Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Couple more members to arrive.

We're gonna start the meeting in one minute. All right. Good evening. I am not Scott Leddy, but I am prepared to lead this meeting tonight. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

First, I'd like to start by welcoming a new member to the committee, Emily Braun. Welcome. No name tag yet, but we won't forget you. There are also two members on the phone tonight, I believe, Billy Joe Heinrichs and, Nick Schmeichel. Is that right? Okay. Ryan, can you call Roll?

Roll is noted with yes Schmeichel and Heinrich joining via phone. And we have one member absent Scott Luddy.

Thank

you. Next we'92ll move to approval of the agenda can I get a motion?

So move solemn second akin

Approval of the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the April?

So move.

Second. All

in favor? Aye. Aye. Yes. Now we will convene as the board of adjustment. The board of adjustment is a seven member board which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions. The concurring vote of two thirds of the full membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board. A seven member board requires five six member requires five votes, five member would be five votes. In accordance with Robert 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 in 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 owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. First item on the agenda for a Wilson variance. Notice is hereby given that Sarah Wilson has made a request for a variance on Lot 5 Bridal Estates Edition, also known as 3229 Maple Drive. The request is for 1,200 square foot detached accessory building.

The total square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot used for residential purposes is 1,000 square feet of all floors combined. Notices further given that said request will be acted upon by the board of adjustment at 05:30 Tuesday 05/06/2025 at the Chamber Room. Any person. Interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan.

Introduce the topic. Thank you mister chair. The first item on the agenda tonight is a variance for accessory building proposed at 3229 Maple Drive. The applicant is Sarah Wilson, the property owner of 3229 Maple Drive. That property is located in the joint jurisdiction area in an R1B single family district.

The request is for a 1,200 square foot accessory building when the maximum allowed to be 1,000 square feet according to section ninety four three sixty five a six. Staff recommendation for the variances to approve and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve or deny. For variances, there are as a hardship test to review the validity of a variance. Due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and the variance shall not violate the spirit of

the ordinance and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of

a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of the chapter. 3229 Maple Drive is shown here in the yellow outlined Box it had it's a dual frontage lot. The property primary primarily fronts Maple Drive to the west, and it has a secondary frontage to the east along Heather Lane. The applicant is proposing to build a detached garage on the rear of the property.

It would a 30 as mentioned, a 1,200 square foot garage, 30 by 40 on the southeast corner. It would have a driveway leading to that secondary frontage along Heather Lane. Included in the application was a site plan and some elevations of the garage itself. And staff will end the report and stand for any questions.

Is the applicant here and like to transfer the motion? Sorry. Go ahead. I just need to ask for a motion. Thanks, Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the variance? So move. Second?

Second.

Will now open up the public hearing. Is the applicant here and would like to speak?

I have nothing else to add, just that it's a normal for our neighborhood. There's several in the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone

that

here that would like to speak in opposition to the variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Any thoughts?

Mr. Chair, this is Billy Joe.

Go ahead.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

So I have a question for staff. And so my question is then if this ordinance was updated in 2022, and we are identifying there are multiple properties that have something outside of this updated ordinance is that before or after this ordinance was taken place?

Thank you for background other question was there are some existing similar buildings in the area that are larger than what's currently allowed by ordinance And, Commissioner Heinrich referenced a change to our ordinance in 2022. So, this area is in the joint jurisdiction area. As you can see on this map here, the green line is the city limits for the city of Brookings. In the joint jurisdiction area, anything zoned non ag, the city does have zoning authority over. And in 2022, working jointly with the county, the joint jurisdiction zoning ordinance was updated to basically mimic the city's ordinances for residential, commercial, industrial zoning districts and all of the supplemental ordinances including accessory structures.

Previously before 2022 there was a larger allowance for accessory structures in this area. Beginning in 2022 it was changed to match the 1,000 square foot allowed within the city limits. And those two structures that are nearby would have done would have been previous to the 2022 ordinance.

Thanks, Ryan.

What was the previous square footage allowance?

In the joint area, I'm not certain exactly what the maximum was, but they could have gone this size and larger previously.

Seeing no further discussion, we'll call the vote, Ryan. We will close public hearing first thank you. I will call for the vote.

Schmegel? Jamison? Yes. Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Bacon? Yes.

Ron? Yes. Motion passes.

Yep, exactly. Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda for B is the Anderson variance. Notice this hereby given that Shane Anderson has made a request for a variance on Lot 14 in Block 1 Of Legueros 2nd edition also known as 214 16th Avenue South. The request is to replace a 43 foot wide driveway. The maximum allowable width for a driveway is 36 feet. This is further given that the request will be acted on by the board of adjustment at 05:30 Tuesday 05/06/2025 in the Chamber Room. Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter.

The second variance on the agenda tonight is a variance requested for a driveway at 124214 16th Avenue South. The applicant is Shane Anderson, the owner of the property. This property is located in the residence R 1 C single family district. Request is for the replacement of an existing 43 foot wide driveway. Of the current ordinance section ninety four three forty three b four b allows for a maximum of 36 feet.

The staff recommendation for this variance is to approve the port of adjustments action would be to approve or deny. The same hardship criteria applies for this variance. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and the variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance, and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

Variants requested as the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. This property is located at the corner of Legueros Drive and 16th Avenue South. As you can see in this picture, there's an existing driveway on the northeast corner of the property accessing 16th Avenue South. That driveway was installed through an approved permit from 1988. This is the permit from 1988 showing the proposed driveway with a concrete pad on the side of the garage to the north.

That was permitted and installed at 43 feet in width. The applicant would like to take essentially rip out that driveway and replace it with some additional grading improvements for drainage purposes. And doing so, removing that driveway would require the driveway to be built back to current standards, which would not allow the 43 feet. It would only allow 36 maximum. The proposed replacement drawing is shown here, showing matching essentially the same footprint as the existing driveway. As mentioned, staff does recommend approval of this variance request and we'll stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the variance? So moved. Second, Solo. Thank you. All in favor?

Aye. Sorry.

We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here would like to address the board?

Well thanks again for getting me in here. Appreciate that. But yeah basically what Ryan said we're just ripping up what's exist is already there. Doing a little bit of drainage, a little bit of system of drainage and replacing it exactly the way it is. We're extending the approach I think by six inches or something like that. But for the most part, it's exactly the same.

Thanks. We'll let you know if there are questions to follow. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in regards to the variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public and open for board discussion. Thoughts? Anyone?

Mr. Chair, I have a question of the applicant. You said nothing is going to change, maybe six inches or so. Is that six inch change on the curb cut or are you looking to make a large wider curb cut?

It'll be on the curb cut. Right. Yeah. So right now there's a there's a flat approach on one side of the driveway and on the other side there's a curb so we want to flatten that out.

Okay.

And then extend it about six inches further into the boulevard.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I have one question for the applicant as well. It looks like the only spot that you would be seeking the variance for is just that kind of connection piece in between the parking pad and in the driveway proper and down to the street and the approach would all be okay by the ordinance is that correct am I?

That is correct. Thank you.

Seeing no other discussion, we will call the vote. Brian?

Jameson? Yes. Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Braun? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now reconvene as the planning commission.

This has already been read? Nope. No. Maybe not. Alright.

The city planning commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plots, conditional use permits zoning ordinance ordinance amendments and other matters the commission makes the recommendation based on 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 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 facts, and forward their recommendation to the city commission. First item on the agenda five a is the annexation of the West half of the Northwest Quarter excluding platted areas in Section 20 Township 110 Range 49 Brookings County South Dakota. Notice is hereby given that N. E. Hansen LLC has submitted a petition for annexation of the following described real estate situated in Brookings County South Dakota to it the West Half Northwest Quarter excluding platted areas in Section 20 Township 110 North Range 49 West Brookings County South Dakota excluding land North Of Us Highway 14 bypass notices further given that said request will be acted on by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday, May 6 in the Chamber Rooms.

Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation made to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Is there a motion on the annexation?

I just make a quick introduction on this first before I motion. Thank you. This may look familiar. This is annexation for 1501 U. S. Highway 14 Bypass. The applicant is Annie Hansen LLC. That's for roughly 55 acres of land just to the east of 34th Avenue. This item actually came to the Planning Commission in March and did proceed on to the Planning Commission. It was identified that there were there was an error in the legal description on the resolution as well as within a staff memo.

Because it's an annexation, we want make sure that the legal description was correct on all the paperwork, and therefore, it was rejected and had to come back a second time with a new resolution. So this is a similar item to what we saw previously. As I mentioned, this is a recommendation to the city council regarding annexations. South Dakota Codified Law nine-four discusses the annexation process. The governing body of a municipality upon receipt of a written petition describing the boundaries of any territory contiguous to that municipality sought to be annexed to that municipality may, by resolution, include such territory or any plat thereof within such municipality if the petition is signed by not less than three fourths of the registered voters and by the owners of not less than three fourths of the value of the territory sought to be annexed to the municipality.

