Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

all right good evening call this meeting to order i'd like to welcome those intent 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 plots 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 a chance to be heard, the commission shall review the testimony and information presented, make findings of facts, and for the recommendation of the city council. Special note tonight, our note taker is calling in, so we'll need to speak. Anyone from the public, please make sure you're speaking into the mic and identify yourself when you come up. With that, Ryan, can you call the roll?

Roll is noted with Solemn and Luddy absent tonight.

Thank you. We'll move on to item two. approval of the agenda, can I have a motion and a second?

So moved, Schmeichel.

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, Schmeichel. All in favor signify by saying aye. all opposed same sign thank you 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 and 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 I'll open the open forum at this time Seeing none close open forum move on to item 5 disclosure conflicts of interest relationships to the applicant or ex parte communication

Mr. Chair, I'd like to disclose a relationship to the applicant for items 7a South Dakota State Foundation they are A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE UNIVERSITY, SOUTH KOTA STATE UNIVERSITY THAT IS MY EMPLOYER. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FROM THE PROJECT. I DON'T FEEL THAT I'M INCAPABLE OF MAKING IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THIS PROJECT. AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT UNTIL IT APPEARED ON OUR AGENDA. SO I HAVE NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AYKIN. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO Item six convening as the Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment is a seven member board which has a 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 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 and Virginia, 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, Richard Hohenthener, I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Mark and Virginia Halverson. This request is for lots 175 and 176, Onaka Village Indian Hills addition, also known as 315 and 309 Thunder Lane. The request is to build a shared detached garage over the side lot line per section 94-127F. 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 request at 309 and 315 Thunder Lane. The applicants are the property owners of the two properties, Richard Hohenthener and Mark and Virginia Halverson. 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 a detached structure on both 309 and 315 Thunder Lane. So this is technically two variances, one on each property. We're going to treat it as one project, one motion, one action, but it would be granting two separate variances to the two properties. Section 94-127F, that does state that the side yard setback required would be seven feet. There is an exception for accessory structures to have that reduced to five feet. However, due to the location of this proposed structure, they would need to meet the seven foot setback. 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 Thunderland are shown here in the Onaka Village in the yellow outlined boxes. This is a proposed site plan for the property not to scale essentially the property would be located adjacent to 309 Thunder Lane utilizing the existing driveway and would cross the property over to 315 Thunder Lane Where there would be an extension of that property's driveway an extension of the pad to match up to that backside Where the garage would be placed There are some existing structures, accessory structures on both properties. There is a proposal to remove one of the structures on 309 Thunder Lane, and with that being done, both properties would have sufficient square footage to allow the detached structure without a second variance for the size. This is just a variance for the location with the zero foot setbacks. So with that, staff would end its report and stand for any questions.

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

Motion to approve. Aiken?

Second, Chair.

Thank you. And then at this time, we will open to public comment. The applicant or applicants would like to address us. That would be great. If you don't have anything to add, that's all right. You're the applicant? Yes. Okay. There are two sets of applicants. Are you representing both of them? Yes. Okay, great. Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this motion at this time? Anyone wish to speak in opposition? All right, thank you. We'll close public comment and 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 line. 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 built along the property line, similar to like a single-family attached structure where there's two single families attached along a property line. It would be a similar setup with that, but it's a garage built on the property line. 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 their property in the future they would you know a future landowner to have half the right to half of that garage on their property line in the future with through any sales okay thank you

Any other questions? Mr.

Chair, I have a question, I believe, for staff. So in cases like this where two different properties are going to own essentially one building, is there like a maintenance agreement or anything that's...

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 have an agreement recorded with on the property if they decided to do so that would be a consideration for them to to look into okay we would not require it for the variance sure thank you

Mr. Chair. Yes. Just to clarify, 309 Thunder Lane has three, I believe, accessory buildings there. Two of those were being removed, correct? Ryan, was that?

