Okay, we'll call this meeting to order.

Uh like to welcome those in attendance to tonight's meeting.

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

The commission makes their recommendation based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive.

After motion is moved and seconded, it will be open for debate.

Those supporting the motions in turn give their reasons.

Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons.

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

Ryan, can you note the role?

We have seven members present tonight.

We have um Commissioner Limmer and Heinrich absent.

Okay.

Uh we'll move on to the approval of the agenda.

Can I get a motion?

So move solo.

Second, Aiken.

Moved and seconded.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Oh, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Moving on, approval of minutes.

Can you get a motion?

Uh move to approve solo.

Second.

Aiken.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

Move on to open forum.

At this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invit invitation or request time on the agenda for an item not listed.

Items to be added to the agenda will be scheduled at the end of the meeting.

Any requested action items may be scheduled for a future meeting date.

Individuals will state their name and their city of residence for the record.

Public comment is limited to a maximum of three minutes per person.

The comments and views expressed by the public are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the positions of the City of Brookings or the City Planning Commission.

Is there anybody that would like to come forward for open forum?

Seeing none, we will move on.

Sounds good.

As a matter of policy, all mention motions are made in the positive.

The board under specific powers granted by the state shall authorize variances from the zone zoning requirements where special conditions existing on the land will resort result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The first item is a variance at 540 Deer Pass.

Uh the request is for a six-foot privacy fence within the required front yard area.

540 Deer Pass is a single family residence, uh located on a corner lot and has two front yards, Deer Pass and Cardinal Drive.

Per section 94 398 A1 privacy fencing utilizing solid board or other similarly designed fences and walls shall not exceed 48 inches in height when located between the front lot line and the principal building.

The house is set back approximately 41 feet from the east property line, therefore the six-foot fence would need to be set back 41 feet.

The applicant is proposing 21 feet for their uh privacy fence setbacks.

Staff recommends approval and the board of adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny.

Uh for variances, uh section 6615 lays out the variance uh hearing process due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in an 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 is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter.

Here is a location of the property as mentioned 540 Deer Pass at the corner of Deer Pass and Cardinal Drive.

Uh the secondary front yard along Cardinal Drive is where the 21 foot setback is requested for the privacy fence.

The fence is shown here with that 21 foot setback.

And a few renderings were submitted as well to show how that will look on the side uh the secondary front of the property.

With that, staff will end its introduction and stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan.

Uh can we get a motion in a second?

So moved, Letty.

Second.

Okay, we'll open up the public forum.

If there's anyone here that's here to speak for or against the topic, please come forward if the applicant's here.

Love to hear questions.

My name is Lane Munson, property owner with my wife Dawn.

Uh obviously we're uh looking to uh put up a six-foot privacy fence, both for saves safety as well as privacy around the pool that will be installed.

And uh there is a daycare across the street, so we really would like to have that capability.

I'm not really thrilled about a four-foot fence at that location.

As you can see with the other renderings, it stays within the within the confines of the pine trees that are already there, and it's well set back from the corner from either direction.

And uh, we do not feel it's gonna be of a hindrance.

Uh as it would as it is mapped out.

Any questions?

We'll call you back up if we have any.

We are gonna close public forum and I'll open up to commissioners.

Uh we'll close uh that as well, I guess.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Letty.

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

We'll move on to variance for 1119 Madari Avenue South.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The next variance is at 1119 Madaria Avenue South for a reduced rear yard setback.

The applicant is Jay and Bonnie Gilbertson at 1119 Medaria Avenue South.

This is located in an R1B single family district.

The request is for an expansion of the single-family dwelling to 22 feet 9 inches from the rear yard setback.

And the R1B, the required rear rear yard setback is 25 feet.

Staff recommendation is approval, and the board of adjustment would have action of approving, amending, or denying the variance application.

Again, section 6615 hearing and deciding petitions for variances conditions 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 other owners of the property in the same district.

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

So 1119 Maderi Avenue South is shown here in the red uh polygon shaped property.

Um it is a an older home farmstead, um kind of hidden behind, tucked in behind the Camlot Square edition and pheasant's nest additions to the east and and west and north.

Uh it's oddly shaped lot there, does have access to Medaria Avenue.

Um the property owner is requesting to put an addition on the east side of the property, uh, which staff is considering the rear yard and the R1B, that rear ed would be a 25-foot setback, and the expansion which would include garage space would be at 22 feet nine inches.

And here's a rendering of the proposed uh garage expansion on the right side, which would be uh the east side.

That is what would um need that 22 foot nine-inch setback variance request.

And with that, staff would end its uh introduction and stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan.

Can we get a motion?

I'll move to approve.

Second, Jameson.

Motion and seconded.

We'll now open it up to public discussion.

Good evening.

I'm Bonnie Gilbertson, a co-owner with my husband Jay.

Um, that property in question.

It's the as you can see, it's a unique piece of property.

We were kind of excited about it.

It was the original farmstead built in 1889, and when they bought the property, the developers just built all the way around it.

And the front of the house had always faced south, still does.

The back of the house always face north, still does.

So when we took our garage, which was a freestanding garage and decided to attach it to our house, we always assumed that that was our side yard.

