cost effective.

Um, and so we've haggled with it over the years.

I think we're looking at it as trying to be uh multimodal transportation and and looking at the connections um in the city at the development during the development process, in particular in residential neighborhoods.

Uh sidewalks are required to be installed at the time that the home is constructed.

Um I think one of the things I don't know if it we're we're moving to is um the ramps would be installed um at the time the street is constructed because that's uh an issue that we've had to address over the years where um we spend a lot of money every year trying to take care of trip hazards and making our ramps ADA accessible, and you know there's a many times, and it's not the developers' fault or anything because it was wasn't necessarily a requirement, but somebody will contractor will come in and install the ramp incorrectly at the intersection.

So there's things that we're making progress on.

We can probably always do better.

Um but I think we want to approach it from all different aspects of the transportation network because you don't know who is relying upon that access and what their mobility issues are, and so we need to take everything into account.

And if you've got suggestions how we can continue to improve that, we're certainly open and willing to listen and see where we can make changes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, one follow-up question to that.

I we're we're talking about subdivision, and I just in my mind I'm thinking about the first conversation we had about Western and how that's potentially different than this.

So, what's the true definition of subdivision versus apartment complex or mobile home park or whatever else that we have as far as housing?

Subdivision would just simply be the um splitting of a lot into multiple lots, say the parcel of land, and you subdivide it into multiple parcels, and then that subdivision could be a housing development or that subdivision could result in an industrial park.

The subdivision is simply division of land.

And so then a follow-up is why are we not holding these same design standards across all of our developments?

The engineering design standards that you're just that you that's well, they're talking about subdivision improvement and design standards.

These would apply to all uses.

So if it's zone residential, if it's zone industrial, zone commercial, these would apply.

This doesn't this doesn't apply to the use.

This applies to the zoning.

But they must comply with development.

They must comply with the zoning district in terms of like lot sizes and things.

Um but these improvements in standards would apply to any sort of street or development in Brookings.

Okay, thank you.

If if I may comment, Commissioner Heinrichs, I think you're kind of going back to the original um proposal we saw earlier tonight.

Sometimes we get to certain areas of the community where some of them have been previously built out that maybe don't meet city standards, and you try and go through kind of a retrofitting process where you can, and sometimes um it's maybe not feasible to do some of those retrofits because you don't want to create a negative impact on those adjacent developed properties.

I'm not saying Western Avenue is one of those particular cases, but I do recall on 20th Street South when we reconstructed that road, we had challenges with the properties on the north side that we couldn't do a traditional urban roadway network with um the sidewalks, the storm sewer and everything because of the elevations of the houses, and so we had to maintain the ditches.

So when we get into those situations, sometimes we look at in particular to address kind of your your walkability aspect.

We maybe don't get the traditional sidewalk on both sides of the street, and we work with the property owners, and we maybe put a trail system on one side of the street or the other.

I can't speak for what is proposed on Western Avenue yet, but I would envision at some point in time that might be a consideration that would need to be looked at is you know, when they go through the reconstruction process, that's when we're able to try and get some of those pathways in place more along the Western Avenue.

Um I should have probably mentioned it back at that particular topic, but you know, the future trail systems, it's kind of that's kind of a general alignment.

We know we want to get a trail through this area.

We still have to work with the private property owners.

There's been a lot of discussions that have occurred to try and address that trail network system going kind of from Veterans Parkway through sex hour all the way up through campus on the north side of campus and coming out down by I think McCurry Gardens and such.

Um to achieve some of that.

It's it's kind of a little bit of a timing issue.

No, I appreciate the uh the allowance of the conversation, and I also know that it's not on you.

Do you just happen to be here today when I had that experience?

And so it it prompted the conversation of what we can do.

And I just don't want it to be at a place where we're then having that conversation after something happens to someone.

Um we never want that.

We want to be proactive.

Thank you.

Yes.

Since uh so we're we're lowering call de sacs to 400 feet.

