Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We' call this meeting to order. I would like to welcome those in attendance to tonight' meeting city planning commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the city council regarding request 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. We

have seven members present tonight we have commissioner limer and heinrich absent.

We will move on to the approval of the agenda can I get a motion? Move solemn. Second taken. Moved and seconded. Brian can you call the vote. All in favor

all

opposed? Moving on approval of minutes can you get a motion?

Move to approve solemn.

Second.

In favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Move on to open forum 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 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. We will have the disclosure of conflict of interest is there anybody on the board worried about any conflict?

Sounds good. We will now convene 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 concurrent vote of two thirds of the full membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board some of the seven member board requires five votes six member board requires five votes five member board requires all 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 by the state shall authorize variances from the zoning requirements were special conditions existing on the land will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant financial disadvantage to the property shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. The first variance we have the night is 05:40 deer pass ryan can you introduce the topic.

Thank you mr. Chair the first item is a variance at 540 Deer Pass The request is for a six foot privacy fence within the required front yard area. The applicant is Lane and Don Munson, property owners of 540 Deer Pass. 540 Deer Pass is a single family residence located on a corner lot and has two front yards, Deer Pass and Cardinal Drive. The applicant is proposing to install a six foot high privacy fence 21 feet off of the east property line along Cardinal Drive, the secondary front yard.

Per section ninety four three ninety eight 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. 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 privacy fence setbacks. Staff recommends approval and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend or deny. For variances, section six thousand six fifteen lays out the variance 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 district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is essentially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. Here is a location of the property as mentioned, 540 Deer Pass, at the corner of Deer Pass and Cardinal Drive.

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, the secondary front of the property.

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

Thanks, Ryan. Can we get a motion and a second?

So move, Letty.

Second.

We' open up the public forum if there' anyone here that' here to speak for or against the topic please come forward if the applicant' here. I' love to hear questions.

My name is Lane Munson, property owner with my wife Dawn. Obviously we're looking to put up a six foot privacy fence both for safety as well as privacy around the pool that will be installed. And there is a day care 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 confines of the pine trees that are already there and it's well set back from the corner from either direction And we do not feel it's going to be of a hindrance as it was as it is mapped out.

Any questions?

We'll call you back up if we have any. Is there anybody else here that would like to speak for against this project? We' going to close public forum and open up to commissioners. We' close that as well I guess Ryan can you call the vote?

Jameson? Yes. Spear? Yes. Braun? Yes. Letty? Yes. Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay we'll move on to variance for 1119 Madari Avenue South. Brian can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next variance is at one one one nine Madera Avenue South for a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant is Jay and Bonnie Gilbertson at 1119 Madera Avenue South. This is located in the R 1 B Single Family District.

Request is for an expansion of the single family dwelling to 22 feet nine inches from the rear yard setback. In the R1B, the required 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 sixty six fifteen hearing and deciding petitions for variances conditions due to special conditions and literal enforcement of 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 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 will alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. So, 1119 Madari Avenue South is shown here in the red polygon shaped property. It is an older home, farmstead, kinda hidden behind, tucked in behind the Camelot Square addition, and Pheasant's Nest additions to the east and west and north. It's an oddly shaped lot there.

It does have access to Madera Avenue. The property owner is requesting to put an addition on the east side of the property, which staff is considering the rear yard and the R1B that rear end 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 garage expansion on the right side, which would be the east side. That is what would need that 22 foot nine inches setback variance request. And with that staff would end its introduction and stand for any questions.

Thanks, Frank. Can we get a motion? I'll move to approve.

Second. Second, James.

Motion and seconded. We'll now open it up to public discussion.

Evening. I'm Bonnie Gilbertson, a co owner with my husband Jay, at property in question. It's 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 faced 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 allowing them the roofline so it's less obstructive and obtrusive to our neighbors. So they actually get to see sky now instead of a big barn roofline. So thank you for your consideration and I hope you will positively.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anybody else here that would like to speak for against this variance request? We' close public comment and open up to the commissioners.

Mr. Chair.

Yes, go ahead.

Just one comment. I'm just wondering why Jay didn't bring this in front of the commission when the House was built.

Is there anything else? Yeah, one comment, Mr. Chair. I think due to the unique shape significant setback of the house in the lot and the fact that the garage is moving away from the lot line, I think this seems really reasonable. I support it.

I tend to agree. This is probably one of the most unique shaped properties I've seen ever on the variance request. Else? Right we'll close. Ryan can you call the vote?