In this case, the property sought to be annexed is the red area outlined. That's the area you described, the West Half, excluding platter territories and excluding the area North Of U. S. 14 Bypass. It's the same area that was previously requested back in March.

Nothing has changed, just needed to correct the error in the legal description on our resolution. Here is a map showing the legal description to be annexed. And here is a map of the city's annexation priority areas as outlined in the comprehensive plan. This does show the area included in a Phase I annexation area. Everything south of the bypass here would be in the Phase kind of yellow shaded area.

Phase one indicates that it is the most imminently ready for annexation due to potential land uses and proximity to services and utilities. As previously, in March, staff does recommend approval of the annexation and would stand for any questions.

Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Is there a motion, for the petition for annexation?

Mister chair, I move to approve Solemn.

Second.

We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here and would like to address? They are not here. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against the annexation? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board comment. Anyone?

Mr. Chair, I just Go had a

ahead.

Okay. I just I just had a quick question, more so a curiosity. So, the land needs to be or immediate adjacent to the city boundaries for annexation correct. And this is I'm actually wondering about the east piece of this does Highway 14 count. Or is that considered to be city boundary where city boundary comes up to Highway 14?

I believe that would count. In this case none of the annexation area would be north or east of Highway 14 so it wouldn't apply in this particular case, but I think that would count had it been located East Of 14?

Yeah, it would be considered contiguous. So certain things would count like interstate highways, airports, railroads and things like that. They may intersect the property, but it wouldn't preclude territory or property being on the other side of it that is still considered contiguous.

Thank you. Just more of a curiosity as we were looking at this that I forgot to ask last time. Thank you.

Go ahead and commissioner Heinrich.

Thank you. I just have a question out of the same realm of curiosity for staff what is the proposed zone after annexation?

The zoning would remain ag currently it's joint jurisdiction agriculture and it would be annexed into the city with the same zoning it would just become a city ag district until the time that the applicant chooses a new zoning district.

Great. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, we will call the vote.

Schmeichel? Limmer.

Yes.

Jamison. Yes. Speer.

Yes.

Heinrich.

Yes.

Solem. Yes. Aiken? Yes. Braun? Yes. Letty?

Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda 5B, the re zone of Lot 1 in Clark edition notice appearing upon petition to rezone notices hereby given that what is the name of the One one core three nine LLC. Okay. One core three nine LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota. Lot 1 Of Clark addition in the Southwest corner, Section 20 Township 110 North Range 49 West, city of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota, also known as 704 34th Avenue and Lot 2 of Clark's second edition in the Southwest corner of Section 20 Township 110 North Range 49 West City Of Brookings Brookings County South Dakota the request is to rezone the above described real estate from an agricultural a district to a business b three heavy district Notice is further given that said request will be acted upon by the planning commission at 05:30 on Tuesday, 05/06/2025 in the Chamber Room.

Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation made to the city council any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan. Thank you

mister chair the next item is a rezone of Lot 1 Clark edition and Lot 2 of Clark second edition The applicant is one core three nine LLC. The property is located at 704 34th Avenue. Currently the property is zoned agriculture and the proposal is to rezone this to business B 3 heavy district. Future land use map for the property was recently amended at the March or April meeting to a business Park light industrial, which does support a business B3 heavy district zoning. The staff recommendation for the rezone is to approve and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny which is a recommendation made to the city council.

The proposed rezone is shown here in the red outlined area. The western appendage of this would be Lot one of Clark edition and the eastern area where you see an existing outbuilding, that is Lot 2 of Clark's second edition. The western lot is what is currently addressed as 704 34th Avenue. And then Lot 2 of Clark's second edition is adjacent immediately to the east. The current zoning map shows this as currently well, this map is a little outdated.

It shows joint jurisdiction agriculture. That portion was recently annexed in, so both of these are now city ag zoning. To the South is a business B2 district, and just to the Northeast is an industrial I1 district. The future land use map shown here shows the Outland rezone area, and a portion of it is actually industrial, general industrial to the West, and then the East half is the business Parkland industrial. Both of those future land use map categories do support the business B3 zoning. And staff will end the report there and stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Now call for the motion to approve the petition to rezone. So moved, Aiken.

Second Solo.

Thanks, gentlemen. We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here and like to address the board? Is there anyone else, here that would like to speak in for or against the rezone? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board comments. Thoughts? Fairly straightforward. Seeing no comment, we'll call the vote. Brian?

Lemmer? Jamison? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Braun? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Letty? Yes. Motion carries.

The next item on the agenda five c.

This one is a table item so we need to

have a motion to remove it from the table

and I'll do a reintroduction of it.

Okay. The conditional use permit. Notice hereby given that Tyler Brockle has submitted an application for a conditional use permit on the following described real estate in the city of Brookings Lot 14 and Block 5 of Christie's addition height addition city of Brookings Brookings County South Dakota also known as 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive. The request is for a major home occupation gunsmithing. Notice is further given that said request will be acted upon by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday, 05/06/2025 in the council chambers.

Any action taken by the planning commission is recommendation made to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter.

So I need to call for This item was at the April Planning Commission meeting and was tabled at that time. So before we move on to this, we'll need a motion from those present at the April meeting, a motion to remove and a second to get this back off of the table.

Mr. Chair, a motion to remove it from the table.

Second, Jameson.

And then I have to

And

we need to vote on that. And everybody votes.

All in favor? We'll do a roll call. Vote.

Okay, roll call. Jameson? Yes. Speer? Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem?

Yes.

Bacon? Yes. Braun? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Lemmer?

Yes. Letty? Yes. Thanks Mr. Chair this item is a conditional use permit major home occupation request at 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive. The applicant is Tyler Brokl. Location is 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive located in an R2 residence, two family district. Request is for a major home occupation gunsmithing, including manufacturing of guns. Staff recommendation is to approve the conditional use with the following conditions. The conditional use permit is valid only for the current applicant Mr.

Toutter Brockle at 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive and is non transferable to additional properties or future tenants of the property. Build or assembly classes shall not be builder assembly classes shall be prohibited at the residence at 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive, and the applicant must submit proof of all relevant licensing renewals every three years. Planning commission's action would be to approve or deny and any action taken as a recommendation made to the city council. Section ninety four three sixty two, home occupations, describes the process for allowing certain business activities to occur within residential districts. There are two types of home occupations, a minor home occupation and a major home occupation.

Minor home occupations can be approved administratively. They are less intensive home occupations such as work from home or professional offices at home, those sorts of things. Major home occupations are outlined in Section ninety four three sixty two F, which includes some more intensive type uses. And those are subject to the conditional use process in Article five of our ordinances. Just kind of a list of some of the major home occupation types, barbershop or beauty shop, tailor or seamstress, electrolysis, blade sharpening, gunsmithing, which in this case we are reviewing in this instance, and others beyond that.

The applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application and the major home occupation checklist, which is what is required for the major home occupation application. As mentioned, the property is located at 2505 Larkspur Ridge Drive, shown here in the bluish outlined parcel. And the staff recommendations were with those three conditions, and staff will end the report and stand for any questions. So this does go back to the main motion from April. So we will open the public hearing at this time.

I thought I did have it on. Sorry about that. We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here and would like to address the come up to the podium if you would.

Good evening. Sorry I wasn't able to make it last month. Just for a little bit of background and it's real quick. This LLC has a federal firearms license which is granted to us by the ATF which needs to be tied to a address. We've been operating for the last three years out of the Brookings, the research park.

And what we primarily do is we just do firearm build classes. We host those about once a quarter. I am a full time engineer at Solventum. So even though this is a major home occupation, it is not my primary source of income or what I do full time. Over the last three years the courses have been getting smaller and smaller which has shown me I've kind of tapped out the Brookings market and what I'm looking to do is kind of travel in a sense.

So we'll partner with other license holders in Eastern South Dakota and Western Minnesota. Everything will be done to or per ATF rule in federal law. So we're very by the book. But I still need to have a single license, a single address tied to that license. So that's why the crest is being made. As we, the conditional, the conditions of no classes on premises, I am absolutely fine with that. I don't intend to have this be a brick and mortar thing. No signage, etcetera. So if you have any other questions for me, I'd happily address them.

Thank you. We'll take public further public comment and may ask for you to come back up. I appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in for or against the the motion? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Thoughts, anyone?

I've got some questions for the applicant. Thanks. So I think the the we just approved a similar application not very long ago in a different part of town. I think the bigger concern here is around the proximity to the school. Number one, have you had any communication with the school or the school district about this application? And number two, can you help alleviate any of these concerns that we might have?

Sure. So in terms of, like I said, I'm partnering with other Class seven FFLs because again I don't want to host these courses at my house. It's just not set up for that. In terms of the manufacturing aspect, that's just what the particular type is because in order for me, like my firearms actually have manufactured in Brookings, South Dakota with our own serial numbers on them. All of that stuff is made by third party machine shops in Minnesota and Illinois.