Uh since we have one on the board, I'm gonna just ask the professional.

What do you think is the appropriate is an appropriate block length versus a thousand?

Is it the standard 400 six hundred?

Is there a standard that I know you have to weigh the you have to weigh the balance of fitting appropriate amount of housing into an area as well if we're going for density because we can't we're surrounded by water.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

I'm just adding you are um, you know, uh again it's it I don't think it ends up being one person's um opinion.

I think you know what John and Mike and Ryan and and you know city staff are doing are uh the exact things that they should be, which is you know, looking at other communities, um but but each community is different, and and so it's it's it's uh it's a collective effort.

And um, yeah, I you know, I've worked with communities that um complete streets what was was kind of a real big buzz term here a few years back, and you know, we we wrote up complete street um policies that that you know a city would have to follow or or any developer would have to follow regarding sidewalks um and things of that nature, and I'm glad um Kyle brought that up as well because that that too definitely is uh um a factor is is and uh you know I over the years too, you you go to different conferences and and one of the experiences that that I did was I got in a wheelchair and and tried going down um the streets, and it's that's a real eye-opener.

So I'm not answering your question, um, but but I think it's it's a collective effort, and each community kind of needs to um but but again, uh just as in my opinion, you know, just driving those long blocks just do seem to stretch things out.

No, and that's I'm glad you I wasn't really asking for an actual number, but like you just gave some experience like that helps with that, like understand some of that stuff.

So I appreciate it.

All right, thank you.

Anything else?

So are we what is sorry, what is the process here in terms of I I will tell you right now, I do not agree with the three-year warranty.

So, what is the process here?

Is this just going this is a recommendation?

Recommendation.

You have the ability to approve, deny, or make um amendments.

Um if you want to amend a specific area of it, you would have to just basically say is you know, make it make the appropriate uh motion for amendments.

This recommendation goes to the city council regardless of the outcome, whether it's positive or negative.

No, but they do like to see the discussion, and so that does give them um you know reason to think, you know, about your particular recommendation, and they do put weight in to the recommendation that the planning commission provides.

All right, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make an amendment.

Okay, and I appreciate what uh Commissioner Letty had brought up to to help me understand that a little bit more about the covering the street when it's put in.

Um I don't know how to exactly put this, but I would like to remove I would make a motion to remove construct streets utilities and storm water or storm sewer at least one construction season prior to paving of the street.

I would move the three-year warranty to a one-year warranty, and then somehow, and I don't know if that would be within the city of Brookings Manual of Engineering Design Standards, but put in place standards there that would ensure that quality contractors are being hired for this.

I need a second second, yes.

Now open for public comment.

Anyone wish to speak on that particular amendment?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Uh one second, we'll close uh public testimony now.

Board questions and comments, Commissioner Letty.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump together.

Um I I do think the um in installation of the utilities um one year prior to paving is um is policy that I've I've seen in in other communities and in even on street reconstructions.

Um I did I did a quite a bit of work in Southwest Minnesota, City of Worthington worked with the city engineer there, and um and I should have said this earlier, and I'm sorry I didn't.

Um, but they worked with uh geotech um engineer, and you know, I'm I'm oversimplifying the very long-winded explanation that he gave me, but due to the the clays in that area particular, it it just you could compact compact it so much as you you could, but there's still a restructuring that has to happen, and so on on all their projects.

Um they do utilities one year and and go through a freeze thaw.

I I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Egg.

Still taking comments.

Um I kind of see it as we have two major things going on here.

We've got the construct utilities a year before and wait, and then we've got the three-year warranty period, uh kind of two big swings as Justin called it uh within this.

Um I can't say that I support getting rid of both of them.

Um I I'd look at maybe it's uh a one of the other for me, and that that's kind of where I am sitting right in the middle.

So um I think for that reason I would not support a motion uh to remove them both.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Yes.

Um I can support the amendment moving it to one year, however, I'm I'm not certain what our construction standards are.

