All right, good evening.

Call this meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome those in tent in attendance at tonight's meeting.

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

The commission makes their recommendation based on 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 a motion is moved and seconded, it is open for debate.

Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons.

Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons after everyone has been given given a chance to be heard.

The commission shall review the testimony and information presented, make findings of facts, and for their recommendation of the city council.

Please make sure you're speaking into the mic and identify yourself when you come up.

With that, uh Ryan, can you call the roll?

Roll is noted with Solemn and Letty absent tonight.

Thank you.

Approval of the agenda.

Can I have a motion and a second?

So move, Michael.

Second, Aiken.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign.

We'll move on to approval of minutes.

Item three.

Can I get a motion and a second?

Motion to approve, Heinrich.

Second, Shmichael.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign.

Thank you.

Uh we'll move on to open forum.

Item four.

At this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or 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 in the 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 or positions of the City of Brookings or the City Planning Commission.

Seeing none close open forum, move on to item five, disclosure of conflicts of interest, relationships to the applicant or ex parte communication.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'd like to disclose a relationship to the applicant for items 7A.

Uh South Dakota State uh foundation.

Uh they are a separate entity from the university, uh, South Dakota State University that is my employer.

I have no financial incentive uh from the project.

I don't feel that I'm um incapable of making impartial judgment on this uh on this project, and I was uh not aware of it until it appeared on our agenda, so I have no prior knowledge.

Thank you, Commissioner Aiken.

Any comments or questions from the commission at this time?

Okay, seeing none, we will move on to uh item six convening as the Board of Adjustment.

Uh 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.

Seven-member board requires five votes, a six-member board requires five votes, 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 exist on the land, which will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

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

Item 6A is a side yard variance.

Mark Virginia, how oh excuse me?

It's two applicants, two sets of applicants.

In fact, I think what I'm gonna do is combine these together.

Two sets of applicants.

Also known as 315 and uh 309 Thunder Lane.

The request is to build a shared detached garage over the side lot line per section 94127 F.

The side yard setback in the residence R3 apartment district is seven feet.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The first item on the agenda is a variance requested at 309 and 315 Thunder Lane.

The applicants are the property owners of the two properties, Richard Hohener and Mark and Virginia Halberson.

Uh these are two single family lots located in a residence R3 apartment district.

The request is to build a garage, a detached garage across the property line.

This would result in a zero foot side yard setback for our detached structure on both 309 and 315 Thunder Lane.

So this is technically uh two variances, one on each property.

Uh we're going to treat it as one project one motion one action, uh, but it would be granting two separate variances to the two properties.

Uh section 94127 F that does state that the side yard setback required would be seven feet.

Uh there is an exception for accessory structures uh to have that reduced to five feet, however, uh due to the location of this proposed structure, they would need to meet the seven foot setback.

Um doesn't matter in this case, either way, it would be a zero foot setback, is what the request is for.

The staff recommendation is approval, and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny.

309 and 315 Thunder Lane are shown here in the Onaka Village in the yellow outlined boxes.

Uh this is the proposed type plan for the property not to scale.

Uh essentially the property would be located um adjacent to uh 309 Thunder Lane utilizing the existing driveway and would have uh cross the property over to 315 Thunder Lane uh where there would be an extension of that property's driveway and extension of the pad uh to match up to that back side where the garage would be placed.

Uh there are some existing structures, accessory structures on both properties.

Uh there's a proposal to remove one of the structures on 309 Thunder Lane, and with that being done, um both properties would have sufficient square footage to allow the detached structure without a second variance for the size.

Uh, this is just a uh variance for the location uh with the zero foot setbacks.

So if that staff would end its report and stand for any questions.

Uh thank you, Ryan.

At this time, I will entertain a motion and second for approval.

Motion to approve, Aiken.

Second year.

Thank you.

Um, and then at this time we will open to public comment.

The applicant or applicants would like to address us, that would be great.

Anything to say?

Um, if you don't have anything to add, that's all right.

Um you are the you're the applicant.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh represent are there two sets of applicants.