But according to the city ordinance, we found out it's not.

So that's why we're requesting to have this variance.

We are moving the garage even farther west from the lot line than the original structure was, and we are also lowering the roof line so it's less obstructive and obtrusive to our neighbors, so they actually get to see sky now instead of a big barn roof line.

So thank you for your consideration, and I hope you vote positively.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Is there anybody else here that would like to speak for or against this variance request?

We'll close public comment and open it up to the commissioners.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh just one comment.

Um I'm just wondering why Jay didn't bring this uh in front of the commission when the house is built.

Is there anything else?

Yeah, one comment, Mr.

Chair.

Um I think due to the unique shape of the lot and the significant setback of the house in the lot, and the fact that the garage is moving away from the lot line.

I I think this seems really reasonable.

I I support it.

I tend to agree.

This is probably one of the most unique shape properties I've seen ever on a variance request.

So anything else?

All right, we'll close.

Uh Ryan, can you call the vote?

Spear?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Letty?

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on, we're gonna we have a variance request at 806 6th Street for a driveway.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The next variance, uh, it's actually two variances requested at 806 6th Street, pertaining to a driveway proposal.

Uh the applicant is Samuel Krueger, uh, located at 806-6th street.

This is located in a residence R2 two-family district.

Uh the applicant is proposing to install a drive-through driveway in the front of the home, which would require uh variances for our front yard parking ordinance uh in section 94 4312, which prohibits parking um in the front yard with the exception of an approved driveway.

Um the second variance would be uh for a 30-foot driveway according to section 94 3434, 24 feet would be the maximum went for the driveway leading to a side or rear yard.

Um just for some background on this, uh staff did find that there was a previous variance requested in 1992 for um front yard parking.

It was a slightly different, quite a bit of a different request at that time from what's proposed today, uh, but a 1992 variance was denied for front yard parking.

Uh the staff recommendation on this is to approve with the following conditions.

Uh the driveway must be paved, and a shared access easement uh between 806 6th Street and 812 6th Street would be required, uh providing through access to 6th Street.

The Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny.

Uh I won't read this page here.

We've done that twice here now.

Uh the property 806 6th Street, uh shown in the yellow outlined uh box here.

It has frontage on 6th Street, and an approach was installed on to 6th Street with the uh the most recent um reconstruction of the 6th Street.

However, 806 6th Street does not have alley access or access to uh the adjacent street, 8th Avenue.

Um nor does it have a garage on the property.

From the northwest corner at that existing 30-foot approach on the 6th Street, it would loop around the front of the home at 806 6th Street, uh connecting with the driveway at 812 6th Street.

Um this would allow for the applicant to have access to park on either side of the home and be able to back in and exit 6th Street in a front direction rather than backing out onto 6th Street.

Here is a drawing of the variants from 1992 that was denied.

Um they were just looking to expand upon the a driveway at that time a bit further to the east.

It was not going to be a a through loop driveway, just an expansion into the front yard of the home.

And with that, staff will end its report and stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan.

Can we get a motion and please state if you're adding in the recommend the staff recommendations or not?

I'll move to approve um with the recommendations for approval by staff.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right.

We'll now open this up to public comment for anybody here that would like to speak for or against the project, or if the applicant is here.

Thank you.

My name is Samuel Kruger, the applicant and co-owner of this property with my brother Silas.

Um I think Ryan did uh an excellent job of kind of laying out the project and the reasoning behind it.

So I don't need to go into too much depth, I don't think, but um, I just do want to emphasize that the intent is not for front yard parking.

Um, it's just for that access for safe exit and entry onto sixth street, since we don't have the alley access.

And one other addition I would like to add is a letter of support from the neighboring house at 812 6th Street.

Um Ryan, do you have this in the packet?

The commission members did receive a copy of the letter.

Okay.

So if you all have a copy, I don't think I need to read it, but um we've been working very closely with the neighbors and I've talked with other neighbors across the street and kind of explained the situation and I've heard positive feedback from everyone.

Um then one more thing, just the reasoning behind the need for the 30-foot versus the 20-foot driveway because of the location of the house being kind of right in the center.

Um we want to have that parking access on the west side of the house, so we need to extend it out to the existing approach, which is 30 feet.

Um, and then if we were to cut it off the other way, there would be less turning radius to get on to 6th Street.

So, unless there are any questions, that's all I have.

We'll call you back up if there's any questions after the rest after public comments done.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else here that would like to speak for or in favor or against we'll close public comment and open it up?

Mr.

Chair, I do have a question.

Uh I think for staff.

Um Ryan, what is uh do we have limits on the amount of hard surface that are allowed out of the total lot area not on a total lot area, no?

We have a requirements that 50% of the rear yard be uh maintained as living ground cover.

Uh the front yard uh must be landscaped with the exception of approved driveways, sidewalks to the front door.

Um this would create quite a bit of uh pavement in the front yard, but it wouldn't um it wouldn't go beyond any required like there's no 50 percent front yard hardscape, it's just 50 percent rear yard.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question as well.

What is what is the actual like reasoning for the stipulation of uh having it entirely paved uh that's just a staff recommendation?

Um it's a quite a large driveway here, and staff would recommend that it's paved.