And so none of the actual machining is done here. The assembly of firearms themselves actually don't take place on the premises. And as far as keeping guns away from the school, I mean everybody on that block has their own personal firearms and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. It's and it's all perfectly legal. So the introduction of this business doesn't really add any additional complete firearms to the premises that aren't already there already in the surrounding vicinity.

Thank you for clarifying that. Have you to my first question, have you had any conversations with school district about this application?

Oh, no.

Mr. Chair.

Yep go ahead.

I'd like to know what the city found out about the legality of operating a FFL within an old school zone. Just federal law. I just want to make sure we're clear on that. That was my main concern with this last year I don't know how it works between I understand the difference between private ownership but I didn't know if there's a difference between business.

Commissioner Michael we did have our city attorney review the applicable state and federal laws and they did concur that this type of a license would be exempt from the 1,000 foot gun free zone from the schools. So, this would be allowed according to the city attorney.

Thank you.

Brian I think last time you said that you had reached out to the school and didn't hear back have you subsequently heard anything from the school?

I have I just had a question from the school with a similar question to commissioner Schmeichel's just wanting to question whether you know which state and federal laws were applicable. Just questions nothing else at that at this point.

Mister chair a question for the applicant. So is it my understanding that you will not be doing any actual gun manufacturing, assembling any of that in the residence and that the residence simply serves as the address tied to the FFL license?

Allows for it. It's very minimal. So in the last two years alone, I've manufactured two guns and both of them were for charity. One went to Pheasants Forever and one went to Beacon Hill. So not my primary business plan because I can't compete with the big guys. The particular niche that I have is the firearm build classes because anybody can walk into Runnings or Shields and buy a firearm, but being able to actually have experience of putting yours together is just a unique niche in the market that people have enjoyed.

And then just a quick follow-up question. Are you okay then with all of the conditions that staff recommends?

Yes. As follow-up, I'm tracking only valid for myself, not transferable if the house were to sell or rent it or something along those lines. No billed classes on the residents and submitting proof of relevant licensing renewals every three years is perfectly acceptable.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

Sorry I just wanted to clarify too why I was asking that question I appreciate the staff and our attorney getting back to us and I think it's probably the same reason the school wants to know is potentially litigation if something were to happen. I have no other issues with this whatsoever. It sounds like he's put himself together a pretty good business and it all seems on the up and up. I just want to make sure that federally we were okay with this.

Thanks Commissioner. Any other comments, questions?

I'll add one thing. This is the first step in a very lengthy process for me. So once it's approved by you guys or if it's approved by you guys, I'm still gonna have to go through vetting with the ATF. So there will be a second set of i's in this to make sure that all the t's are crossed and all the I's are dotted.

Perfect. Thanks, Tyler. You bet. Seeing no further questions or comments, Ryan, we'll call the

vote. Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Braun? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Letty?

Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda five d conditional use permit major home occupation hair salon. Notices hereby given that Andrew Austrian has submitted an application for a conditional use permit on the following described real estate in the city of Brookings. The west three thirty feet of the south half of Outlaw 4 in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter in Section 23 Township 110 Range 50, also known as 1214 Western Avenue. The request is for a major home occupation hair salon.

Notice is further given that said request will be acted upon by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday, 05/26/2025 in the Chamber Room. Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation made to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan, would like you to introduce the topic?

Thank you, mister chair. The next item is another conditional use permit major home occupation. This time at 1214 Western Avenue. The cap applicant is the property owner Andrew Ostreim, owner of the property at 1214 Western Avenue. Property is zoned as a residence R one a single family district.

Request is for a major home occupation hair salon. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions valid for the own valid only for the current owner. The Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny any action taken as a recommendation made to the city council. Again, section ninety four three sixty two describes the home occupations in this case beauty shop or salon or beauty shop would be a conditional use allowed only as a single chair. The applicant has filled out the major home occupation checklist.

Just two items to note on here. The applicant does indicate that there will be exterior signage. Signage is allowed in the residential district for any uses allowed. They can have up to an eight square foot sign for this home occupation. Secondly, they do indicate that there will be a small addition to the home.

There is currently an addition being worked on. This is a location of the property along Western Avenue. And here is a location of that addition that I was mentioning. In addition to the front of the home, the addition would meet all of our zoning requirements, setbacks, etcetera, and would be a typical modification to a home for any sort of an additional room. In this case, they would intend on placing the home occupation there.

This site plan also does show the plan for parking. There is an area for parking just to the northwest of the home that they would plan to use for this. Two parking spaces are required for the major occupation, and I do have room in that area for the parking. As mentioned, staff recommendation is approval, and I'll stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the conditional use permit? So moved.

Second.

Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here and would like to address the commission?

Yes. Thank you. Pretty much Ryan covered everything. It's pretty straightforward. We're nestled quietly between a landscape contractor and a masonry construction business and an empty lot across the road. We're just going to do some hair and make everybody pretty.

Appreciate you being here. We'll ask for any other comments and may have questions for you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or against the conditional use permit? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board comments. Anyone?

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify. Does the original motion contain the staff recommendations, conditional piece here?

Yes, it does.

That was all.

Question for staff regarding the checklist and the two items that were marked as yes. Those are allowable under this? Yes.

In this case, looking at the two boxes that I checked yes so one will there be any exterior display exterior storage or indication of the occupation yes in this case they're mentioning that they would have a sign and our sign ordinance does allow an eight square foot sign in residential districts for any uses that are allowed within the property. So if this home occupation is approved, we would allow that use as a hair salon so they can have a sign there. The second is, will there be any substantial interior or external alterations or construction in this case? Yes, they are placing a small addition. But that small addition would be something that's typical of any sort of a home expansion project.

This could be if this home occupation permit were denied, that addition could be used as an extra room, a bedroom, or extra space within the home. So it's not something that's untypical of just a standard addition to a home. So in this case, would meet the intent of this.

Yes. Thanks, Ryan. I guess a follow-up would be on the parking in the drawing of the overhead. Is that allowable or we're not necessarily approving that?

The requirement for a home occupation, major home occupation is just that there are two parking spaces in addition to those required for the single family dwelling. In this case, you can see they have parking, it looks like to the northeast of the home likely as their private residential parking. More than two spaces would be really available there. And they're indicating that they would have two an area of two spaces to the west of there for this parking that would meet our parking requirements and would be approved.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Ryan?

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes.

Braun? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes. Speer? Yes. Leddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda five e large scale residential development plan Prairie Hills notice hereby given that prairie hills l c has submitted a revised preliminary plat of the following described real estate situated in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota to wit Lot 1 A in Block 3 B, Block 4, Block 5, Block 6, Block 9 A, Block 9 B, Lot 157 C, and Wetland D Track 2, all in Prairie Hills edition. Notice is further given that said request will be acted on by the planning commission at 05:30 on Tuesday in the Chamber Room. Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation made to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter.

Ryan.

Thank you mister chair. The next item is a large scale residential plan amendment, for Prairie Hills addition. The applicant is prairie hills l l c. The location is the Prairie Hills Landing. This is located in a residence R 3 a apartment zoning district.

The staff recommendation is to approve the planning commission's action would be to approve or deny and that action is a recommendation made to the city council. Large scale residential plans are described in municipal ordinance section ninety four three forty one. The intent of the LSRD is to, these regulations are intended to allow flexibility within the zoning and subdivision regulations when a large scale residential development is proposed. The development shall have a minimum of 20 acres. The rules, regulations, and standards guiding subdivision in the city may be modified.

All proposed variances to such requirements shall be included as explanatory matter on the LSRD development plan. Provisions in this chapter regulating land use within the city may be modified as follows: density requirements, lot area, frontage minimums, front side, rear setbacks, and building heights. All may be modified within the LSRD. One exception is that variances to the setbacks on the boundary, the exterior perimeter boundary of the LSRD would not be permitted, but internal front side rear yard setbacks are permitted to be modified through this LSRD process. Lastly, additional information required on the LSRD shall include trails, paths, bikeways, sidewalks, lakes, streams, landscape corridors, and any other prominent natural or manmade features of development.

In this case, in 2023, Prairie Hills LLC did submit an LSRD agreement plat for the same area we're discussing tonight. That original LSRD from 2023 had a few variances that were requested at the time. One, no minimum lot area and lot width. Two, side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet between buildings side to side. Typically in the R3 zoning district, there would be a seven foot side yard, so 14 feet between buildings.

Front yard setbacks shall be 20 feet minimum from back of curb for front load garage units and 13 feet from back of curb for side load garage units. And lastly, roadways shall be 26 feet in width, back of curb to back of curb, with a 50 foot access and utility easement centered on the roadway centerline. Those variances were granted through the LSRD process in 2023. Since that time, this area has developed quite a bit more and the applicant is now requesting one additional variance to those listed above. The new request would be a rear yard setback variance to be a minimum of 25 feet between buildings rear to rear minimum.