Are you representing both of them?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um anyone else uh wish to speak in favor of this motion at this time.

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

All right, thank you.

We'll close uh public comment and uh open this up now to board questions and comments, Mr.

Chair.

I just have a question.

Clarification is the new structure going to be for both properties.

That would be correct.

The structure would be built along the property uh line.

Uh it would be used, then you know, each property would have half of that garage, and there would be a requirement that there is a fire rated wall uh built along the property line, similar to like a single family attached structure where there's two single families attached along a property line.

Uh this would be the similar setup with that, but it's a garage built on the property line.

The follow-up question then, how does this impact future if one or other of the properties were to sell?

This would be a part of uh their property in the future.

Um they would, you know, a future landowner would have half the right to half of that garage on their property line in the future through any sales.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Chair can I have a question, I believe, for staff.

So in cases like this, um where uh two different properties you're going to own essentially one building.

Is there like a maintenance agreement or anything that's a requirement?

Something like this?

There's not a requirement, but that's certainly something that the property owners could do.

They could come together and and um have an agreement recorded with with on the property if they decided to do so.

That would be um a consideration for them to look into.

Okay.

We would not require it uh for the variance.

Sure.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh just to clarify, 309 Thunder Lane has three, I believe, accessory buildings there.

Two of those were being removed, correct?

Ryan, was that?

Uh I believe just one will be removed.

So they will still have two structures.

Uh the garage would be a 32 by 24, I believe.

Yes.

Uh so 768 square foot.

Um each side would have 384 square feet.

Um and then 309 does have two additional structures.

Um with all of that, they would still have uh they'd be underneath the maximum square footage allowed though for accessory structures.

But don't we typically have a thing of an ordinance of you can't have more than one accessory building?

We don't have a requirement for a total number of accessory buildings, it's just square.

Okay, I thought it was a number two.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, comments from the commission?

Seeing none, we'll close comment and uh call the vote, please.

Mr.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh we will now reconvene as the planning commission.

And uh move on to item 7a, conditional use permit for off-street parking.

Uh South Dakota State University alumni and foundation has submitted an application for a conditional use permit on the following described real estate in the city of Brookings to wit.

Lot 15 and block 7 of the north 65 feet of lot 16, also described as lot 16 in block 7 of Morehouse addition to the City of Brookings, Berkings County, South Dakota.

Note this does not include the north 10 feet of the vacated alley adjacent to lot 16.

Uh the request is for off-street parking off-site.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This item is a conditional use permit request for off-street off-site parking for the South Dakota State University Foundation.

Uh it is located on two residential R2 uh lots just to the west of the alumni and SDSU Foundation building.

Uh the proposal is to uh use these two lots as a parking lot with a storage facility, which would be um allowable only via conditional use in the R2 two-family district.

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

So Section 94289 of our city ordinance uh allows for off street parking off-site uh with the conditions uh as follows.

The off site parking shall be located within a 400 foot radius of the use it is intended to serve.

Parking shall be restricted by a written agreement and contain the number of parking spaces and length of time such spaces are reserved.

The off-site off street parking would be located as uh shown here in the blue boundary.

Uh this is 816 and 820 Ninth Avenue, just west of the SDSU foundation across the alleyway.

Uh so it is not uh technically adjacent, uh it's not connected to the SDSU foundation lot.

It is it's considered off-site, being that it is uh split by the alleyway.

Um however, it is within the 400 feet certainly uh to meet the requirements of off-site off street parking.

The proposal here um shows for 32 parking stalls along the alleyway with a detached uh five-stall accessory uh accessory structure garage on the west side of the lot uh fronting 9th Avenue.

The site plan does show um sufficient landscaping and screening of the parking lot uh to the north and south from um adjacent residential properties.

The applicant has submitted some renderings of the proposal.

Um so this would be looking at the proposed uh accessory structure garage that was designed early to look and feel fit within the historic district.

Uh these plans have been reviewed by the uh South Dakota Historic Preservation Office and the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission.

Uh, both have approved of these in terms of the uh new construction and the use within the historic district.