We do have a requirement for paving for uh multifamily uses that require five or more parking spaces, they would they are required to pave uh single family is not that's the recommendation that we're adding here to this variance, Mr.

Chair.

I think I have one more question for staff, just a quick one.

Um for parking in the side yard is is that just that is allowed by right, correct?

So this variance does nothing with the parking and on either side of the house.

You are allowed a driveway um leading to the rear side yard up to 24 feet in width, and it can go all the way up to the side lot line.

Okay, thank you.

I I have a question.

What does this do for any concerns with drainage here?

And uh that's a lot of hard surface and with neighboring homes and stuff.

I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that.

Uh staff has no concerns on our end.

I don't know if the applicant has any um any thing more to address regarding drainage.

Yeah, please come forward.

Yeah, so that was one thing I did not include in the packet, but we have accounted for drainage um towards the property line on the red dashed line in this drawing, so it would slope away from the house, and there would be a portion that would slope away from the neighboring driveway.

That's about a quarter inch per foot slope, and then it's about because of the site, it's less, it's an eighth inch per foot towards the street, so there is a slight slope.

Um it pretty much matches the neighboring driveway, which is minimal, but it is sloping towards the street.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, before you go, I have a quick question as well.

Was it your intention to pave it entirely, or did you have some type of desire to do permeable surfacing somewhere that has not been decided entirely?

Um I think the looped portion in the front would the intent would be to do some sort of hard surface there.

The parking on the sides might remain gravel, but that has not been decided at this point.

All right, thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

Okay, we'll close that.

Ryan, can you call the rope?

Braun.

Yes.

Luddy?

Yes.

Solemn No.

Aiken?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Yep.

Yep.

We'll now reconvene as the uh planning commission.

Okay.

First item is a preliminary plat.

Uh TH companies LLC has submitted a revised preliminary plat for lots one through eight on block one and lots one through three on block three of prairie sunset edition.

Ryan, can you introduce this?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the first planning commission item is the revised preliminary plat for prairie sunset edition.

Applicant to teach companies LLC.

This is located at a property at uh 1115 West 20th Street South.

This parcel is zoned residence R1A single family, which was uh rezoned to that R1A in the fall of 2025.

Future land use in this area is medium density residential.

Uh staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat with the condition that a revised preliminary drainage plan uh be submitted to the city council review.

Um prior to the city council review of the revised preliminary plat.

Uh the planning commission's action would be to approve amender and I and this is a recommendation that we'd be made to the city council.

Uh the property shown here in the blue outline box is the 1115 uh West 20th Street South Praise Sunset Edition.

Uh the revised preliminary plot shows um 11 single family lots shown along an extension of Brighton Road south of 20th Street South, along with a short cul de sac uh temporarily named A circle that will require an actual name before it is approved.

Uh the uh lots would be all single family within the R1A, only a single family is allowed for uses.

Uh Brighton Road does show extending all the way down to the kind of the southeast corner of the property.

Um staff is working on a potential temporary turnaround for Brighton Road until that is constructed uh with development to the south.

And I think the applicant has provided some concepts for a turnaround at that southern uh end.

The original preliminary plat shown here.

Um this was um approved just a couple of years ago.

Um it was zoned R3 at the time with a large scale residential plan.

Uh this included a mix of two family and single family lots, I think up to 58 lots.

Uh so it is a significant reduction in density and street layouts here, but it does maintain um the connectivity of Brighton Road, and it would meet the zoning requirements for the R1A single family.

With that, staff would end its report and stand for any questions.

Okay, can we get a motion and a second?

And this spear motion.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

Uh we'll now open this up to public comment.

Anyone here to speak for against the project, please come forward.

Good evening, Commission.

My name's Russell Atkins.

Um, I'm with Christerson Development Partners.

Uh we're the uh people actually contemplating developing the site.

Um you've probably seen me here a few times, and uh you've probably seen me here a few times about this particular site.

So um where we're at today is um really down uh size to the the density of the project uh to more of an estate lot we'll be changing the the marketing name to this to to more of an estate uh setup will be a large uh lake on the western side and then on the southern area uh be maintained by a homeowners association and yes, we we have submitted a uh contemplated uh turnaround at the end of Brighton Road.

Um we're proposing it to be a right-of-way uh versus a temporary easement, only because uh you know as well as I do how long some of these temporary things uh go and uh depending upon how long it takes to develop the uh parcel to the south, uh that could be there for some time and want to make sure that that particular turnaround is maintained in good shape and and people are able to use it and snow removal is done properly and and so forth.

Uh that could be there for some time and want to make sure that that particular turnaround is maintained in good shape and and people are able to use it and snow removal is done properly and and so forth.

I think uh Ryan did a phenomenal job kind of talking about it, so I don't know what else to add unless there's questions that the commission may have of us.

There's questions, we'll get you back up.

Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else here to speak for or against the project?

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

Uh Mr.

Chair, just one comment.

Uh like to thank the applicant.

I there was a lot of public feedback on uh the density and that the density of this was too high previously, and so I think this looks much more compatible uh with the area, and I do support it.

I do have one question.

Sorry, I should have just asked you this while you're up here.