Spear? Yes. Braun? Yes. Levy? Yes. Solem?

Yes.

Aiken? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay moving on we're going to have a variance request at 806 6th Street for a driveway. Ryan can you introduce the topic?

Thank you Mr. Chair. The next variance is actually two variances requested at 806 6th Street pertaining to a driveway proposal. The applicant is Samuel Krueger located at 806 6th Street. This is located in a residence R2 2 family district.

Applicant is proposing to install a drive through driveway in the front of the home which would require variances for our front yard parking ordinance in section ninety four four thirty one two which prohibits parking in the front yard with the exception of an approved driveway. The second variance would be for a 30 foot driveway according to section 94, three forty three-four 24 feet would be the maximum width for the driveway leading to a side or rear yard. Just for some background on this, staff did find that there was a previous variance requested in 1992 for front yard parking. It was a slightly different quite a bit of a different request at that time from what's proposed today. But a 1992 variance was denied for front yard parking.

The staff recommendation on this is to approve with the following conditions: the driveway must be paved, and a shared access easement between 806 6th Street and 812 6th Street would be required, providing through to 6th Street. The Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny. I won't read this page here. We've done that twice here now. The property, 806 6th Street, shown in the yellow outlined box here, it has frontage on 6th Street, and an approach was installed onto 6th Street with the most recent reconstruction of 6th Street.

However, 806 6th Street does not have alley access or access to the adjacent street, 8th Avenue. Nor does it have a garage on the property. The proposed driveway expansion would essentially create a loop driveway 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, connecting with the driveway at 812 6th Street. 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 variance from 1992 that was denied. They were just looking to expand upon a driveway at that time a bit further to the east. It was not going to be 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 staff recommendations or not?

I'll move to approve 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 Krueger, applicant and co owner of this property with my brother Silas. I think Ryan did 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, don't think. But I just do want to emphasize that the intent is not for front yard parking.

It's just for that access for safe exit and entry onto 6th Street since we don't have the alley access. And one other addition I'd like to add is a letter of support from the neighboring house at 812 6th Street. 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 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. And 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 kinda right in the center, we wanna 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.

And then if we were to cut it off the other way, there would be less turning radius to get onto 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.

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.

We have questions or comments. Mr. Chair, do have a question I think for staff. Ryan, what is 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 requirements that 50% of the rear yard be maintained as living ground cover. The front yard must be landscaped with the exception of approved driveways, sidewalks to the front door. So this would create quite a bit of pavement in the front yard, but it wouldn't go beyond any required like, there's no 50% front yard hardscape. It's just 50% rear yard.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a question as well. What is the actual reasoning for the stipulation of having it entirely paved?

That's just a staff recommendation. It's quite a large driveway here, and staff recommend that it's paved. We do have a requirement for paving for multifamily uses that require five or more parking spaces. Required to pay single They families, 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. For parking in the side yard, is that just that is allowed by right? Correct. So this this variance does nothing with the parking and on on either side of the house.

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

I I have a question. What does this do for is there any concerns with drainage here? That's a lot of hard surface with neighboring homes and stuff. I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that.

Staff has no concerns on our end. Don't if the applicant has anything 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 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 a eighth inch per foot towards the street, so there is a slight slope. It pretty much matches the neighboring driveway, which is minimal, but it is sloping towards the street.

Okay. Thank you.

Before you go, 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. 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.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other comments questions? That Ryan can you call the roll.

Braun? Yes. Buddy? Yes. Solem? No. Bacon? Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Speer? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Motion passes.

We'll now reconvene as the Planning Commission. First item is a preliminary plat, th companies l l c has submitted a revised preliminary plat for Lots 1 Through 8 on Block 1 and Lots 1 Through 3 on Block 3 of Prairie Sunset edition. Ryan can you introduce us?

Thank you mister chair. The first planning commission item is the revised preliminary plat for Prairie Sunset edition. The applicant is TH Companies LLC. This is located at a property at 1115 West 20th Street South. This parcel is zoned residence R1A single family, which was rezoned to that R1A in the 2025.

Future land use in this area is medium density residential. Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat with the condition that a revised preliminary drainage plan be submitted to the city council review prior to the city council review of the revised preliminary plat. The planning commission's action will be to approve, amend or deny, and this is a recommendation that will be made to the city council. The property shown here in the blue outlined box is the 1115 West 20th Street South Prairie Sunset addition. The revised preliminary plot shows 11 single family lots shown along an extension of Brighton Road, of 20th Street South, along with a short cul de sac, temporarily named A Circle that will require an actual name before it is approved.