And another picture of the front side of that garage, and then uh one of the back.

So this would be looking at the parking lot uh from the east from the SDC foundation side across the alleyway.

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

Thank you, Ryan.

At this time, uh entertain a motion for approval and second.

Motion to approve, Heinrich.

Second, Braun.

Thank you.

Um we'll open this up to public comment.

The applicant present.

Uh good evening.

My name is Chad Cucker.

I'm with Confluence.

We're the design consultant for the Foundation and Alumni Association.

Um I think the staff report did a great job of covering the project.

Um we've uh like mentioned uh gone through the state and the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission, um, talked with neighbors immediately to the north and south about the project.

Um, also just to note that there's two driveways on 9th Avenue that'll be removed.

The only access is from the alley, and we've gone to great extents to you know make the building um feel like it's part of the neighborhood and hide the parking from the neighborhood and from 9th Avenue.

Um so thin with that, I guess I'd entertain any questions that you might have.

So, yeah, thank you.

I think uh we'll continue the public comment and then call you back up if the board has any questions.

All right, thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Anyone else here uh wish to speak in favor of this motion?

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

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

Chair.

Yep.

Um could the city give some explanation on their recommendation for approval on this?

Uh essentially we look at the standards for approval.

Um standards are must be located within a 400-foot radius of the use it is intended to serve.

Uh this would meet that requirement.

Um there is in here um a requirement for for a written agreement.

That would be more so for if this was for like a shared parking agreement where a separate use was using a piece of land for parking.

Um in this case, the SDC Foundation owns both properties, and it's a you know kind of a single-use parking area.

Um we could specify that on the ordinance to you know state that this is for SDSU.

This parking would be only for SDSU foundation parking.

Um, they have stated that there'd be signage stating such.

Um this project, it's kind of been in the planning for quite a while.

Uh they've gone through historic preservation a number of times for the removal of one home and the moving of another home down to Maderi Avenue.

So I've had quite a few conversations with historic preservation.

Um there was a few different options that they could have taken to accomplish this.

One would have been a rezone and one would have been a conditional use.

Staff thinks that the conditional use is more appropriate in this case rather than rezoning um lots within a historic district.

Uh so the recommendation for approval comes from kind of all those um those ideas.

So for future use and like just thinking on other things that come up, and we've had parking lot parking being put into residential areas.

Would a business like a B2 business be getting the same like recommendation for approval on something like this?

We've recommended approval uh for a similar off street off-site parking in the past.

I'm thinking of the Campanille Flats, um, which is actually a PDD, so it wasn't a B2, like you're asking asking specifically, but it was a PDD where we had a mixed-use development um where they did get off street offsite parking across the street.

Um I think the um was it the uh lofts park hill potentially.

I think they also had um a cross-shared parking agreement.

So we have recommended approval and other cases.

I also think downtown, um, I think the bank might also have a similar uh cross-street parking agreement.

So it has happened in the past.

Um we would obviously treat each one with its own merit.

Um it would have to meet these ordinances though, and if they met the ordinances, they could certainly come with a recommendation of approval in future requests.

Thank you.

Ryan, I have a second question.

Um can you elaborate on what both the state and the local um historic preservation recommended or had discussion about with this?

Sure.

The historic um they reviewed.

You know, they reviewed the the site plan for the proposed use, so a conditional use is required to go through um historic review.

Uh so they did submit a in a what's called an 11.1 historic review uh and a full case report, which kind of documented the previous uses, uh the proposed uses, the rationale for um, you know, the different alternatives that they considered on the site, um, and they proposed this site plan along with the proposed renderings of the building and historic approved um both the use and the site plan uh based off of the fact that the um look of the accessory structure would fit within the historic district in terms of the look and the massing, the size, the setbacks, um, and that it does screen the parking from the street side, so it it kind of fits within the historic district not having parking at the front of the structure visible from the historic district.

Um previously they did approve also the removal of the homes on the site, so they had significant discussions with the historic preservation commission and ultimately um historic preservation commission was pleased with this as proposed.