But um, do you have any issues with getting a revised drainage plan to the to the city prior to this being in front of the city council for review?

Not at all, sir.

It's actually already underway.

Um it's unique.

We're going in the reverse here with less density and far more drainage uh capacity with the the pond and stuff.

So we're not anticipating any issues, but yes, we understand that we need to check that box and we're unfortunate we didn't already have it done, but DGR is getting that completed as we speak.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Luddy.

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Motion passes.

This will now go to the May 26th City Council.

Okay, last item is discussion.

Uh on the city of Brookings is proposed amendments of section 5164 of the subdivision regulations.

Ryan, can you introduce this?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, last month, the planning commission um voted to recommend denial on some changes to the subdivision regulations.

Um, rather than take that recommendation of denial to the city council staff has worked on some potential changes to the ordinance again to maybe discuss some of the concerns that planning commission had previously.

So I'll turn it over to John Thompson here to discuss the changes that have been made.

Good evening, Council, our commission.

John Thompson of the City of Brookings Public Works.

As Ryan stated, 7B is kind of a follow-up from our April meeting.

Uh there was quite a bit of discussion on on that item, and ultimately it was denied.

Following that meeting, staff chose not to advance the item to city council uh because of those unanswered questions.

Much of the discussion, as I stated, uh is on proposed extension of the road warranty period from one year to three, all right.

And the potential impacts that that would make to the developers and also to our local affordable housing market.

I was unable to answer those questions at by that point in time.

So since then we've reached out and we should be able to answer most of your questions tonight.

So staff, uh, I'm gonna bring Charlie Richard up on that.

He's been the one that's been working on this the most.

Um he was out in April, so he kind of got stuck with me.

So after tonight, what we do plan on doing is bring this back uh after getting your feedback, and we'll bring this back and actually start it back over in June.

So, Charlie, you want to come up.

All right, good evening, uh Commission.

Um just want to walk you through our thought process with the these amendment changes.

Uh this meant uh amendment to the subdivision regulations.

So over the last several years, we've been dealing with a lot of settlement on these subdivision roadways.

Uh and this has cost the city thousands of dollars in repairs.

Uh back in 2024, we repaved a street that was only eight years old for $32,000 because there was severe settlement in the cul de sac.

Uh we've also had to repair curbing on uh in front of someone's driveway for a street that was paved in 2021.

Uh and in that street, there's actually several other issues with Kerb and gutter um that we're gonna eventually have to get into repairing.

Unfortunately, um that's gonna require repairs to people's driveways as well, because uh the drive the the settlement has occurred at the curbing at the driveways for whatever reason.

Um a lot of these water services that go into people's houses are through people's driveways.

Uh so it's unfortunate we're gonna have to be roped into repairs of of driveways as well.

Uh and then there's an entire uh there's also a subdivision in town uh where there's we're gonna be it's gonna require the whole subdivision to be repaved, as well as uh repair of hundreds of feet of curbing.

Um we're still negotiating with the developer at the time at this time, so but at this point we're thinking it's gonna be over a hundred thousand dollars of repairs that are gonna be uh paid for by the city.

So here's a couple of some examples of some of the settlement we've been seeing.

Um this is a for a roadway that was paved in 2021.

Um as you can see, there's multiple issues on this road.

Uh this is it's tough to sometimes photograph these, uh, but uh you can see from this photo, these two photographs, there's been significant settlement.

A lot of them have to deal with the services that go into the lots.

Um this is a street that uh was re like I said, paved in 2021, was inspected by the engineer of record.

Um everyone involved was surprised by the settlement on this road, these roads.

Um just this this road was particularly bad, obviously.

This is one of the that subdivision I was talking about that had it has that's gonna require repaving the entire subdivision and curb repairs.

The settlement occurred on these streets in years two, three, and four.

So that's what we're seeing in a lot of these streets.

After the first year, most of the settlement is not showing, but it's in that years two and three that we see these severe settlement issues.

Um this is going to like it's gonna be it's impactful.

Um I suggest you don't have lunch or dinner before you ride these streets because it is quite severe.

Uh here's a photo of the issue I was telling you about uh with settlement in the curb line.

Uh this was a pretty sizable puddle.

Um this was quite a ways after it had rained, and the puddle was still pretty pretty large.

Uh we went in there, we had to repair the gutter the curb and gutter at our own expense and repay portion of the street.

Um that $7,000 total that I provided was only for the curb and gutter.

We paid uh our street department actually paid uh paved that portion of the puddle out of the out of the cul-de-sac.

So the actual cost was significantly more.

So what we're proposing is a um for new subdivision roads to sit for a winter after utility installation.

Um after consulting with Banner Associates in Geotech Engineering and Testing from Sioux Falls, that is the recommendation for a lot of these streets.

Um the soils have a chance to go through a free thaw and with clay, it's good to have them use the actual weight of the soil to actually consolidate the the issues there.

Um we're also proposing a change in the increase to warranty from for developers of the subdivision roadways from one to three years.

This will match what BMU has for their projects.

Uh the warranty bond is for 10% of the construction costs.

Um so we went ahead.

I know there were some questions about how much this would cost developers.

Um so we went ahead and we spoke with a bonding company to find out how much a 10 100,000 dollar bond would cost.