The lots would be all single family. Within the R1A only a single family is allowed for uses. Brighton Road does show extending all the way down to the kind of the southeast corner of the property. Staff is working on a potential temporary turnaround for Brighton Road until that is constructed with development to the south. And, I think the applicant has provided some concepts for a turnaround at that southern end.

The original preliminary plat shown here, this was approved just a couple of years ago. It was zoned R3 at the time with a large scale residential plan. This included a mix of two family and single family lots, I think up to 58 lots. So it is a significant reduction in density and street layouts here, but it does maintain 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.

Can we get a motion and a second?

Spear motion.

I will now

open this up to public comment anybody here to speak for against the project please come forward.

Good evening, commission. My name

is Russell Atkins. I'm with Christiansen Development Partners. We're the people actually contemplating developing the site. You've probably seen me here a few times and you've probably seen me here a few times about this particular site. So where we're at today is really down, size to the density of the project, to more of an estate lot.

We'll be changing the the marketing name to this to to more of an estate setup. There'll be a large lake on the western side and then on the southern area, it'll be maintained by a homeowners association. And yes, we we have submitted a contemplated, turnaround at the end of Brighton Road. We're proposing it to be a right of way versus a temporary easement only because you know as well as I do how long some of these temporary things go and depending upon how long it takes to develop the parcel to the south, that could be there for some time and we wanna 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, Ryan did a phenomenal job kind of talking about it.

So I I don't know what else to add unless there's questions that the commission may have of us.

If 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.

Mr. Chair, just one comment. I would like to thank the applicant. There was a lot of public feedback on the density and that the density of this was too high previously. And so I think this looks much more compatible 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 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. Actually already underway. It has it's unique we're going in the reverse here with less density and far more drainage capacity with the pond and stuff. So we're not anticipating any issues, but yes, we understand that we need to check that box and unfortunately, we didn't already have it done, but DGR is getting that completed as we speak.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Ryan, can you call the vote?

Levy? Yes. Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Jamieson?

Yes.

Speer? Yes. Braun? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Motion passes. This will now go to the May 26 city council.

Okay last item is discussion, on the city of Brookings is proposed amendments of section fifty one sixty four of the subdivision regulations frank can you introduce us.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Last month the planning commission voted to recommend denial on some changes to the subdivision regulations 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 commission. John Thompson with the City of Brookings Public Works. As Ryan stated, seven b is kind of a follow-up from our April meeting. 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 because of those unanswered questions.

Much of the discussion as I stated is on proposed extension of the road warranty period from one year to three year, 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 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, I'm gonna bring Charlie Richard up on that.

He's been the one that's been working on this the most. He was out in April, so he kinda got stuck with me. So after tonight, what we do plan on doing is bring this back after getting your feedback, and we'll bring this back and actually start it back over in June. So, Charlie, you wanna come up?

Alright. Good evening, commission. Just wanna walk you through our thought process with the these amendment changes this amendment to the subdivision regulations. So over the last several years, we've been dealing with a lot of settlement on these subdivision roadways. And this has cost the city thousands of dollars in repairs.

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. We've also had to repair curbing on in front of someone's driveway for a street that was paved in 2021. And in that street, there's actually several other issues with curb and gutter that we're gonna eventually have to

get

into repairing. Unfortunately, that's gonna require repairs to people's driveways as well because the dry the the settlement has occurred at the curbing at the driveways. For whatever reason, A lot of these water services that go into people's houses are through people's driveways. So it's unfortunate we're gonna have to be roped into repairs of driveways as well. And then there's an entire there's also a subdivision in town where there's we're gonna be it's gonna require the whole subdivision to be repaved as well as repair of hundreds of feet of curbing.

We're still negotiating with the developer at the time at this time. So but at this point, we're thinking it's going to be over $100,000 of repairs that are going to be paid for by the city. So here's a couple of some examples of some of the settlement we've been seeing. This is our in a for a roadway that was paved in 2021. As you can see, there's multiple issues on this road.

This is it's tough to sometimes photograph these, but 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. This is a street that was, like I said, paved in 2021, was inspected by the engineer of record, and he everyone involved was surprised by the settlement on this road these roads. Just this this this road was particularly bad, obviously. This is one of the that subdivision I was talking about that had had 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. This is going to like it's gonna be it's impactful. I suggest you don't have lunch or dinner before you ride these streets because it is quite severe.