Currently, there would be a 25 foot setback from a building to the property line. So essentially, there would be a 50 foot separation between buildings if there is a 25 foot rear setback on both properties. In this case, they'd be seeking to allow in the rear buildings a minimum 25 feet between them. The area described in the notice is the area outlined in red here. The area that is currently the current need for the rear yard setback is really identified in the Units 14 through 22 is kind of the newest portion of this development.

Everything kind of to the north and east of there has been built out. Now as they are working on this Chokecherry Lane, that is where they're looking at the need for potentially that rear yard variance for Units 14 through 22, I think, would be the only areas. And with that staff will end their report and stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the amended preliminary plat with the setback. LSRD. LSRD.

So moved, Aiken.

Second jameson.

Thank you we will now open the public hearing is the applicant here and would like to address the board.

Good evening, mister chair and members of the commission. My name is Jacob Mills. I'm a resident here of Brookings and representing Prairie Hills. I'll try to be quick and mostly be available for questions. I think this sounds more complicated than it probably is.

We've had to be before this board a couple of times for variances for some lot line setbacks. And the simplest way I can explain that is in order to get a building permit, have to first plat a block or a larger area for the city to be able to issue a building permit within that block. The actual homes are platted when they're constructed and based on the footprint of the building. And occasionally, when we go to plat the actual home, we run into it was typically the rear yard that we would be at 20 feet instead of 25 feet or I think one time we were 23 feet instead of 25. And so our goal was to avoid coming back.

There's three or four buildings that would have a similar situation where they would be twenty, twenty four feet away from that rear property line. And so what we looked at with our engineering staff is what was the rear yard setback that was granted at the reserve. And so our request, to my understanding, for the 25 foot spacing between buildings is the same standard that was used at the reserve. So essentially, we're not changing our plan. The plan is basically the same as it is and it's just primarily that North Side of Chokecherry Lane.

As Ryan mentioned, some of those buildings numbered 14 through 22, most of them are 25 feet. But I want to say there's four or five of them if you look at the detailed plan that are '22, '23 and change.

Thanks Jacob. We will let you know if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in for or against the motion? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board comment. Thoughts, anyone?

Sorry. I have a question for you.

I

just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. The request is for 25 p between buildings, But actually, that's way more than you need, right, in most cases?

More than likely. I I think there's one building that may end up about 40 feet away. Building 14 is the tightest one because of the sort of pie shape there. And there was some debate as to whether that's a side yard or a But that's really the only one that's that close. The rest of them would probably be more than 50 feet away.

Like if you look at Building 19 And 20 as an example where I believe those are actually more than 50 feet away from the buildings to the north but they're only 23 feet away from their rear property line and the building to the north of it is like 27 feet. And so the total spacing is about the same. It's just this sort of technicality of where that imaginary rear line is drawn in the backyard.

Yeah, thanks. And then I guess you said that similar setback variance was allowed in another development you did?

Not that we did. Clark Drew's development, the reserve over there on Christine Avenue, that's what our engineers looked at, what was their LSRD variances. And it's my understanding that the 25 foot rear spacing and 10 foot side spacing is what the basic standards were at the reserve.

Great, thanks.

Comments from the word? Seeing none, we will call the vote. Ryan?

Solem? Yes. Heaken? Yes. Braun?

Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Leddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item

on

the agenda five f final development plan. Notice hereby given that QuickTrip Inc. Has submitted a final development plan within a planned development district on the following described real estate, Lot 2 In Block 9 Of Weiss Addition. Notice is further given that said request will be acted upon by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday 05/06/2025 in the Chamber Room. Any persons interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan.

Thank you Mr chair this next item is a final development plan on Lot 2 In Block 9 of Lease Addition. The applicant is quick trip inc. The location is 6th Street and Lafever Drive within the Brookings Marketplace Plan Development District. It's within the Plan Development District with Business B2 Underlying. The staff recommendation for this is approval.

The Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and Planning Commission makes final actions on a final development plan. The planned development district is outlined in section 94.163. The intent of plan development districts is to provide flexibility from conventional zoning regulations with increased public review for PDD projects. It's similar to the LSRD option that we just discussed. The LSRD is specific to residential developments of 20 or more acres.

A planned development district can be done with any underlying zoning district. The intent is to encourage well planned, efficient urban development, allow a planned and coordinated mix of land uses, which are compatible and harmonious, but were previously discouraged by conventional zoning procedures. To encourage more creative, higher quality and more ecologically sensitive urban design with special consideration given to projects which incorporate design desirable design features such as underground parking, orientation or design to take advantage of passive solar energy and a number of other benefits. And lastly, to improve communication and cooperation among the city's land developers and interested residents, and the urbanization of new lands, and the renewal of existing deteriorated areas. So that's the ordinance on planned development districts.

This particular planned development district is located the Northeast Corner of 6th Street and the Interstate 29 Interchange. If you're on the phone, if you can please mute your phone line. The specific final development plan that we're reviewing here tonight is the red outlined area where QuickTrip Inc. Will plan to build in like QuickStar gas station and convenience store. This is shown the project location shown on the initial development plan, which was submitted by Ryan Companies a few years ago.

We have subsequently seen a number of a few portions of this area develop out. We have approved a final development plan just to the west of here for the ALDI and a final development plan to the north of here for the Target. In this case, we'll be looking at that southeast corner for a final development plan for this proposed QuickStar location. Here is the proposed final development plan for that portion of the PDD. This would show the proposed convenience store, gas station, with two access drives off to the private drive to the North, the Pasc Flower Place private drive to the North.

There would be no access from this development to Lafever Drive to the East. This is, as a note, located within the Commercial Corridor Design Review Overlay District. However, properties located within a planned development district are exempt from the commercial corridor design review overlay district standards. We do try to work with developers to come to bring site plans that meet the commercial corridor requirements the best that we can. And in this case, we do have parking located in the appropriate places.

There's no parking in the commercial corridor side of the development, which would be to the south here. There is a drive lane, basically an exit lane for a car wash on the south side. The plan does include a landscape plan here, which meets all of our required landscaping ordinances. They did submit all of the required submittals for the final development plan here as a photometric plan. Just in general, the plan does meet all of our ordinances and requirements and is compatible with the initial development plan and staff recommends approval. And we'll stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the final development plan?

Mr. Chair, I move to approve.

Thank you. Second. Thank you. We will now, open the public hearing. Is the applicant here or a representative that would like to speak to the board?

Hi. I'm Zach Pogle, real estate development manager here on behalf of the applicant quick trip. I had nothing to add but I've really enjoyed working on our second project here within Brookings with the help of city staff. I think the DRT process was extremely efficient and we're excited to be a part of this development. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We'll ask for any further comment and make it back to you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or, oppose to the development plan? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and, open for board discussion. Thoughts, comments, anyone?

Anyone online or on the phone?

I

have a question about, unless I'm missing it I'm not seeing anywhere on here that has a pedestrian like accessible means of egress from a sidewalk to the building is that one of the things you were talking about not meeting all of the city requirements? This

plan would meet all of our city requirements. There is a sidewalk shown on the north end of it. In this case, I guess the egress, there would be egress to that sidewalk from the private drive to the required public right of way on Lafever Drive. In this case, that would be the required egress location is Lafever Drive. And that sidewalk would run to Lafever Drive.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we will call the vote. Ryan?

Bacon? Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Solem?

Yes.

Leddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on our agenda five gs commercial corridor design review overlay district site plan. Notice is hereby given that Java Companies has submitted an application for approval of a commercial corridor design review overlay district site plan on Lot 2 In Block 1 Of lease addition City Of Brookings Brookings County South Dakota notice is further given that said application will be acted on by the planning commission at thirty Tuesday 05/06/2025 in Chamber Room. Any action taken by the planning commission is recommendation to the city council any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan.

Thank you Mr. Chair. The next item is a site plan within a commercial corridor design review overlay district At Lot 2 Block 1 we sedition. The applicant is Java Companies LLC. This is located within a business B-four Highway district and within the overlay district of the Commercial Corridor Design Review Overlay District.

It's generally located near the corner of 6th Street and Lafever Drive, just to the east of the previous location we discussed. As a note, the commercial corridor site plan does come with a couple of recommendations, or a couple of exceptions requested. One being minimum lot size and the second being minimum window glazing. Just as a background, this application was brought to the Planning Commission in, I think it was March. However,

there were

some February or March, there have been a few changes made to the site plan. Those two requested exceptions were previously approved and are being sought again with the changed plans. Noting those two exceptions, staff does recommend approval, including the following exceptions, the minimum lot size, In this case, the existing lot area is 58,955 square feet when 60,000 square feet is required due to Section 90 four-one 135, which states that when a parcel has multiple buildings in a business or industrial district, they shall have the minimum required area for each use, which would require the 60,000 square foot. Second is minimum window glazing, which is Section 90 four-163.7D. That is within the Commercial Corridor Design Review overlay district, which requires a minimum window glazing of 20% on the 1st Floor of the facade facing the commercial corridor.

The Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and that action would be a recommendation made to the city council. The location of the property is shown in the red area on this map here. It would be just to the east, as I mentioned, to the previously proposed Quickstar on the Northeast Corner of 6th Street and LaFever Drive. Noting on here the lot area, the yellow box would be the particular lot, and that is where the lot area, the first exception, would be sought. As mentioned, this was previously approved in February by the Planning Commission.

The site plan on the left is what was initially submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. It included the two drive thru uses, which the drive thru lanes initially operated as a shared drive thru lane on the west side of the property. The drive thru lanes would then split with an exit lane to the east of both buildings. The applicant has slightly modified their plans to the right, which now includes completely separate drive thru lanes. So the entrances to both drive thru lanes would be separate and the drive thru lanes would wrap around each building respectively as opposed to beginning with that shared entrance to the drive thru.

Additional change has been made as a design to the Building 1 elevation drawing. So the red box on the bottom right, it was the original design for the Building 1. That included the exception that was granted for the windows. Previously, there was an exception to approve a 14% window glazing 15% window glazing on that south elevation. The revised drawings on the left would now show a 14% window glazing, so they're going down 1% on the required window glazing for Building 1 on that south elevation.

There is an increase of window glazings on the it would be the west elevation, which would face Lafever Drive. There's a slight increase of windows there, but a slight decrease on the south elevation. Building 2 would remain identical. However, they still do need that, I guess, confirmation that the exception for the windows would be granted on that Building 2 elevation. And I believe that is it, and I would stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan. Now, is there a motion to, approve the commercial corridor design review overlay district site plan with the exceptions?

So moved with the exceptions.

Second, Jameson.

Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is the applicant here or a representative that would like to speak to the board?

Good evening members of the commission. Angie Borsma from ideate architecture appearing on behalf of the applicants. Since our previous visit to this commission, you'll notice that the separation of those two drive throughs was kind of the primary piece of that. We do have a signed letter of intent for one of the tenants and the design standards for that franchise required most of these updates. So I'll stand by for questions if anybody has them.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against the site plan? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Thoughts, anyone?

Mr. Chair, I've got one question for the applicant's representative. Sorry to call you back up. Do you recall what the queuing was now that the drives are separated? I'm just looking at the building on the left is feeding traffic out into the oncoming down. I guess I'm just trying to maybe I'm not understanding the scale. So if you could just talk about the queuing, how many cars could fit in there?

In terms of the overall length of Building 2, it's 70 feet in length. And so if you're looking at the average vehicle being in the 14 to 18 foot scale, you can fit an awful lot vehicles around that.

Okay, thank you.

Questions?

I just have one comment. Thank you for clearly showing the accessible path of means of egress to the sidewalk.

Sure.

I think I just don't fully understand the, why the outer lane in the initial design was required and not in the revised design? The the the very outer lane that goes around the entire almost perimeter of the property.

So in the initial one part of it was to ensure that if someone got into the wrong incoming, when you've got a dual lane like that running parallel, it ensures that if someone gets into the wrong drive through lane, they can bypass and get out to circle back around. In this particular case because the signage is completely separated, it's no longer necessary as part of that kind of standard movement through the process.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thanks, Angie. Signal of further discussion, we will call the vote Ryan.

Brahm? Yes schmeichel?

Yes limmer? Yes jameson? Yes spear?

Yes

heinrich?

Yes.

Solem?

Yes.

Aiken? Yes. Leddy?

Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda, five g, commercial corridor design review overlay district site plan. Hold on. Here we go. Five h future land use map amendment 6th Street notices hereby given that the planning commission will hold a public hearing on amendments to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the city of Brookings pertaining to the future land use map.

Notices further given that said public hearing will be held at 05:30 on Tuesday, 05/06/2025 in the council excuse me, Chamber Room. Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation made to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter. Ryan?

Thank you Mr. Chair. The last item for this evening would be a future land use map amendment proposal. If you recall back at the March Planning Commission meeting, did hear a proposal from the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission wanting to introduce a few changes to the future land use map for some areas located within the existing historic districts. The proposal would be to change the future land use map from medium and high density residential to residential scale preservation.

The staff recommendation, as this did go through DRT and did not get support for the proposal, the Planning Commission action would be to approve or deny, and any action taken would be a recommendation made to the City Council. There are a few different areas we'll look at here. I'm just going to provide a quick introduction to the areas. There are, let's see, five areas within the university and residential historic districts. The first two are going be located along 6th Avenue, just North of 6th Street.

We'll look at one at the corner of 6th Street and 7th Avenue, and then two areas located at the corner of 6th Street and 9th Avenue, one on the Northwest Corner and one on the Southeast Corner. Just going to provide a general overview of the areas in the proposal. The first two areas, I do show on here an area outlined in yellow. That area's not part of the discussion area. It's just the red boxes, two and three.

These are the two areas located along 6th Avenue. In this area, there are seven contributing structures within this would be the residential historic district and four non contributing structures within that university residential historic district. And just to note, there is one vacant property. These two areas are currently in the medium density residential future land use category. Within the same area, there are eight single family units, one two family dwelling, one apartment.

We're not discussing the commercial area, that I can leave that one off there. And there's that one vacant property as well. So these two areas are in currently a medium density residential future land use category, which that future land use, it's a category that would support current and future residential with a four to 12 unit per acre density. Looking at these two areas currently, Box 2 has a per unit density of seven units per acre, which would be within that medium density. And the Box 3 has a 11 units per acre density, again, within that medium density residential allowance.

The next three areas we'll discuss. Combining those three areas, I guess there's eight contributing properties in this area. There would be three of them within the University Residential Historic District, and there are five within the Central Residential Historic District, and then two non contributing structures in the Central Residential Historic District. In those same three areas, we have nine single family homes and one two family. Starting at Box 5, I guess on the left, those three parcels there have a current density of seven units per acre, which again, that one's currently shown as medium density residential on a comprehensive plan.

And Box 4 to the kind of the center of this, those three parcels would have a per acre density of six units per acre, and that's currently a medium density, which is within that four to 12. The last area, Box 6 on the right, those four lots currently have a density of four units per acre. And this area, it's actually the only area of the five that is not medium density residential. It's currently showed as a high density residential. And that future land use category would support density of 12 units or more per acre.

So this is well below that prescribed density of 12 units per acre. That is the end of my materials. The request here is to change those five areas from those medium and high density residential to residential scale preservation, and I would stand for any questions.

Ryan, can you be a little more specific about what that change means?

So

with the future land use map, this is a tool that's used primarily for rezoning scenarios. I guess we only had one rezone item on tonight's agenda. That rezone item that we discussed out on 34th Avenue, when we look at rezoning, we generally look to the comprehensive plan and the future land use map as a guide for rezoning decisions. So in 2018, the comprehensive plan was updated, included a future land use map and they include various types of uses and densities throughout the community and beyond into our joint area. These uses and densities include areas like low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, urban medium intensity, urban high intensity.

Those two are future land uses that support kind of a mix of uses, commercial, residential, industrial. So we look at those different categories, and there's a number of them that are described in the conference of plan. We look to them to see if those would support a potential rezoning request that comes to the planning commissioner to the city.

And what is it that you mean by support a rezoning?

So for example, we have Box 2 here in this area. It's currently a medium density residential. So, it would support a density of four to 12 units per acre. And it's currently zoned R3. So if there were a request in this area to rezone that from an R2 to an R3, or request to rezone that to anything, we'd have to look at the future land use map and say, what does the future land use prescribe in this area?

In this case, the future land use in the camp plan would be a medium density residential of four to 12 units per acre. So let me look at the proposed zoning district. If they're asking for an R3 apartment district, I believe that is kind of a gray area there, whether that would be supported based off of the density. We'd have to look at the comprehensive plan and decide is R3 appropriate there. If they were to ask for a heavy business district or industrial district, obviously, the medium density residential future land use category would not support a B3 heavy business district or a light industrial district there.

If we looked at

let's see, don't know if

it shows on here very well. There are other areas along 6th Street that have commercial or office type future land uses. So box one here, it's currently zoned business B2, and I think the comprehensive plan has it as commercial or office. So if a rezone came to the city for residential there, we'd have to look at the comprehensive plan. Does that commercial or office future land use category support a residential rezone?

Probably not. So it's really more used to decide whether or not rezoning would be appropriate based off of the future land use category. And it goes into some depth as to what types of uses and compatible uses and densities would be supported by the comprehensive plan. And then you look at the zoning to see if that matches what the comprehensive plan states in And those

who would be

asking for this rezoning?

Property owners come to the city at various times to seek rezones. So again, like tonight we saw a request from the one core three LLC to rezone their property. Property owners at any time have a right to petition the city to rezone the property within a zoning district that's established by the city so.

And how often would someone like in the middle of Box 2 come and ask to have their property rezoned when the others around them are not rezoning?