I believe just one will be removed. So they'll still have two structures. The garage would be a 32 by 24, I believe. Yes, so 768 square foot, each side would have 384 square feet, and then 309 does have two additional structures. With all of that, they would still have, they'd be underneath the maximum square footage allowed, though, for accessory structures.

But don't we typically have a thing in 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 total square footage.

Okay, I thought it was a number, too. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, we'll close comment and call the vote, please. Mr. Michael? Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Aiken? Yes. Limmer? Yes. The motion passes.

Thank you. We will now reconvene as the Planning Commission. And move on to item 7A, conditional use permit for off-street parking. 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 in block seven of the north 65 feet of lot 16, also described as lot 16 in block seven of Morehouse addition, to the city of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. Note, this does not include the north 10 feet of the vacated alley adjacent to lot 16. 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. It is located on two residential R2 lots just to the west of the Alumni and SDFC Foundation building. The proposal is to use these two lots as a parking lot with a storage facility, which would be 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 that actually would be a recommendation made to the city council. So section 94-289 of our city ordinance allows for off-street parking off-site with the conditions 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 shown here in the blue boundary. This is 816 and 820 Ninth Avenue, just west of the SDSU Foundation across the alleyway. So it is not technically adjacent. It's not connected to the SDUC Foundation lot. It's considered off-site, being that it is split by the alleyway. However, it is within the 400 feet, certainly, to meet the requirements of off-site, off-street parking. The proposal here shows for 32 parking stalls along the alleyway with a detached five-stall accessory structure garage on the west side of the lot fronting 9th Avenue. site plan does show sufficient landscaping and screening of the parking lot to the north and south from adjacent residential properties the applicant has submitted some renderings of the proposal so this would be looking at the proposed accessory structure garage it was designed early to look and feel fit within the historic district. These plans have been reviewed by the South Dakota Historic Preservation Office and the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. Both have approved of these in terms of the new construction and the use within the historic district. And another picture of the front side of that. garage and then one of the back so this would be looking at the parking lot from the east from the STC Foundation side across the alleyway. And that ends staff's report and we would stand for any questions.

Thank you Ryan. At this time I'll entertain a motion for approval and second.

Motion to approve. Heinrich? Second. Braun?

Thank you. We'll open this up to public comment. The applicant present.

good evening my name is chad kucker i'm with confluence we're the design consultant for the foundation and alumni association i think the staff report did a great job of covering the project we've mentioned gone through the state and the brookings historic preservation commission talked with neighbors immediately to the north and south about the project 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 make the building feel like it's part of the neighborhood and hide the parking from the neighborhood and from 9th Avenue. So with that, I guess I'd entertain any questions that you might have.

So yeah, thank you. I think 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 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. Could the city give some explanation on their recommendation for approval on this?

Essentially, we look at the standards for approval. Standards must be located within a 400-foot radius of the use it is intended to serve. This would meet that requirement. There is in here a requirement for a written agreement. That would be more so for if this was like a shared parking agreement where... A separate use was using a piece of land for parking. In this case, the SDC Foundation owns both properties, and it's kind of a single-use parking area. We could specify that on the ordinance to state that this is for SDSU. This parking would be only for SDSU Foundation parking. They have stated that there would be signage stating such. And this project, it's kind of been... Been in the planning for quite a while. I've gone through historic preservation a number of times for the removal of one home and the moving of another home down to Medary Avenue. So I've had quite a few conversations with historic preservation. 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 lots within a historic district. So the recommendation for approval comes from kind of all those ideas.

So for future use, and just thinking on other things that come up, and we've had parking being put into residential areas, would a business, like a B2 business, be getting the same recommendation for approval? on something like this?

We've recommended approval for a similar street off-site parking in the past. I'm thinking of the Campanile Flats, which was actually a PDD, so it wasn't a B2 like you're asking specifically, but it was a PDD where we had a mixed-use development where they did get off-street, off-site parking across the street. I think the... Was it the... Lofts Park Hill. Potentially, I think they also had a cross-shared parking agreement. So we have recommended approval in other cases. I also think downtown, I think the bank might also have a similar cross-street parking agreement. So it has happened in the past. We would obviously treat each one with its own merit. They would have to meet these ordinances, though, and if they met the ordinances, they could certainly come with a recommendation of approval in future years. Requests.