Um the the document, the manual of engineering design, what are our inspection requirements when a developer puts in sewer and water and so on uh as far as compaction?

I've seen um loaders fill the ditch, pack it down with a tire.

I still like that one year um time frame, put the utilities in and wait.

Um but if we do it right with the quality contractors like we're talking about, if we do it right up front, we don't need to fix it two or three years later.

So I would support the amendment that we have on the table, Mr.

Chair, Commissioner James.

I I agree kind of with what Tanner was saying of like one or the other.

Um the one other thing that I'd like to maybe talk about is the the final thing of like only hiring quality contractors that it's probably difficult language to put in given that there's certain requirements of lowest bidder, so that may need to be reworded how you want to propose that something to the tune of has to have a certain number of years of experience with a certain number of successful projects in history, whatever.

Um sorry, this is just something I have to do.

I'm an architectural spec writer, so I deal with this type of language all the time.

So right, and I think the intent of what I meant by that, and that's why I was kind of saying I don't really know exactly how to word this, is we should have some standards for this, and that's that I mean that's what should be followed.

If our city has the standards and they're not followed, then it's on the developer contractor that was hired to do it.

But if the city has standards, this is what was followed, then it's on Mother Nature or whatever else it is.

And yet, like the only I honestly the only reason I brought up dropping the year prior was just because of what we we had discussed earlier.

I that's a fine compromise of leaving that in for the year and then doing a one-year warranty post uh post-completion of the street.

I I guess the big thing that I think needs to happen prior to even discussing some of this is one, I would love to see that the city had some information on what the expected cost was of this change of what this is going to change, how much this is going to cost, people who buy houses and or people who buy the buildings, like that's that's in there as well.

But I think there should be some type of standards of in our area with the climate that we endure with the freeze the thaw freeze cycles and everything else, these are this design standards that you will meet, and there are checks and balances along the way to ensure that they're followed.

And if they're followed, I don't think it's on the developer to correct.

That's where I was trying to get to with that.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Smichel.

Yeah, I'll say that I don't plan to support the amendment or the initial original motion for those reasons.

Um clearly we're trying to solve a real problem, but the risk of assigning disproportionate responsibility to the developer is too high with so many unanswered questions here about the checks and balances that Commissioner Solomon referred to any other questions comments.

So just to be clear, what we're about to be voting on is with the amendment one year as stated and no one year prior to we would have to vote down the amendment if we wanted to change the language at this point Ryan, can you call the vote on the amendment?

Solemn Yes Aiken, no, Schmeichel.

Uh no.

Called it.

I know I called it, but I I do agree.

Yeah.

Spear.

No.

Heinrich?

No.

Lady.

No.

Limmer?

No.

Motion fails.

All right.

So the amendment failed.

We'll now be back to the original motion.

Any further comment?

Yes, because I would put that in.

I guess I would make a motion to amend this to say instead of a three-year warranty, a one-year warranty, and for the there to be some design standards that need to be followed in order to that the city of Brookings proposes.

Need a second.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Open to public comment.

Thank you.

Close public comment.

Any uh we'll open now for board questions and comments.

Mike.

So I'm thinking through the time frame.

So BMU already has an existing three-year warranty on the basically a pipe installation.

The city warranty would start from acceptance of the street.

Could the city do a two-year warranty?

Because it'd be from this date of the street acceptance.

BMU's warranty is from the date that the pipes installed.

Is that correct?

So if the pipe has installed and has to sit a year, that would be one year of BMU's warranty.

Because I can't imagine BMU is gonna get a four-year warranty out of the deal if they're waiting until the point of street acceptance.

Or do we need to verify with BMU?

I don't know.

I I'm not sure, John.

I'm just I'm I'm thinking out loud here.

Maybe it's not a good idea.

I believe BMU's warranty starts uh on acceptance of all infrastructure and embedded and trenches filled.