Any other questions or comments?

I guess I I want to make sure I'm saying this out loud.

Um as a resident in this specific neighborhood, I have deep appreciation for what um you're trying to do to blend in with the neighborhood.

Um I I really think that even our local historic preservation could take some cues from this as far as design elements and different things that we could do.

So I I appreciate all of that work that you're doing.

Where I have paused or hesitation is that as we continue to have these projects that are in the proximity or on the outline with the SDSU, we keep encroaching into the neighborhood.

And um this was not the intent of these two lots to be part of a vital community.

And so that's where I pause to understand like at what point do we stop encroaching into the neighborhood to meet the needs for what SDSU needs, whether it's parking or building or whatever that is.

So I just want to make sure that I I say that out loud.

Yeah, thanks for saying that.

I would echo those sentiments myself.

Any other questions or comments?

I do have a question.

This is Speer.

Did I hear you correctly in saying that the house, one house has already been demolished and one has already been moved?

That is correct.

So here is the current uh lots.

So 816 9th Avenue.

That home has been demolished.

That was approved for demolition a handful of years ago.

I'm thinking, you know, maybe three years ago, uh, that did go through the the historic preservation uh commission reviews and was approved for demolition.

829th Avenue.

Um that one the applicant um did you know go through quite a bit of negotiations with the BHPC on preserving 829th Avenue initially.

The BHPC um approved that home to be moved within the University Residential Historic District.

They couldn't find a location in the historic district, uh so then they were given approval to move it within the city of Brookings.

Um I believe there are plans now to have that home moved down to Maderi Avenue where there were two homes that burnt down last year or earlier this year.

Uh so 820 is intended to be moved within town, but 816 has already been demolished quite a bit ago.

I would like to echo the concerns that have been voiced previously in that um this looks like it was done prior to what's going on currently.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the words to say to put it in.

So it looks like it was set up this way.

If that makes sense.

There was a process that they had to go through because of the being in the historic preservation of the historic district.

They did have to go through.

But why did they move the house to begin with?

They purchased the property with an intention to redevelop.

So that they did have plans in mind when they purchased the property.

That answers that answers my question.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Comments?

Mr.

Chair, I do.

Mr.

Aiken.

Quick question.

I think it's for staff.

I I see that the conditional permit is for two lots, uh, not one lot.

And we do show a structure that if it's to scale, looks like it would span two lots.

Does the applicant do they have to replatt as one lot prior to?

Or are they okay to build one structure over two lots?

Yes, there would be a requirement that this was platted into one, and I believe maybe the applicant could speak to that, but I believe the applicant plans to replot into one lot.

So this is just the first step in the process.

Correct.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Uh sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Well, the I'm trying to see what one, eight, ten, ninth Avenue.

Right is right to the bottom of this on that picture.

Is that owned by the university as well?

That is not owned by the university, that is owned by a private uh property owner uh as a rental apartment.

And that bottom piece of parking lot, that is that is the foundation parking as well, right?

Correct.

This is uh SDSC Foundation parking that was done, I don't know, maybe like 10 years ago.

Um 810 and 903 8th Street.

These are owned by a single um private property owner.

This is I think the office for the rental business, and this is an apartment um owned and operated by that rental business.

Uh I think 912 9th Street to the north is owned by the university.

Uh this property here on the corner, 902 9th Street is not that is privately owned by uh it's a single family residence privately owned.

You have your question answered.

Anything else here?

All right, seeing none, we'll close uh board comment and Ryan, can you call the vote?

Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich.

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Aken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Uh this will be introduced to the city council at the July 30th meeting, and then they'll set a public hearing for the second meeting, um, which will likely take place in August.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 7B, uh rezone.

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

Lots four, four A, five, five A, six, and six A in block one and lot seven, excluding the South 106 feet and lot 7A in third edition, City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota.

The request is a rezone the above described real estate from a business B4 highway district to a business B2 district.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And this next item is a rezone petition to rezone the property you described in third edition.

This is the property formerly known as the Sunshine Inn.