Just to put in perspective, uh, the most recent um subdivision uh prairie hills with Kestrel and Woodduck Circle, that had a bond of about $50,000.

So $100,000 is will pretty much cover basically most subdivisions.

Um so a after one year, a one-year warranty cost the developer $1,500 for a hundred thousand dollar bond.

Uh to increase it to a three-year warranty bond, it would have cost an additional $750 for a total of $2,250.

Um Public Works has discussed the proposed amendment with developers.

One of the issues they they were concerned about was how thorough of walkthrough or a punch list we would provide in years two and three.

And where the city is mostly concerned is with settlement.

So we focused in on years two and three would be warrantied against settlement.

So that's that's our proposed alternate.

Year one would be a complete warranty, though, of all servicing utilities in concrete.

Years two when three would be warrantied against settlement and for the utilities.

So this is what they are recommending actually for uh for a warranty.

Uh we are also going to post revised standards and specifications that will increase inspection and testing requirements for all subdivisions.

Um so that's our presentation.

I open up for comments.

Do you want to answer that sea falls?

Oh, yes, and yeah, and just uh touch on uh we did uh contact Sioux Falls.

They have a um two-year requirement uh for warranty on all water main, sewer main, storm drain, and sun pond collection.

Um they do have a one-year warranty on all uh roadway and sidewalks.

I just want to check here.

Uh Mike, you're the only one in the audience.

Do you have any comments you want to make before we close public testimony?

Okay.

We'll close public testimony then and open it up to commission.

I've got a couple of questions, comments.

Um thanks, guys.

Appreciate um the rundown.

Um over my 20 plus years of experience.

Um I kind of talked with John about it last time.

And um I don't know how much has been thought about um the bridging effect of the base course that you know you're not seeing the settlement in you know the early stages, and that may be that base course bridging that's occurring.

So that trench is settling below it, but it's not showing up because your base course is is holding your surface up.

Um and and you talked about Charlie about um updating your standards.

Is there any thought about um changing your street section?

Adding additional base course, fabric, geo grid, something that would also help, you know, with the entire street.

Uh yes, well, we're gonna require um um fabric on all streets from here on out.

Um we are using our the recommendations.

Well, so uh part of our requirements is going to be uh geotechnical on every street from here on out.

So um, and that will include any street that we do as well as far as uh reconstruction.

Um, and we have requirements for how many uh geotechnical borings will be required, and then a geotechnical report to follow.

So we're going to have a minimum base requirement and uh asphalt requirement, and then use the geotechnical if they recommend further uh enhancement of the the road cross-section.

Perfect.

Thanks, Ice.

And along with that, we're going to be uh requiring further compaction tests and inspection.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, question.

Um have you talked with any contractors or developers about what's proposed here at all, or have they come and given you any feedback, negative or positive?

Could you talk a little bit about that?

Uh with the developers, we've heard um they were okay with the rec uh with the requirement to go from one to three years.

Um the developers were more concerned about um cost, and we show that it's it's not significant.

Um, and then um they were more concerned about how closely their punch lists would be in years two and three.

There's a lot of wear and tear on these streets that get that come from plowing, come from uh house construction that they didn't want to be liable for.

And that's and we felt that was fair.

So really we really want to focus in on the settlement issue and make sure that uh we don't have issues that we get roped into in the future for repairs.

Did they have any comment on installing infrastructure the year before and letting that sit?

Did they have any concerns with letting that street sit unpaved for a season?

There wasn't much concern about that.

Um what we've been seeing recently is a lot of developers are starting to do that just because of the timing of how they develop.

Um so they weren't as concerned with that from why my conversations with them.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh reading the back page um in redem two B construction street utilities and storm sewer in the street.

The winter prior to paving of the street.

I understand you want to leave it set for the winter, but the way I initially read this is gee, we can't do utilities and storm sewer until winter.

I I think maybe the word winter should be changed to the year prior to the this in in the way I read it is pretty restrictive.

What subsection are you on on that one?

Oh, I'm I'm on two Bravo.

Oh it says you'll construct street utilities and storm sewer in the street the winter prior to paving of the street.

Okay, I'm not sure.

I think we may have a different version on us right now.

Oh do you have that on the screen, Ryan?

I think the way the language should read, Commissioner Solomon is construct street utilities and storm sewer in the street at least one construction season prior to paving of the street.

Yeah.

That sounds that sounds correct, Mike.

The way I originally read that is gee, we can't put that uh utilities in storm sewer in until winter.

Yeah, I think we can reward that.

Yeah, yeah, we can definitely reward that now.

Yeah, that's right here.

Right there, to be there's the word winter.

Yeah, you bet you want it to sit the winter prior to the street.

Yeah.

Correct, yeah.

So we'll reword it, yeah.

That's good point.

Yeah.

And that's the only catch I had.

Can you explain, because I don't know, the warranty bonds.

How does that work um in terms of if a developer is it kind of like insurance?

If a developer uses it so many times, they're gonna end up losing that or it's gonna end up costing more.

Oh, oh, with a bond?

So with bonding, um, it is basically an insurance policy, basically from a bonding company.