So they could yeah, that would be one year less than we're at when we're so BMU's warranty would extend two years past the the pavement ours would be three years past pavement acceptance.

So that may be a compromise too to make a motion for leaving it set for one year to ensure that it everything settles, and then instead of a three-year warranty, go to a two-year warranty, so you're both tied out with BMUs and the cities at the same time ending up.

Or I mean council could do whatever, but uh that be maybe an option.

Thank you.

Um comments on the amendment on the table at the moment.

Seeing none, um Ryan, you call the vote on the amendment.

Aiken?

Uh yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson, yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Letty.

No.

Solemn?

Yes.

No.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh we now have an amended motion pass, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh we'll move on to item.

Can we call it item seven?

We still need to vote on the main motion to approve.

Oh, sorry, but yep, thank you.

Uh the main motion now amended.

Any further comment on that?

Seeing none.

I'm sorry, you commissioner just to be clear.

This is uh so we're amended down.

We're doing the one-year pre-install and a one-year warranty.

Right.

So we're back to and design standards.

Okay.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

So what I have here is we removed we removed the uh one year prior, according to the current your your mo your amendment was to um reduce the three to one and to add um the standards.

Yes.

So we'd be keeping the one year.

The one year ahead is staying, it was staying.

In one year, okay.

Just basically doing what we talked about.

Yep.

Yes.

All right.

Ready?

Yes, please call the vote.

Letty.

No.

Solemn Yeah.

So you can yes.

Michael.

No.

Jameson.

Just to be clear, this is the entirety of the document now that we're voting on.

Yep.

The original motion amended.

No.

Spear.

No.

Heinrich.

Yes.

Jameson.

Or sorry, Limmer.

No.

Motion fails.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh now we'll move on to what we are calling item 7E, the bylaw discussion.

Ryan, can you introduce a topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh we uh staff has discussed um probably a need to look into our bylaws that haven't been reviewed in a few years now.

I think maybe the last change we did was when we added the board of adjustment into the planning commission and change the term limits.

So staff is proposing that the planning commission discuss establishing a subcommittee that could take a look at the bylaws, do a review, and make any recommended changes to our bylaws, or um if they seem acceptable, um recommend that they not change.

So looking for the planning commission to discuss maybe a subcommittee.

Um look at it over the next few months and come back, you know, late summer or fall, whatever, whatever time you need, but try to get these done by the end of the year for sure.

Is there a recommended number that would make the most sense?

Anything less than quorum.

Um other boards that I help you know would be three, maybe four.

Um, but you know, three would be a good number.

Anyone volunteering and um I think there might be just a discussion for also a maybe another subcommittee on um onboarding, so just keep that in mind if if you're interested in one or the other.

But for now, we're discussing the bylaws.

Just uh yeah, I'll uh I'll volunteer for the bylaws, yeah.

Commissioner Aiken.

Anyone else?

We don't.

Thank you.

One more, maybe this is for bylaws.

I'll volunteer myself.

Anyone else?

Okay, that's good.

Three, got three.

And then next, um, as Commissioner Heinrich mentioned, um I let her open up discussion on your uh onboarding.

Yep, thank you.

Um would you like to talk about that?

I'd be happy to.

So um we've had a couple of different conversations about how we could improve onboarding for new commission members.

And so very similar to what Ryan is suggesting here with the bylaw subcommittee, we would love to move forward to be able to do a uh subcommittee that could come together with proposals, and that way we could come together as group discussion to see what we would want to implement or change.

Is there any problem with us forming a subcommittee on uh onboarding?

Are there volunteers for this?

Commissioner Schmeichel, Commissioner Heinrich.

Anyone else?

I'll go ahead and volunteer.

Thank you.

All right.

That sounds great.

Uh at that time at this time, I think we've completed our agenda.

I'll entertain a motion and second for adjournment.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

I know not everybody can stick around, but for those that can, we do have the joint jurisdiction planning at 8 p.m.

So if you're able to if you're able to make it, please stay.