It was recently purchased by Ocean Ridge Hospitality LLC.

I think it's been rebranded into the West Lodge.

Currently zone business B4 highway district.

The future land use in this area is urban medium intensity.

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

As mentioned, uh the property is um the property uh historically known as the Sunshine End, shown here at the corner of 6th Street and First Avenue.

It's all that property with the exception of the southwest corner, which is the south half of lot seven.

Uh that is under separate ownership, uh, but the applicant owns the remainder of that uh half block uh 108 6th street.

Here is the current zoning map.

Uh so as mentioned it's currently zone B4, and the uh request is rezone it to B2.

Uh B2 is kind of the most common zoning district along 6th Street.

You can see here on this map, the property to the north and east as you um go towards Main Avenue and pretty much the remainder of 6th Street where there is commercial zoning, it's mostly B2.

Um so um it would be uh consistent with 6th Street zoning.

The parcel to the southwest would remain B4.

The future land use map is mentioned uh in this whole area is urban medium intensity, which would support the rezone request, and that would end staff's report and we would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

At this time, entertain a motion and uh for approval on a second.

So move Schmeichel.

Second, Heinrich.

Thank you.

Um at this time we'll open to uh public comment.

The applicant would like to uh address us.

Yes, hi, I'm Katie Murray, owner of that property, and um we did have a meeting with DRT to discuss plans and um ultimately the building in the front right corner there is in very bad shape and we would need to rebuild this building and that zoning helped us to um put that back together more in place of what that would go into the the new zoning versus the old zoning.

That building has three of our units and um our commercial laundry and storage, but we just feel like it's too far gone to try to save it.

So that was what initiated this conversation.

Uh we'll call you back up if we have more questions.

Sounds good.

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

Anyone present wishes to speak in opposition seeing none closed public comment, open it up to board questions and comments Mr.

Chair, just to comment uh in my opinion.

I think uh at one point before uh highway district uh business zoning was probably appropriate for this site, and I think now uh with how Brookings has developed B2 is much more appropriate, and I support the request.

Thank you.

Anything else seeing none, we'll close uh board comment.

Ryan, can you call the vote?

Speer?

Yes, Heinrich?

Yes, Ron?

Yes, Aiken?

Yes, Schmeichel?

Yes, Jameson, yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Again, this item would be introduced at the July 30th City Council meeting where they'll um they'll call a public hearing in sometime in August.

Thank you, Ryan.

Move on to item 7C, an annexation.

The Brookings Congregation, a Jehovah's Witness has submitted a petition for annexation of the following described real estate situated in Brookings County, South Dakota, to wit.

Outlaw F and Outlaw G in the southwest quarter of the Southwest Quarter in Section 20, Township 110 North, Range 49 West, Brookings County, South Dakota.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This next item is a petition for annexation.

The Brookings Congregation of Jehovah's Witness is proposing to annex their uh property on Highway 14.

Currently the property is zoned agriculture.

The future land use is urban medium intensity.

Staff recommendation for the annexation is approval.

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

The property uh shown here, uh 3521 U.S.

Highway 14.

Uh it's actually two parcels with access uh frontage on highway 14.

Uh there's a proposed uh road that would be going in on the east side of the property.

Uh that would be part of a uh larger development for the legacy edition.

The plotting commission has uh seen uh some of those plans previously for um annexation and preliminary plotting.

And with that street coming in to the east, um I think the church is looking to possibly connect into utilities along that street.

Um and in order to connect utilities, they would need to be annexed within the city of Brookings.

So that's the basis for the annexation request.

Uh the property is adjacent to uh the current city limits along the um well, all three sides, the west, north, and east at this point.

Uh current zoning map here uh shows this as joint jurisdiction agriculture.

Uh that zoning would be uh changed to agriculture uh when it does come into the city uh and there would likely there would need to be a future rezone at some point as that um lot would not have sufficient size for the agricultural zoning, uh but would come in initially to the city as city agriculture for zoning.

The future land use map here shows us as urban medium, and that does end staff support and we'd stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Entertain a motion for approval in a second.