If uh they are a contractor in good standing, um, they usually have a favorable rate.

Uh if they are a contractor where there's many claims against them, obviously the rate would go up and be more costly for them.

So um that's kind of it we the the pricing I gave you was someone that's in good standing.

That's and that's what I I figured I just wanted to make sure Yeah, it's it uh it really has to go south if someone goes after someone's bond.

So but that's their that's the way we hold them accountable.

Mr.

Chair, I got a follow-up question uh while we're talking about bonding.

Uh when you talked with some of the developers and contractors, um, were any of them concerned about holding bonds open for three years and how that might affect their bonding limit?

Um I had not heard of uh any contractor expressing concern on that.

I did hear uh some concern from a developer who wasn't in the contracting business that would have a harder time getting a bond.

Uh usually um someone who's a contractor has is typically um uh they they have provided the proper paperwork to a bonding company to make sure that you know, because they they typically provide bonds for construction projects.

Developers don't typically have to provide that, but there are other ways of providing that insurance that warranty surety to us, and that includes maybe a um a letter of event of uh of credit or maybe even a check.

And we were where we would hold the check or the cash in a an account that would accrue interest until the the pro the warranty period was over.

Okay, and so that's why the language is how it is, it leaves that up to the discretion of the developer what kind of surety they want to have.

Correct.

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah.

As long as we have legal ability to go use that those funds, uh, when the time if the time is if it's required, then we we're open to talking about that mechanism.

Okay.

And then I just have one more follow-up on then I'll stop talking and asking questions about bonding.

Um the project starts or at the project start, you would require the developer to have whatever surety is um that they're arranging with the city.

The project sits for one year and then there's a three-year warranty.

So is it actually a four-year surety?

Uh we don't require the the surety until the uh until the certificate of completion.

So I'll I'll walk you through the process here.

Um for those of that are not familiar with it, is um the developer comes forward with obviously preliminary plat.

They get the preliminary plat, they final plat the right away, and then they provide the city with street plans and meet the standards and specifications.

We approve it, and then they go ahead and construct.

With this, the way it's drafted right now, they go ahead and put the utilities in in year um say in the fall, sits over the winter, they go ahead and build the construct the road, curbing ramps, drainage.

Um so maybe June or July, they look to have to turn it over to the city.

Their engineer provides a certificate of completion that verifies that the uh road was built according to plans into the city's specifications.

We go ahead and review it.

We look for a warranty, we look for a lien waivers, we look for um a NAS bill of th of for of several things that we require.

And then um we go ahead and review that if it looks like it's everything's up the park, we go ahead trans they we uh do a transfer of ownership for the street to the city, and at that point we look for a warranty bond, warranty surety from the developer.

And that's when the clock starts ticking on that three years.

Okay, so I think that's where my misunderstanding was is this is the warranty surety is completely separate of whatever performance and payment bond the contractor would have for the project.

Right.

So a developer may uh require a performance and payment bond from the contractor.

Yeah.

But that's a deal between the two of them and the city doesn't require that of the contractors though.

Correct.

Gotcha.

Yep.

Thank you.

Because in theory, we would don't have to accept the street.

Yeah, true.

Right.

Mike, did you want to add something?

Yeah.

I was gonna ask Charlie if you could maybe explain a little bit about with the bonding.

That's kind of the insurance policy if you cannot get the developer or the contractor to come back and correct the um the deficiencies.

Um and so if you can't come to a resolution, then the city could potentially pull their bond to pay for those corrections that are needed.

And so that's kind of why what the insurance policy we we refer to it as is in place is if we cannot get the contractor to come back and make those corrections.

So that the city is not held liable and responsible for paying for those necessary improvements.

That's what the bond is there for to cover those if we can't get the contractor to come back.

Typically they don't want their bond pulled because that doesn't um keep them in good standing and makes it more difficult for them to get future projects.

So it's kind of the leverage needed to get them to come back and fix the deficiencies in those projects.

Is that stated correctly, Charlie?

Yes.

Yes.

And we we don't willy-nilly pull people contact bonding companies to request funding.

We give the contractors and developers a chance to rectify it.

Sorry, I just wanted to pull this up.

The repaving of the street in 2024 that was eight years old.

What's the expected lifetime of a street?

We expect at least 20 years.

And I'm assuming that's the same thing as cur of curb as well.

Correct.

With curbing and gutter, yes.

Okay.

Can you go to that next with uh yeah?

So there's two different things here, right?

One is uh the uh maybe we asked this last time, I guess, but I just a refresher.

Does the one year warranty or the three-year warranty start from BMU when that stuff is in the ground or when the street is complete?

I can't remember.

So um the the uh the BMU right now has a three-year warranty on their projects themselves.

They don't have a three-year warranty on their subdivision, um, the utilities they take from subdivisions.

They only have a one-year warranty.

Uh they would shoot they would um under these changes, that would their work would their utilities that they um accept would be under that three year warranty as well.

So their their warranty would change to match this.

Ah, gotcha.

So that warranty, I just want to make sure I'm I'm gathering this right.

That warranty, if a developer is building a subdiv uh building houses, that three-year warranty is not included in those types of it's just BMU projects that they're putting um what uh you uh you're talking about uh uh uh contractor that builds a house?