As a single lot, not very often. It'd probably be more of like a large block type rezone, which I think has happened elsewhere east of this area in past times. It likely wouldn't

Somebody buying up the whole block and then rezoning the entire block?

For Block Two's case, being that it's currently zoned R2, I don't see there likely being any reason why a single lot in there would ever request to rezone. Yeah, it'd likely be more of like a full block rezone, would be more likely, but I can't anybody could submit a petition to rezone their property. That would be a right of them to submit for just their lot. Doesn't happen very often, it's usually larger areas that would get a rezone petition.

So what we're being asked to look at now is both, can you go back a screen or two?

And I think, you know, it might be best that we actually get a motion and get this item going here before we get into the weeds. So we need a motion and open a public hearing and get some comment before we go back to the Planning Commission Absolutely.

Thanks, Ryan. I'll now call for a motion to approve the amendments to the 2024 comprehensive plan.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak?

Good evening, Matthew Weiss, chair of historic preservation and architect.

Yeah, good evening. Sandra Kallis, another architect and also on the historic preservation commission.

Thank you for your time and for all the time you're giving to this particular topic. I can give an overview as needed and clarify any questions you have. We as Historic Preservation Commission are obligated under our own preservation plan, our guiding document to look for inconsistencies between any city zoning ordinances, perceived or formal and the mission of historic preservation in Brookings. And so that is the reason we initially approached the Planning Commission with this topic. However, there are other particular pressures in the general district in the area that you see on screen that are also kind of making this a time sensitive item or, you know, time sensitive in the scope of buildings.

So we have a couple of points to make and this is in direct reference to the packet that you received back in March referencing now exhibit d. Page one eighty two of the comp plan indicates that the comprehensive plan is a living document that must be maintained, updated and revisited to ensure it remains a helpful and relevant guide to the community. And you know further on this, it also indicates in page 104 that adopting strategies to ensure the stability and livability of Brookings' historic and established neighborhoods will help to preserve the culture, history and identity of the community which as a side note was very much damaged by the widening of 6th Street. Now the what is indicated, I wrote down as neighborhood preservation but the residential scale preservation as Ryan has indicated is is generally in accordance with the current zoning district r two which does allow some decent flexibility of gentler density redevelopment that could fit into the parameters of the state historic 11.1 review requirements as is listed on page 153 of the comp plan itself if any redevelopment is advisable at all. The historic 11.1 review process does not go away and I know you all know that.

But it will still be a requirement regardless of the direction given in this comprehensive plan. However, we believe the comp plan should not misguide property owners and developers along a path that might have strong historic regulatory resistance to where they would be potentially wasting a lot of time and money and could possibly indicate that the comprehensive plan was the reason they did it. And we are definitely aware of some local resident emotional concern regarding this topic. And lastly, before any further discussion, the amendments to if this were changed to residential scale preservation, that does not disallow a future rezone. And that's the last we have to say right now or at least myself.

Can I ask one question regarding the commission? Can you explain how the commission came to this proposal? Like what the process of that was?

Yes, I will try. So our historic preservation plan indicates that we do a variety of different activities to broaden the mission of historic preservation. And one of the tasks is that it asks us to look for inconsistencies within the zoning ordinance and another side topic is inconsistencies in the local building code amendments and adoptions that might go against historic preservation and then what can we do about it? This then, so that has always been an action for the last six years or so but it's really become a pressing issue in our minds as a result of the development pressure to the east but then also within this general area along I believe 9th Street up above the 611817 and 825 area. But it led us to review then the comprehensive plan and on a quicker timeframe that we expected within our guidance document.

And that's when we approached, essentially looked into what would be the right requisite steps in order to get this changed and planning commission is that change in advance of city council.

And to one note, there was an exhibit B in our, I guess our packet I would say is called imprint of preservation on tonight's agenda. That nine total contributing houses are within these marked areas labeled for something like medium or high density preservation or development.

Anything further at this time?

No, I think we can help clarify any questions that may be arise if there is any if we are conceived or as as the idea of an applicant in this matter. So I think there's more public for comments.

Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?

Thank you, mister chairman and commission. My name is Gene Stegman. I'm the congregational chairman of Mount Calvary Lutheran Church. And yeah, so some of the properties that are in this area are three of them that we currently own. We are, as you are probably aware, we're looking at doing some ministry expansion in our current location and looking at these properties, we understand we need to go through 11.1 review and going through that.

If we do ever want to make any changes to these properties, we feel that the state and local historic preservation commission requirements meet what is needed. And I would encourage you to maintain those and let us work through that process. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this matter?

Good evening. I'm Josh Westwick, I reside at 502 9th Avenue in the Central Historic District on the block south of 6th Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm here to urge you to strengthen protections for our city's historic districts and to make necessary modifications to the comprehensive development plan to reflect those protections. Our historic districts are more than just a collection of old buildings.

They are vibrant, character rich neighborhoods that tell the story of who we are and how we got here. They give our city its unique identity, attract visitors, and serve as a source of pride for residents. These areas are not frozen in time. They are our homes. Unfortunately, the current development trajectory and the comprehensive plan that guides it does not provide enough protection for these areas.

I'm here tonight because the current plan is allowing the disregard of the historic character that makes these neighborhoods so special. This puts not just individual buildings at risk, but the integrity of our entire neighborhoods. Preserving historic buildings is one of the most sustainable forms of development. Tearing down existing structures creates ton of landfill waste and increases carbon emissions. Meanwhile, according to the Journal of Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, reusing and retrofitting historic buildings can reduce the environmental impact of construction by as much as 60.

And because many of these neighborhoods are walkable and transit friendly, they align naturally with the cities of Brookings' goals to be a safe, inclusive, and connected community. Furthermore, I worry greatly about the demolition of multiple historical homes on my city block and the impact of replacing these homes with higher density dwellings. The charm of our neighborhoods may be lost as we look out at parking large parking lots and large multi multi use modernized structures. If these projects continue as planned, what is the point of continuing to vest invest in my own historical property? When will this invasive encroachment on our horse historical districts end?

With that in mind, I urge you to revise the comprehensive development plan to include stronger tools for preservation. The historic preservation committee has provided you with an outstanding plan that helps protect our community, and I encourage you to take action. Please keep in mind that Brookings is someplace special, and I hope you'll help us keep it that way.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter? Please come forward.

Hi, I'm Deb Demuniak, and I wanna thank

you all for all the work.

Just sitting here in one meeting takes a while, so you're putting a lot of work into this. But I live in a historical neighborhood, and I've lived there for about forty years and put a lot of money and time and trying to preserve our neighborhood. I've a friend and I have bought houses around us to save them. And I just think I think we're kind of on a proving point of people getting historical preservation. How it can really change a city's atmosphere, you know.

And I you might already know this, but instead of looking at maps, I think this simplifies it. It goes from Madari. There's the university that goes from Madari to Main Street. And then it goes up this way to Harvey Dunn, not quite in some areas. The other one goes from Madari to Main and only to 3rd Street.

So in that small area, there's only 300 and I don't know the exact number. Somebody here might. 350 or less homes in there. So I think after looking at the development east that, you know, it's not very attractive right next to the, you know, some of it is because it's new. But I think a historic district can add so much to a community.

And it seems that we've had a hard time with the city thinking that way sometimes because like with the church expansion, they have a new builder now and he's a local guy. And he's all about trying to help preserve and let the church do what they want at the same time. So I just think that not only asking you but the entire city of Brookings to look at what it could add to our community. Not rather than everything looking the same. And when they established, there was a group of people who established these neighborhoods in 1996.

So that's what, twenty nine years ago. They put a lot of thought into it and it's our history. You know, it's all your history. You know, living in Brookings, it's our history. And if you go to other towns, they don't just tear everything down. And the houses along 6th Street, recently we've had, which has been very encouraged to me, we've had a couple young architects buy houses that most people in Brookings would think, oh, they're just old rentals, dumpy, tear them down. Well, they've moved here, one from Washington. They're refurbishing them and they've kinda lit our fire for all of us older people in the neighborhood. They're like, we should save these because they are all different. And the architecture is very interesting.

And so I guess I'm asking to really consider and for our city too and for my friend Dave Knape. He's a friend and I'm really proud of his success. I knew him back when he didn't have reverse in his car, started real estate. So I'm not against I'm you know, I just think I hope Dave thinks so too. He grew up in that neighborhood to try to preserve our historic it's not very big. And when you live there, like these people that are moving from out of town, you can walk to the university. You can walk downtown. We can walk to the bank. You know, and we live there because we love historical homes. So I would really like to ask your consideration in that amendment.

And that was a 2040 plan that Ryan has helped me find what it's all about because we didn't really know when they said, oh, it's a 2040 plan. And when I've gone to city Hall, I've got from well, don't worry about that. That's a long time away. But we're worried about it not just for us or our children, but for our community. This is our history. So we have to save some of it. I mean, we're in South Dakota. There's land everywhere. Development out there, out on 20th. It's like, let's think about saving some of it for all of our community, not just those of us who live here. So I would really ask that you would consider that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Got my friend Deb Domini, I guess.