Here's photo of the issue I was telling you about with settlement in the curb line. This was a pretty sizable puddle. This was quite a ways after it had rained and the puddle was still pretty pretty large. We went in there, we had to repair the gutter the curb and gutter at our own expense and repay portion of the street. That $7,000 total that I provided was only for the curb and gutter.

We paid our street department actually paid that portion of the puddle out of the cul de sac. So the actual cost was significantly more. So what we're proposing is a for new subdivision roads to sit for a winner after utility installation. After consulting with Banner Associates in geotech engineering and testing from Sioux Falls, that is the recommendation for a lot of these streets. The soils have a chance to go through a free stall, And with clay, it's good to have them use the actual weight of the soil to actually consolidate the issues there.

We're also proposing a change in the increase to warranty for developers the subdivision roadways from one to three years. This will match what BMU has for their projects. The warranty bond is for 10% of the construction costs. So we went ahead, I know there were some questions about how much this would cost developers. So we went ahead and we spoke with a bonding company to find out how much a $100,000 bond would cost.

Just to put in perspective, the most recent subdivision, Prairie Hills with Kestrel and Wood Duck Circle, that had a bond of about $50,000. So a $100,000 is will pretty much cover basically most subdivisions. So a one year warranty cost the developer $1,500 for a $100,000 bond. To increase it to a three year warranty bond, it would have cost an additional $750 for a total of $2,250. Public works has discussed the proposed amendment with developers.

One of the issues they they were concerned about was how how thorough of a walk through 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 and concrete. Years two and three would be warrantied against settlement and for the utilities.

Like I said, have consulted with Geotech Engineering and Banner Associates over the last two years. So this is what they are recommending actually for a warranty. We are also going to post revised standards and specifications that will increase inspection and testing requirements for all subdivisions. So that's our presentation. I hope enough for comments.

Oh yes, and just to touch on, we did contact Sioux Falls. They have a two year requirement for warranty on all water main, sewer main, storm drain, and sump pump collection. They do have a one year warranty on all roadway and sidewalks.

I just want to check here. 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 up the commission

I've got a couple of questions, comments. Thanks guys, appreciate the rundown. Over my twenty plus years of experience, I kind of talked with John about it last time. And I don't know how much has been thought about 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, you know, your base course is holding your surface up.

And you talked about, Charlie, updating your standards. Is there any thought about changing your street section, adding additional base course, fabric, geo grid, something that would also help with the entire street?

Yes. Well, we're going to require fabric on all streets from here on out. We are using our the recommendations. So part of our requirements is going to be geotechnical on every street from here on out. So and that will include any street that we do as well as far as reconstruction. And we have requirements for how many geotechnical borings will be required and then a geotechnical report to follow. So we're going to have a minimum base requirement and asphalt requirement and then use the geotechnical if they recommend further enhancement of the broach cross section.

Perfect. Thanks guys.

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

Mr. Chair? Yes, question. Have you talked with any contractors or developers about what's proposed here at all? Have they come and given you any feedback negative or positive? Could you talk a little bit about that?

With the developers, we've heard they were okay with the requirement to go from one to three years. The developers were more concerned about cost and we show that it's not significant. And then they were more concerned about how closely their punch list would be in years two and three. There's a lot of wear and tear on these streets that get that come from plowing, from 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 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 There

wasn't much concern about that. 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. So they weren't as concerned with that from my conversations with them.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, reading the back page in red, item two b, construction street utilities and storm sewer in the street, the winter prior to paving of the street. I understand you wanna 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 in the way I read it is pretty restrictive.

What subsection are you on on that one?

Oh, I'm I'm on 2 B Bravo.

It

says, they'll construct street utilities and storm sewer in the street the winter prior to paving of the street.

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

Do

you have that on the screen, Ryan?

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

Yeah.

That sounds that sounds correct, Mike.

Because the way I originally read that is, gee, we can't put that utilities and storm sewer in until winter?

Yeah. I think we can reword that.

Yeah.

Yeah. We can definitely reword that now.

Winter.

Want it to sit the winter prior to the Correct,

yes. So we'll reword it, yes, that's a good point.

Yes. And that's the only catch I had.

Can you explain because I don't know the warranty bonds how does that work in terms of if a developer is it kind of like insurance if a developer uses it so many times they're going to end up losing that or it's going to end up costing more?