Yeah.

Uh they don't have a warranty with the city that they what about the streets leading up that's more what I I know the I understand the housing stuff is on the butt like the street.

Uh so yeah, so say let's take Prairie Hills.

They they just they paved the road last year, they're under a warrant one year warranty that started back in December.

Um and then you have people building on that road, building homes.

Um, but there's only a one-year warranty at this point on that roadway.

That's the cities though, right?

So what's BMUs?

Yeah, so you you've got a you're you're right on it.

So Branch Creek was just put in, so that's a sub-development.

Yeah, they had a one-year warranty, all the infrastructure underneath that.

20th Street South BMU was BMU's project close to three years ago because we just did a walkthrough on that this week, and that has a three-year warranty.

Okay.

Yeah, for their own projects themselves that they fund, it's a three-year warranty.

And what their intent is too is we can ever because everything's gonna fall underneath the cities for a subdivision.

So there they could have the three-year warranty across support.

So do uh then I understand correctly, BMU supports these changes.

They do, yes.

But BMU's warranties generally when a water main bus after it's gonna be within that first year or something.

Yeah, it's gonna have to be almost catastrophic.

Yes.

I guess I'll just make a comment.

I'm trying to weigh the way both of these options.

And I just I really really struggle with some of this.

And it's not I I get the warranty thing, especially on the settlement, and actually is why I'm leaning more towards the alternative solely because I I see the developer side of things.

Why would they have to warranty the street if it gets hammered with a plow or something like you know, like and I like regular wear and tear?

There's gonna be some of that as well.

Um I guess I guess I'm leaning more towards the alternative, me personally.

I'd like to hear what everybody else is thinking, but I just with weighing, you know, can maybe this is something that we say, hey, let's try it this way for a little while.

It's better than what we've had instead of going to the extreme, I guess is what I'm looking at.

And and Nick on that staff is looking at that too.

That's what that's what we were recommending to when we come back in June is to go with after the discussion.

I have Charlie had the discussions with developers too.

And honestly, that's really what we're after.

We're after that settlement.

So what we would be coming back in June with would be that proposed alternative, one year warranty on the entire and two to three would be just a big settlement.

And I think some of the developers' concerns were too.

Okay, John's gone, Charlie's gone.

Now they're gonna ding us for every little curb cut, you know, any anything out there, and that's not the intent.

Yeah, I think these changes make a lot of sense.

I appreciate the extra effort you guys have gone through to answer some of the questions we had before, and um I think does a lot to help minimize sort of the unintended consequences that I think could have happened prior.

So I think it's I think it's good.

No, I'd I'd pair it, same thing.

Cool.

Mr.

Jameson said it.

You guys did a great job.

I think coming back with with the changes are well in line of of what um a city should expect.

So nice work.

I I hate to throw a wrench in all the gears, but we're talking about developers and new streets and so on.

How about a house over in Hillcrest edition that puts in a new sewer line?

And they have to go out to the center of the street and and do the excavation.

You know, what kind of standard and and I don't know, does the plumber do that?

You know, where they run a new sewer line from the house out to the street, and and what kind of when they're repairing that street, then what kind of standards are they bound to so we can avoid this settlement um one or two or three years down the road?

Uh I'm glad you brought that up.

Because uh we this past um this past winter, we um had a revision to the excavation permit.

Uh now we require a right-of-way uh uh permit that um holds contractors more accountable.

So we require a bond from them, we require insurance, and then they're required to ensure that the the patch and the road um is maintained or it doesn't settle over course of three years.

So that matches the warranty that we're looking for right here.

All right, good, thank you.

And and prior to that work, uh, because that's been our biggest concern too.

We'd go away for a weekend, come back, and there'd be new holes cut out, and it's like, okay, who did that?

Uh there's now teeth in the permit, so that if they do not pull a permit, they will be fined.

Uh and that at that point in time back then we did have a five-year warranty.

So we've cut that back down to three in hopes of making everything all settled at a three.

And there's still issues with you know, we can't go out there and inspect every one of those cuts.

Um, but we do know with the database on the on the excavation permits, who did it and what date they did it.

So we can go back after them.

Who uh we talked about this last time.

Um who is responsible for hiring the is that the compaction testing?

Is that something the city will be doing?

Is that something that the city is requiring the contractor to have?

Are we the city's requiring the the developer who hires the contractor to do that?

To take care of that.

Yeah, so we they hire the uh the engineer record who coordinates those compaction tests, um, and make sure that uh those are satisfactory and meet our standards.

I just want to make sure on that.

Thank you.

We rely quite a bit on that engineer record because that engineer record reviews all those reports, ensures everything, and then certifies it in the end.

All right, Scott.

And another quick question.

So they're gonna hire that geotech company to come out and do compaction testing.

Um is that gonna be or the specs gonna be listed in your new revised standards as far as what that contractor has to meet as far as you know 90 percent or our new standards will have that specified.

Yeah.

So there's been a lot of discussion about frequency and and what percentage and of compaction they have to attain.

Uh we've come to an agreement uh uh after consulting with Banner and with Geotech.

Um uh uh as to what that would look like.