Thank you.

Ryan, I have a second question. Can you elaborate on what both the state and the local historic preservation recommended or had discussion about with this?

Sure. The historic, they reviewed know they reviewed the the site plan for um the proposed use so a conditional use is required to go through historic review so they did submit a what's called an 11.1 historic review and a full case report which kind of documented the previous uses the proposed uses the rationale for You know the different alternatives that they considered on the site And they proposed this site plan along with the proposed renderings of the building and historic approved both the use and the site plan based off of the fact that the look of the accessory structure would fit within the historic district in terms of a look and the massing the size the setbacks and and that it does screen the parking from the street side, so it kind of fits within the historic district not having parking at the front of the structure visible from the historic district. And 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 Historic Preservation Commission was pleased with this.

proposed any other questions or comments I guess I I want to make sure I'm saying this out loud so as a resident in this specific neighborhood I have deep appreciation for what I you're trying to do to blend in with the neighborhood. 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 appreciate all of that work that you're doing. Where I have pause 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 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 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 Spear. 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 lots. So 816 Ninth Avenue, that home has been demolished. That was approved for demolition. a handful of years ago, I'm thinking maybe three years ago, that did go through the Historic Preservation Commission reviews and was approved for demolition. 820 Ninth Avenue, that one, the applicant did go through quite a bit of negotiations with the BHPC on preserving 820 Ninth Avenue initially. The BHPC approved that home to be moved within the University Residential Historic District. They couldn't find a location in the historic district, so then they were given approval to move it within the city of Brookings. And I believe there are plans now to have that home moved down to Medary Avenue, where there were two homes that burnt down last year or earlier this year. 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 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 being in the historic preservation, 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 my question. Thank you. Sure.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Mr.

Chair, I do have a quick question, I think. it's for staff I see that the conditional permit is for two Lots 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 replant as one lot prior to are they okay to build one structure over two Lots yes there be a requirement that this is plotted into one and I believe maybe the applicant could speak to that but I believe the applicant plans to replant into one lot So this is just the first step in the process.

Correct.

Thank you.

Anything else? Sorry, Mr. Chair. The 810 9th Avenue is right to the bottom of this in that picture. Is that owned by the university as well?

that is not owned by the university that is owned by a private property owner as a rental okay and that bottom

piece of parking lot. That is the foundation's parking as well, right?

Correct. This is SDC Foundation parking. That was done, I don't know, maybe like 10 years ago. 810 and 903 8th Street. These are owned by a single private property owner. This is, I think, the office for the rental business, and this is an apartment owned and operated by that rental business. I think 9 12 9th Street to the north is owned by the university This property here on the corner 902 9th Street is not that is privately owned by it's a single-family residence privately owned You have your question answered Anything else here

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

Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun?

Yes.

Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer? Yes. The motion passes. 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, which will likely take place in August.

Thank you. Moving on to item 7B, a 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 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, and 6A 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 to 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 zoned Business B4 Highway District. The applicant is proposing to rezone this to a Business B2 District, which is kind of our general business district. 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, the property, historically known as the Sunshine Inn, shown here at the corner of Sixth Street and First Avenue, it's all that property with the exception of the southwest corner, which is the south half of lot seven, That is under separate ownership, but the applicant owns the remainder of that half block, 108 6th Street. Here is the current zoning map. So as mentioned, it's currently zoned B4, and the request is to rezone it to B2. 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 go towards Main Avenue and pretty much the remainder of 6th Street where there is commercial zoning. It's mostly B2. So it would be consistent with 6th Street zoning. The parcel to the southwest would remain B4. Future land use map, as mentioned, 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 for approval on the second. So moved, Michael.