Over the bond? With bonding, it is basically an insurance policy basically from a bonding company. If they are a contractor in good standing, they usually have a favorable rate. 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 that's kind of 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.

It's it it really has to go south if someone goes after someone's bond. So but that's the way we hold them accountable.

Mr. Chair, I got a follow-up question while we're talking about bonding. When you talked with some of the developers and contractors, were any of them concerned about holding bonds open for three years and how that might affect their bonding limit?

I had not heard of any contractor expressing concern on that. I did hear some concern from a developer who wasn't in the contracting business that would have a harder time getting a bond. Usually someone who's a contractor has is typically they have provided the proper paperwork to a bonding company to make sure that because they typically provide bonds for construction projects. Developers don't typically have to provide that. But there are other ways of providing that warranty surety to us and that includes maybe a letter of credit or maybe even a check.

And we were where we would hold a check or the cash in an account that would accrue interest until the 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. Gotcha.

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

Okay. And then I just have one more follow-up on then I'll stop talking, asking questions about bonding. So the project starts or at the project start, you would require the developer to have whatever surety is 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?

We don't require the surety until the certificate of completion. So I'll I'll walk you through the process here. If those of that are not familiar with it is 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 put the utilities in year, in say in the fall, sits over the winter, they go ahead build it, construct the road, curbing, ramps, drainage. 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 road was built according to plans into the city specifications. We go ahead and review it, we look for a warranty, we look for lien waivers, we look for a NASBIL of several things that we require. And then we go ahead review that.

If it looks like it's everything's up to par, we go ahead, we a transfer of ownership for the street to the city. And at that point, we look for a warranty bond, a 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.

For contractors though. Correct.

Got you. 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 going to

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 deficiencies. 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 places 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 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 don't willy nilly pull people. We 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 is your guys' what's the expected lifetime of the street?

We expect at least twenty years.

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

Correct. With curbing and gutter, yes.

Okay. So there's two different things here, right? One is maybe we asked this last time, guess, but 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

BMU right now has a three year warranty on their projects themselves. They don't have a three year warranty on their subdivision. The utilities they take from subdivisions. They only have a one year warranty. They would they would under these changes, their utilities that they accept would be under that three year warranty as well.

So their their warranty would change to match this? Correct.

So that warranty, I just want to make sure I'm gathering this right. That warranty, if a developer is building a building houses that three year warranty is not included in those types of it's just BMU projects that they're putting.

What I you're talking about contractor that builds a house? They don't have a warranty with the city that

they What about the streets leading up? That's more I I know the I understand the housing stuff is on the but like the street.

So yeah, so say let's take Prairie Hills. They they just they've paved the road last year. They're under a warrant one year warranty that started back in December. And then you have people building on that road building out homes. But there's only a one year warranty at this point on that roadway.

That's the cities though right? Branch What's BMUs?

Yes, so you got it. 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.

Okay.

20th Street South was BMU's project close because to three years we just did a walk through 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 because everything's going to fall underneath the cities for a subdivision. So they could have the three year warranty across the board.

So do I understand correctly, BMU supports these changes?

They do. Yes.

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

Yes, it's going to have to be almost catastrophic.

I guess I'll just make a comment. I'm trying to weigh the weigh 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, was 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 going to be some of that as well. But I guess I'm leaning more towards the alternative meat personally. I'd like to hear what everybody else is thinking. But I just with weighing, 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 Nick on that staff is looking at that too. That's what we're recommending to when we come back in June is to go with after the discussion, Charlie had discussions with developers too. And honestly, that's really what we're after. We're after that settlement. So what we'll 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 is gone, Charlie is gone, now they're going to ding us for every little curb cut, anything out there. That's not the intent.

Yes, 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 I think does a lot to help minimize sort of the unintended consequences that I think could have happened prior. So I think good.

No, I'd pair it same thing. Mr. Jameson said it. You guys did a great job. I think coming back with the changes are well in line of of what city should expect. So, nice work.

I hate to throw a wrench in all the gears but we'92re 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 stand and and I don't know. Does the plumber do that? You know?

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

I'm glad you brought that

up

because this past this past winter we had a revision to the excavation permit. Now we require a right away permit that holds contractors more accountable. So we require a bond from them, we require insurance and then they're required to ensure that the patch and the road is maintained or it doesn't settle over a course of three years. So that matches the warranty that we're looking for right here.

Alright. Good. Thank you.