Uh and before the project's supposed to start, according to new standards, the uh engineer records supposed to provide us with a um testing schedule to ensure that it meets those standards.

Okay.

And that becomes then part of their permanent record for this whole development.

That's correct.

When they they submit the certificate of completion, they provide us with those testing results results.

Cool.

Mr.

Chair?

Yeah.

Uh one more quick question.

Just to um I'm thinking of more questions uh longer I I listen to this.

Um for just street projects in general, and things are outside of subdivisions, so say 22nd street um or 22nd Avenue uh replacement in sections.

Uh how does that warranty look compared to this?

Is are we also talking about just general street projects here, or do those just kind of play by their own rules?

Uh no, uh we'll we'll the contractors that we hire from here on out will meet those standards.

So they will have they will have a three-year warranty, they will have the compaction requirements, just like what we're requiring of developers.

Okay.

So this would cover that too.

Well, yes, yeah, we'll we'll match the whatever is required here.

Okay.

And then my follow-up to that is um how does the city feel about letting a street like that sit without pavement over the course that that would not be possible due to the uh the residents that live up you know in that vicinity.

Yeah, that would be unfair.

I would make snow removal tough, everything tough.

Uh it's unfortunately we can't do that for for streets that are established.

Uh for streets that are new in a new area where there's no residents living, it's a lot easier to attain.

Glad to hear that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Schmeichel, I'd like to make a comment, is um I know where you're going with there, Commissioner Aiken.

Don't get this confused with existing streets.

This only applies to new subdivision streets as part of the street acceptance.

A street that's already been accepted by the city and we're reconstructing it.

Um we would model the warranty the same as we do here, but it's not the same.

The subdivision regulations went to come into play because it's already been a street accepted by the city.

And city projects comes with its own contractors agreement.

Yeah, it was a question that I heard after a question that I heard a lot after our last meeting was how does that play?

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay.

Anything else?

I one additional comment.

I think we've you're comfortable with what they're proposing with the language as part of that um amendment that was proposed in April.

There was other some changes that were more related to blocks, intersections, and connectivity.

Because essentially what happened is the old the whole entire amendment that was proposed was um recommended for denial.

We felt that most of the discussion centered around the warranty and the street acceptance, and we shouldn't assume anything, but I think we kind of assumed his staff is that was the primary reason why the entire amendment was defeated.

Um is there anything that you wanted us to change in regards to some of that um block length or the intersections or connectivity that we should be looking at before we bring this back in June.

Or were you pretty comfortable with that?

I thought we had some discussion on block length, but I don't know where it really I think this was the crux of most of it.

And we can certainly change some things at uh at that meeting too.

We can make amendments, but I think we want to make sure you're comfortable with the warranty aspect of it, because I think those other changes are probably a little bit easier to um to make kind of on the fly during the meeting and and capture the language correctly if it's changing a number, if we want to go from a thousand feet to five hundred or if you want to change the length of a call to sack or something.

I think those are a little bit easier to do where when you start looking at warranty, um, a little change here can change up a lot of other things, and so we want to make sure you're comfortable with the language.

Was there something with the block lengths on like emergency services?

Was there a question on that?

I thought there was something on that concern.

Is there any I mean is there any concern with emergency services, I guess, like with a with a block length like that?

Do they ever have any I'm thinking about a fire truck that's kinda you know like or I mean I uh honestly I mean when you if you look at it from a purity perspective, the block, the grid system works really really well.

You know, if it's pick a magic number, if it's three fifty, four hundred, you know, whatever it is, you I kind of look at the core community of of Brookings, um, you know, from the railroad tracks north.

Um that's the grid system um for emergency access.

You typically get your fire hydrants.

Um, you know, they space them appropriately and new, but it gives you options.

It also allows you to come um from different um routes to access this the same property if you needed to respond um to provide emergency services.

It also allows detouring and adjusting on the fly, but um if that's something we can certainly discuss in June if you want to look at adjusting those block length numbers.

I honestly don't have a problem with the length.

I just if it was more just an emergency vehic if they had issues with it, but any other sorry go ahead.

Uh I'm per personally much more comfortable with uh the warranty and leaving the street open for the year.

Um I know uh previously I was I was pretty torn on doing both of those at once.

Uh if you've talked with uh both developers and contractors and no one's pulling their hair out saying what are you doing?

Uh then I I guess I'm much more comfortable with it.

You'll appreciate the the clarification on some of this stuff.

Yeah.

I had made a comment about the the block lengths and I guess um yeah, as as long as um I think Mike Mike might have said it that you know just checking with emergency services and then if they're comfortable with their coverage, but but I also think there was another good point made just with um uh assess people in in a a wheelchair or something like that that um trying to navigate the longer blank uh um uh l uh blocks that um but but I I I would say you know Brookings uh has a fantastic trail system.

Just you know fabulous, honestly, and applaud all that work that that's been done and continues to be done on those that there are those that you know you can navigate through town that that um I think uh help some of that connectivity with you know pedestrian or biking traffic.

So any other comments, questions?

No, all right.

Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Mike, you have anything else?

All right.

Well we can adjourn.

Can you get motion motion for adjournment?

Second?

Second, Aiken.

All in favor?

All right.