Hi. My name is David Kneipe and I know most of the people in this room because I used to live around them and and I do love I I have gotten an award from the historic committee for my office building when I did that. I also have worked closely with them on development of a home up in in the university area. I see very positive things in everything that the historical committee works on. One of the things that I was concerned with when I looked at this plan was that the one the one area that I saw that they had blocked was the church, you know, that had the property there.

And I and I was concerned. I haven't talked to the church at all, but I was concerned that that that was making a constraint on something that could positive be a positive thing for the church in their development. And so I look forward to seeing if the church is is having some constraints with this or if the historic preservation can make amendments to their plan. One of the things that concerned me for my office building was that I saw two places on a zoning area. My my office is Zone B 2 and we've respected and and done nice things with 6th Street.

One of the things that has concerned me since I went into real estate thirty five years ago was that, you know, we were getting down to, you know, I lived on 6th Street for ten years and we're getting it's hard to pull out on 6th Street if you have your driveway there and you know there's some things that make people move off of 6th Street Unfortunately, because we had nice homes on 6th Street. I did repurpose those homes and brought them into character with the neighborhoods they went into. But I will say that when you look at, you know, 6th Street as a whole, it you know, unfortunately, even when I moved out of my house and my sister-in-law moved in lived in it, my wife and I would pull in the driveway every night and would notice if there's weeds out on the boulevard or anything else. 6th Street doesn't look the same when it's all rentals. We've got down to about six to eight homes that are privately owned and lived in going down 6th Street.

And I'm not here to to say that they should be repurposed. But in your in your plan, I went through on page one sixty three and one sixty five I think it was, that it does say that there is pressure on some of those areas. I would hope I looked at what the the the change was if you look at the proposed and the and the by the historical preservation. And it basically is saying, I think things that I agree with that they should not be, you know, four story or they shouldn't be, you know, that that would be a a look. But what I don't wanna see for instance when they're encroaching on my zoning area that I've already got zoned as b two, that if I plan something for the corner or for something there that it that it then encroach that it then it kinda strangles what I'm allowed to do there.

So there was two spots in there that the zoning was encroached on, two lots behind mine. One of them was the vacant lot and then the other one. And then there was one of Bozade's lots. Certainly on that lot, they can't do anything in a large scale because one thing that's been really good and planning commission is you you always have that right to look over the plans that come in. And then also we have zoning which has always been a pretty good thing where you know it's it's already set to what's gonna happen there.

And then we have DRT now. So we have a lot of constraints to make sure that Brookings looks good, but I've just felt there was a couple areas here that I had concern with. The one that was in Box 3, think you called it, where there was just one house on the corner certainly made sense because the rest of its surrounding was exactly the same zoning and exactly the same medium residential instead of or resident the light residential instead of medium. So with that, I guess what I'm saying is we all appreciate historic preservation but in the case where it's encroaching on the zoning, would hope that we could get an amendment to to take those off of there. And I think that that we should watch the half a block that is bordering 6th Street, you know, so that it's it's governed more by the city and by the zoning and by the DRT and by your group.

So thank you very much. And I like Deb Dominick.

Thanks David. Is there anyone else in the audience?

Hi. I'm Diane Koshbaugh and I live on the Corner Of 5th Street and 9th Avenue. So I'm a block off of 6th Street in the Central Historic District. We purchased our 100 year old home about thirty years ago just as the Central Historic District was becoming formed. We did some major renovations to the home knowing that we had safeguards being in the historic district.

If changes in the land use of 6th Street are allowed, they will affect the homes on 6th Street in the historic area and that will also have a trickle effect to the neighborhoods behind them and all the houses behind them. I'm asking that you not allow the the land use change proposed in the 2040 plan as it would greatly affect both the central and university districts. Let's protect the 6th Street between Madari and Maine.

Good evening commission members, Ben Stout, 1003 3rd Street here in Brookings. I actually own the two properties 629 6th Ave and 625 6th Ave on the slide that we're looking at now. I haven't been in front of this board before, but I would just say I've got friends on both sides of this issue. I actually do a lot of zoning work for my career. I have been to a couple 100 meetings like this over the last ten years.

Know how sensitive some of these topics can get. And obviously, I have a vested interest in what's going on here as well. And I was actually part of the team that wrote the 2040 plan as well. So I've been paying attention to this one a little bit. I guess from my perspective, I think this particular block is one that maybe could be looked at for redevelopment.

And the reason why I say that is because there's already an apartment, there's a vacant lot and there's some businesses on the south half of the lot. I actually have done quite a bit of work on the 629 House on the corner for the last three years, been working on remodeling that. Know these old houses, it's a lot to work on them and the cost is substantial. I think it's worth it, but encouraging people to do that is not something that's easy. And I think if we're not going to look at redeveloping certain areas that make sense and I completely agree that I think some of the developments that have happened recently have challenged these conversations and made us really think about what's important in the community.

But I think there are some things that we could do that would make it easier for homeowners to incentivize them to redevelop or improve their properties. For example, a lot of these old lots are 50 foot lots. Well, if you want to put in a garage, know, I got to come to probably a couple different meetings for variances. It took around six months for me to get approval to just to put in new windows and move the rear door on this six two nine house. And all those things, it's the little things that add up that make this very challenging to rehab these old properties.

I think that this is a bigger conversation than this just a specific request for zoning that's going to continue for a long time. And I guess I would summarize by saying I love these old houses but there are some key areas in town where I think we could redevelop and it would make some more sense while enhancing the neighborhoods that are there already. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sue Engelman. I'm here on behalf of my son and daughter-in-law. And if you could flip back one slide, that little 516 right there, that's their house. They just moved in last year and that lady that sold it to them was approached to be, I mean she was deceased so it was the family, it was his state. And they had to sign an agreement because there were other people in that area that wanted to take over that spot so they could do whatever that they were going to do.

This is my kids' dream house. And not only that, but my daughter is now at SDSU and she had just completed her first year in museum studies. She'll be an intern at the South Dakota State University Ag Museum this year. And she's all about preservation. And we need to preserve the what's left. We don't have a lot left anymore. These are charming old houses. This is Brookings. If they want to build, let them build south where there's no nothing like this. If people don't wanna repair their old houses, then find a new one and let someone take over who wants to keep this. Thank you.

Is there any other comments? Please come forward.

Hello again. So, I just wanted to say really quickly, I live at 811 6th Street and I moved here from Washington as an architect wanting to fix up an old house and I've been doing exactly that. I got my wood floors refinished this last September. I just you know been looking at getting some bids on redoing the siding. The vinyl siding that's on my house currently does not allow me to apply for grants as is currently a non contributing house, but it's a 130 year old house, it has certainly potential.

When I've contacted SHPO of saying I'd like to apply for some grants, can you help me? And they put me in a catch 22 of saying we we can't until you take the vinyl siding off. Well, but I can't begin the project if I wasn't awarded a grant until the end of everybody being awarded the grant project. So I'm very aware that there's these very sticky patient pieces for putting effort into historic homes, but I did a tour with the SDSU interior design club this past fall and I learned about a house that was bought for 250,000 and has been refinished, no square footage was added and the city had now walked through it at 75% completion and marked it as an $880,000 house. So there are some of these properties in the districts that if given the right amount of love and TLC have the potential to be very prosperous and it's not just for the property owners around it, that is for the entire city of Brookings that is benefiting from these investments.

So I'm hoping to be one of those people that has a beautiful garden and a beautiful old house that when people drive through Brookings because this is a you know, I know this is a highway but this, we have a bypass, right? So it's not exactly the place where all the trucks are coming back. But I want people who are visiting Brookings from the SDSU campus to downtown to see our beautiful neighborhood and think, wow, I wanna come to school here in Brookings. Oh, I wanna come and live in Brookings. These houses are postcards on 6th Street. So they're so beautiful and I love my house.

Good evening everyone. Thank you for taking time to listen. Samuel Krueger, small business owner here in Brookings. I own the house located at 806 6th Street, just one of the properties between two of the areas in topic tonight. I'm also a member of the Historic Preservation Commission and it's been very insightful to kinda hear a lot of these different opinions.

One thing that I would like to see going forward is some of the discussions since we had some people mention when this comprehensive plan was initially developed or the modification in 2018. I think that this conversation would be good to get some insight on why these specific areas were designated as potentially rezoning. That's really kind of the main topic I wanted to get in more just so we could kind of continue that conversation back and forth between new development and historic preservation and just continue to look at those two opinions as we move forward. Thank you.

Thanks. Ryan did remind me that there is a the county zoning meeting does start at 8PM if we need to will. Okay. Thanks Ryan. Is there any other one here that probably we definitely welcome your comments?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board discussion.