Motion to approve spear.

Second, Schmeichel.

Thank you.

Uh at this point time will open to public comment.

The applicant, if you'd like to add anything, please do.

Otherwise, we can just ask you questions if we have them.

Anyone else here in favor of the motion?

Is anyone present that would l like to speak in opposition to the motion?

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

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Schmeichel.

What are all of the other um religious institutions in town zoned?

Like egg.

Uh no, I think a majority are zoned in a residential um district.

So I'm gonna pull up Beacon here.

Um I'm looking at uh first Lutheran, they are zoned R2.

Uh the churches near downtown.

Uh so the Methodist and the Presbyterian, those are zoned R2.

Um the old Catholic church R2.

Um I guess the reason I'm asking mostly residential zoning.

We do have a civic zoning in place now, which churches could use.

Um so you know, it would be up to them.

They could use that if it were you know a city owned or municipally owned, it would go to a the civic.

They could choose the civic, or they could choose another if they if it's one that allows a church.

But so we have a city agricultural zoning that can be used for churches.

Like they could choose that if they wanted to.

We if they have a hundred acres, I think is what the minimum area is.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Okay.

What's our minimum for agriculture?

I was just really like I thought I was thinking the civic.

I know this is this is annexing, but like that zoning comes down the line, and I was getting really confused when we were talking about agricultural zoning versus the civic stuff.

So 35 acres is the minimum for an agriculture.

But what happens when you uh annex in?

It just takes the same zoning that it has.

We just drop the JJ, it becomes agriculture, and then they would need to choose their appropriate zoning district once it's in, which could be civic or it could be one of the other residential districts that allows for a church.

Thank you.

I guess to piggyback on that, they could stay agricultural.

And it would be non-conforming.

So if they wanted to make any changes, it would be non-conforming, but they could stay as aggreg as an agricultural district.

Correct.

It'd be uh non standard, I believe, or non-conforming, and then it'd be restricted on um additions, rebuilds.

Um that could be a route as well.

Wouldn't be recommended, but it could do that.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, Ryan, can you call the vote?

Heinrich?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh entertain a motion, a second for adjourned.

One second.

One second.

Just one second, just kidding.

Um we sent out, I think Ryan sent out some communication about the Western planners.

It's August 26th, 27th, and 28th in Sioux Falls.

Um interested in attending.

And if so, we would need to know so we can get you registered under the early bird registration here in July.

Um staff is planning to attend.

We're gonna commute daily.

It's just down to Sioux Falls.

Um the agenda has I think some of the agenda has come out, so if you're interested, we could certainly pass that along.

But we'd like to know roughly because um if there's enough of you, we will need to publish notice of quorum for everybody to attend.

But the city will pick up the tab for your registrations and such August 26th, 27th, and 28th.

Yeah, I am interested, but I'm out of town those days.

That is uh my case as well.

I'm interested and in town.

Okay.

I am interested and do not plan that far ahead in my life.

So I'm interested, but not yet sure I could attend on those dates.

Okay.

Not exist.

I'll be working.

Uh yeah, I'd be interested in going.

I think those that are interested, if you can do we remember when the drop dead date is for early bird registration.

I feel like it was July.

There you go.

Yep.

July 26th.

Oh my god.

So ideally we'd like to know before and then just so that we can get you registered.

Would plan to have um vehicles available for carpooling if you're interested in carpooling?

Uh study staff like Mike mentioned, we'd be just driving down and back each day since it falls in commute.

Mike?

We don't want to rent a party bus.

Yeah, maybe we can get a bus again, we can do a little tour on our way out, you know.

It is downtown.

There are some mobile tours.

Um, I think we'll send make sure we send the link out so you can look at the agenda if there's something that's sparks your interest.

Um can we adjourn?

Other than we'll see you back at eight.

Oh, yeah.

Thanks.

I know we had a joint board of adjustment meeting tonight at eight.

All right, in that case of entertain a motion to adjourn in a second, please.

Motion Schmeichel.

Second, all in favor?

Adjourned.