Second, Heinrich.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open to Public comment the applicant would like to address us Hi, I'm Katie Murray owner of that property

And we did have a meeting with DRT to discuss plans. And 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 put that back together more in place. That would go into the the new zoning versus the old zoning that building has three of our units and 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 Yeah, thank you we'll call you back up if we have more questions Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this motion?

I Anyone present wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll close public comment, open it up to board questions and comments.

Mr. Chair, just a comment. In my opinion, I think at one point before Highway District, business zoning was probably appropriate for this site, and I think now, with how Brookings has developed, B2 is much more appropriate, and I support the request.

Thank you. Anything else? Seeing none, we'll close board comment. Ryan, can you call the vote?

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun?

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 call a public hearing sometime in August.

Thank you, Ryan. Move on to item 7C, annexation. The Brookings Congregation of Jehovah's Witness has submitted a petition for annexation of the following described real estate situated in Brookings County, South Dakota, to wit, Outlot F and Outlot G in the southwest corridor of the Southwest Corridor 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 property on Highway 14. Currently, the property is zoned agriculture. The future land use is urban medium intensity. The 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. Property shown here, 3521 US Highway 14. It's actually two parcels with access frontage on Highway 14. There's a proposed road that would be going in on the east side of the property. That would be part of a larger development for the Legacy Edition. The Planning Commission has seen some of those plans previously for annexation and preliminary plotting. And with that street coming into the east, I think the church is looking to possibly connect into utilities along that street. 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. The property is adjacent to the current city limits along the, well, all three sides, the west, north, and east at this point. Current zoning map here shows us as joint jurisdiction agriculture. That zoning would be changed to agriculture when it does come into the city, and there would need to be a future rezone at some point as that lot would not have sufficient size for the agricultural zoning, but would come in initially to the city as city agriculture for zoning. Future land use map here shows us as urban medium. and that does end staff support, and I would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan. We'll entertain a motion for approval in a second.

Motion to approve Speer.

Second, Schmeichel.

Thank you. At this time, we'll 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 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 religious institutions in town zoned? Like...

No, I think a majority are zoned in a residential district. So let me pull up Beacon here. So I'm looking at First Lutheran. They are zoned R2. The churches near downtown, so the Methodist and the Presbyterian, those are zoned R2. the old Catholic Church are to... So I guess the reason I'm asking... Mostly residential zoning. We do have a civic zoning in place now, which churches could use. So it would be up to them. They could use that. If it were a city-owned or municipally-owned, it would go to a civic. They could choose the civic, or they could choose another if it's one that allows the church...

But so we have a city agricultural zoning. Correct. That can be used for churches. Like they could choose that if they wanted to.

If they have 100 acres, I think is what the minimum area is. Oh, okay. All right. Let's see. What's their minimum for agriculture?

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

35 acres is the minimum for an agriculture. But what happens when you 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 allow us 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 an agricultural district.

Correct. It'd be non-standard, I believe, or non-conforming, and then it'd be restricted on additions, rebuilds. That could be around 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.

Schmeichel? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you, Ryan. Entertain a motion and a second for adjournment. One second. One second. Just one second. Just kidding.

We sent out, I think Ryan sent out some communication about the Western Planners. It's August 26th, 27th, and 28th in Sioux Falls. Are any of you 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. Staff is planning to attend we're gonna commute daily It's just down to Sioux Falls The agenda has I think some of the agenda has come out So if you're interested we could certainly pass it along but we'd like to know Roughly because 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.

I am interested, but I'm out of town those days. That is my case as well.

I'm interested and in town.

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

Interested, but not yet sure I could attend on those dates.

Okay.

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.

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

We would plan to have vehicles available for carpooling if you're interested in carpooling. City 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.

It is downtown. There are some mobile tours. I think we'll make sure we send the link out so you can look at the agenda if there's something that sparks your interest.

Yeah.

Anything else? Nope. Can we adjourn? Other than we'll see you back at 8? Oh, yeah. Thanks. We've got a joint Board of Adjustment meeting tonight at 8.

All right. In that case, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn in a second, please.

Motion, Michael.

Second. All in favor? Aye.