Mr. Chair, for the sake of time, we'll jump right in. Got a number of comments first of all start by saying at this point plan to vote in support of this motion. I took some relevant notes here. Things that stood out to me based on the public testimony nothing about this proposal changes zoning. It is just changing the future land use map, which

I

find to to some degree mitigate the concerns that, Mr. Knapp and Mr. Stout raised, which I think are valid. I also find it to be noteworthy that this proposal was brought forward by the Historic Planning Commission. I think that should carry some weight as we make these decisions.

Finally, I think that in my time on this commission I have not seen this much public support for a topic. I think that also should carry some weight. Suspect that regardless of what we do tonight the citizens will be involved in any decision in in these neighborhoods. I think that this support of their proposal makes sense to me.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to add a couple of things too. Really appreciate the information that's coming and the dialogue that's coming from our citizens across the city seems like there is great support. One of the things that I was looking into in the documents that were shared by staff is that on page 164 of the comp plan under the residential scale preservation, it does state as future that to preserve the scale of the original 6th Street residential neighborhoods for housing and commerce. And I think that based upon that comp plan information and what we've heard or what's being proposed today, that falls in line with that.

Also to what one of our citizens talked about is the scale of what we're talking about. I crunched some numbers. And when I think about the city of Brookings, it's approximately 13.66 square miles. And of that, both the central and university historic districts cover about 0.11 square miles, which is less than 1% of the city's total combined. So combined, we're talking about 26 city blocks of the approximate 3,500 city blocks in all of Brookings.

And then when we drill down even further, we're talking about five blocks along the 6th Street corridor. And when some people have heard me say before that I am both preservation and, pro construction as well. And what I mean by that is that I am happy to see the projects that we have been developing and that are going up in support of development within our city. What I also feel is a lot of those that are contributing to housing are actually to the benefit of our neighborhoods because they are going to lessen the load of a lot of that housing being eaten up by rental. And it's going to provide more housing that is going to be, to many of the comments we've heard today, people who are willing to buy and then also invest in these neighborhoods as well.

So I, too, am in support of this proposal.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

Mike or Ryan, can one of you explain what the DRT is reasoning for not being supportive of this?

Commissioner Schmeichel, we've seen a number of future land use map amendments come to the Planning Commission over the last two to three years. And DRT stands on a majority of these, well, really all of these future land use map amendments. The goal is to allow flexibility and that was counter to this proposal. In this case, the current future land use map category of medium density residential does allow flexibility. The comprehensive plan states that medium density residential would preserve existing medium density residential neighborhoods and encourage additional density at target locations along the corridor.

So the future role of the medium density residential would both allow for the preservation of the existing and allow for the encouragement of additional density. So that category was more flexible than the residential scale preservation, which the future role of that category was to simply preserve the scale of the original 6th Street residential neighborhoods for housing and commerce, as Commissioner Heinrich noted. It's just counter to the goal of DRT to allow for flexibility when looking at these future land use map amendments.

Thank you.

Brian, I need just a little more clarification. Again, when you say flexibility, if this were not supported tonight, does that mean that anything in the little red scallop box cannot come up before the commission in the future?

No that's not the case. I mean you're asking if it can come back for a future land use map change?

Exactly.

It could come back for a future land use map change. So what the future land use map changes, they typically come to us in two ways. One, a property owner would request a change to the future land use map like we saw recently on the 34th Avenue corridor. The last few months we've seen some future land use map changes over there requested by the property owner. That's one way we can see it.

The second way we can see it is if it's more internally city, staff, Planning Commission, BHPC in this case, more city initiated. So in this case it would be a city initiated change but that does not prevent a future property owner from any of these locations to come, they could come next month, they could come in a year, they could come back and request a change to the future landage map again. This does not prevent that from the future. If

I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying is the benefit of approving this right now is that the city would have more flexibility in developing?

No, the current future land use map category of medium density residential, that one would be a more flexible future land use than the residential scale preservation. It does allow for the existing medium density residential to be considered in the future, and additional density in target locations is what the comprehensive plan notes for medium density.

And does it do anything with respect to changing in any way the possibility business rezoning?

It does not, no. The preservation scale, if it changed to preservation scale, our residential preservation scale, again the future role in the residential scale preservation is to preserve the scale of the original 6th Street residential neighborhoods for housing and commerce. So the residential scale preservation does include the ability for housing or commerce, but to stay at the same scale. So you know those one to two story structures with you know setbacks and massing similar to the scale of the existing neighborhood.

So we're not talking here about rezoning for four stories?

This doesn't have, this is not a zoning decision, this would just be a future land use map decision which could impact future considerations of rezones. It's not a zoning decision.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there's another question for Ryan and Mike. Would it be odd to do something similar to what David brought up in the fact of potentially this entire area aside from like that half a block from 6th Street to half a block in, leave that the way it is and do everything else around it into something like this? I'm just trying to think like, it's definitely one of the most polarizing like, like, captivating things I've dealt with since the jail. I think it's I'm just trying to figure out is there some compromises here to the point of like if we left it at 6th Street area half a block in.

I'm just curious if that would be an odd way to do that in the future.

Commissioner Schmeichel, so the proposal would be to change the future land use map for those five areas, but the Planning Commission can certainly make a recommendation to amend that in any way if they would like to go with certain areas and not others, or amend the change of the future land use. You can certainly make any amendments to this request that you see fit.

I'd like to throw in a couple of comments just for things to think about is part of the

reason this is in the comp plan, it's called a urban strategic area. And that's how it's defined along the entire 6th Street corridor. As you get west to Madari, you get into the historic districts. And so it brings with it its own unique set of criteria. And so it's not a rezoning tonight.

But what we need to be considering is as its current condition and as it changes in the future, what do we want to see there from appropriate uses densities? It has nothing to do with design. We don't get into the design other than with if it's a commercial corridor project here. Historic preservation would deal with the design aspect of it through the 11.1 review. It's not saying that redevelopment can occur but when it were to occur there's standards that need to be adhered through and they go through the eleven-one review, through SHPO, through the local Brookings Historic Preservation Commission.

And that's when you start looking at the scale and how does a scale of what they're proposed fit in with the existing neighborhood. And so with the residential scale preservation it mentions predominantly single story and two story type structures. With the medium density residential it still has that same scale preservation but if opportunities present itself to add additional density, medium density residential would support it. Similar concept with the high density residential but regardless of which one of those categories it is, if it's in a historic district, there still is additional review processes that it needs to go through. So don't let all of that get caught up.

I think the primary thing that you need to look at from the future land use map is what are the appropriate uses and densities that should be along this corridor or in this area that we're looking at tonight.

If I could just follow-up on that, one of those comments. Mike mentioned the urban strategy area. So in the comprehensive plan and the future landings map, there is an urban strategy area which gets into a little more detail with these residential scale preservation or the medium density residential. There's a few additional policy points that are described in that urban strategy area. And that urban strategy area, it's just between 7th Street and 5th Street along the 6th Street corridor, from 1st Avenue over to Madari Avenue.

And so that's really the only place that we see this discussion on the residential scale preservation. Beyond that, the remainder of the historic districts are currently medium density residential. So the entire University Residential Historic District North Of 7th Street is medium density residential. The entire Central Residential Historic District South Of 5th Street, those are medium density residential on the future land use map. It's in the urban strategy area that we have that residential scale preservation that's included as another policy consideration. Just want to note that these areas that are currently medium density residential in this urban strategy area are consistent with the remainder of the historic districts.

Mr. Chair, sorry, I just want to expound on what I just want to ask Mike to clarify. So like, I appreciate the explanation on that. So if somebody were in the future wanting to redevelopment this area, they would go to DRT, which would then go to our local historic preservation and then state historic preservation and then to us in council?

It all depends on the project but typically no you would start with eleven-one review application that is submitted to state historic preservation office and they're gonna ask, they'll make a determination whether or not it's appropriate based upon the criteria or they may ask for a case report which they send it back to the applicant and there's criteria that they would need respond to certain specific questions. With that they typically ask for our local historic preservation commission to weigh in on the proposal and ask for their comments or feedback from our local historic preservation commission. And then once they get that comments locally then they'll send it back to the state historic preservation office and they'll make a final determination.

And then it still comes to Austin City Council?

If it's a planning or zoning item. If it's Right, right.

Okay. It

may not be a particular issue. It might be a billing permit that triggers the eleven one review.

Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Seeing that we're pushing 08:00 here and need to respect the next meeting. What are the board's wishes we can table and or we can call for the vote. Mister chair

I call a question.

I think there was another comment that I might be open to.

I do have additional questions, but I want to respect the call of question. So I would agree.

Schmeichel? No. Limmer? Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Speer?

No. Heinrich? Hetz?

Letty? No. Solem? No. Aiken? No. Braun?

Yes.

Motion fails. This is a recommendation that would go to the city council, so that recommendation will be advanced to the I'd like to go to the May, the second meeting in May for the council.

I'll call for adjournment.

So moved. Meeting adjourned.

Second. Thank you.