And and prior to that work, because that's been our biggest concern too. We'd go away for a weekend, come back and there be new holes cut out and it's like okay who did that. There's now teeth in the permit so that if they do not pull a permit they will be fined. And 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. But we do know with the database on excavation permits who did it and what date they did it. So we can go back after them.

We talked about this last time. Who is responsible for hiring the is that the compaction testing? Is that something the city will be doing? Is that something the city is requiring the contractor to have? Are we

The the city is requiring the the developer who hires the contractor to to to do. To take care of that. Yeah. So we they hire the the engineer record who coordinates those compaction tests and make sure that those are satisfactory and meet our standards.

I just wanna make sure. 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. Right, Scott?

Another quick question. So they're going to hire that geotech company to come out and do compaction testing. Is that going to be or the specs going to be listed in your new revised standards as far as what that contractor has to meet as far as 90% or?

Our new standards will have that specified. So there's been a lot of discussion about frequency and what percentage and of compaction they have to attain. We've come to an agreement after consulting with Banner and with Geotech as to what that would look like. And before the project's supposed to start according to new standards, the engineer record's supposed to provide us with a 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 submit the certificate of completion, they provide us with those testing results. Okay.

Cool.

Mr. Chair? Yes. One more quick question. Just thinking of more questions longer I listen to this. For just street projects in general, things that are outside of subdivisions, so say 22nd Street or 22nd Avenue replacement in sections. 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?

No, we'll the contractors that we hire from here on out will meet those standards. So they 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. We'll match whatever is required here.

Okay. And then my follow-up to that is how does the city feel about letting a street like that sit without pavement over the course

of That that would not be possible due to the the residents that live up you know in that vicinity. That would be unfair. I would make snow removal tough, everything tough. It's unfortunately, we can't do that for streets that are established. For streets that are new in a new area where there's no residents living, it's a lot easier to attain.

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

Commissioner Schmeichel, I'd like to make a comment is I know where you're going with Eric, 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. We would model the warranty the same as we do here, but it it's not the same. The subdivision regulations want to come into play because it's already been a street accepted by the city.

And city projects comes with its own contractors agreement.

Yep, it was a I heard a lot after our last meeting was how does that play? Thank you for the clarification.

Okay. Anything else?

One additional comment. I think you're comfortable with what they're proposing with the language. As part of that amendment that was proposed in April, There was other some changes that were more related to blocks, intersections, and connectivity. Was there any questions or concerns with those proposed changes? Because essentially what happened is old the whole entire amendment that was proposed was, recommended for denial.

We felt that most of the discussion centered around the warranty in the street acceptance, And we shouldn't assume anything, but I think we kinda assumed the staff is that was the primary reason why the entire amendment was defeated. Is there anything that you wanted us to change in regards to some of that 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 at that meeting too. We can make amendments. But I'm I think we wanna make sure you're comfortable with the warranty aspect of it because I think those other changes are probably a little bit easier to to make kinda on the fly during the meeting and and the language correctly. If it's changing a number, if we wanna go from a thousand feet to 500 or if you wanna change the length of a cul de sac or something, I think those are a little bit easier to do where when you start looking at warranty, a little change here can change 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 with a block length like that? Do they ever have any I'm thinking about a fire truck.

I mean, when you if you look at it from a purity perspective, the block, the grid system works really, really well. It's pick a magic number, if it's three fifty, 400, whatever it is, I kind of look at the core community of Brookings from the railroad tracks north. That's the grid system. For emergency access, you typically get your fire hydrants. They space them appropriately and new, but it gives you options.

It also allows you to come from different routes to access the same property if you needed to respond to provide emergency services. It also allows detouring and adjusting on the fly but 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. Just it was more just an emergency if they had issues with it.

Question. To market. I

think

saying what are you doing, then I guess I'm much more comfortable with it. Appreciate the clarification on some of this stuff.

I had made a comment about the block lengths and I guess, yeah, as long as, I think 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 assist people in in a wheelchair or something like that, that them trying to navigate the longer blank, blocks. That, but I would say, you know, Brookings has a fantastic trail system. Just, you know, fabulous, honestly, and applaud all that work that's that's been done and continues to be done on those that there are those that, you know, you can navigate through town that I think helps some of that connectivity with you know pedestrian or biking traffic.

Any other comments questions. Mike you have anything else? Well, we can adjourn. Can you get a motion motion for adjournment? Second.

Second Aiken.

All in favor? Aye. Alright.

The next meeting will be June 2.