Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. We'll start the meeting with roll call. Ryan?

Roll as noted with Schmeichel absent.

Next item on the agenda is approval of previous minutes. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Second. So moved. All in favor?

Aye.

Agenda is approved. Next item is approval. Did I say minutes or agenda? I'm sorry. I did say minutes. Well then we'll go with the agenda. Approval of agenda, is there a motion?

So move solemn. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Agenda is approved. We will now oh and do you want to do the announcement now Ryan. I just want to

make a quick announcement for planning commission members in attendance here. You'll see on our agenda and packet, we do have a new staff person joining us for the meeting here, a new staff person to the Community Development Department. Bailey Maika is an associate planner. She started here about three weeks ago and will be joining us for the meeting tonight. She's down here with our staff next to Alyssa and Mike. Welcome, Bailey. Welcome.

We will now convene as the board of adjustments. The board of adjustments 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 votes, six member board would be five votes as well and a five member board requires 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 it 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 property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. First item variance Lot 5 Block 1 Kilkerson second edition. Ryan.

Thank you Mr. Chair. The first item on the agenda tonight is a variance located at Lot 5 Of Block 1 Gilchriston Addition. The applicant is Kurt Gatormson, it is located at 332nd Avenue in an industrial I one light district. The variance request is an exception to our zoning ordinance regarding setbacks for structures, section ninety four one hundred thirty six F identifies the required front, side and rear yard setbacks for the Industrial I 1 Light District.

In that district, it is required 20 foot setback on the front, side, and rear. The applicant is asking for an exception from that in the form of a variance with a seven foot side yard. The staff recommendation on the proposal is to deny. The Board of Adjustment's action would be to approve or deny. Variances, the Board of Adjustment has the authority to approve or deny variances from state statute using criteria.

The following criteria should be used for reviewing variance due to special conditions. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. A variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. The property, as mentioned, Lot 5, Block 1, is shown in the blue outlined area here. It's actually an unaddressed parcel, it is located adjacent to 332nd Avenue to the north. It is located adjacent to four commonly owned lots. The applicant owns the lot here as well as the property to the north, south, and east.

The applicant has submitted a site plan showing a proposal for a new building on the vacant lot. It would be a storage shop type building located on the southern edge of that undeveloped parcel. And the request would be for a seven foot setback to the south, which in this case would be a side setback between this lot and the lot to the south where the SODAC Labs building is located. Closer plan here for the building does show a number of, as mentioned, a row of storage shop type units within the proposed building. And that is the end of my staff report.

I'll stand for any questions on the item.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the variance?

So moved.

Second? Second. Thank you. Motion has been moved and seconded. Will now open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in regards to the variance? Please come forward. Seeing no one will close public hearing and open for board discussion. Thoughts and comments?

Ryan can you share what what is the business that's being used now for this parcel or adjacent parcel.

As mentioned the adjacent parcels to the south there is the SODAC labs industrial use. To the east there is a number of buildings that I think are, I believe mostly rented out for like contractors type shops. And then to the North, I believe it's again some rented out as contractor shops. So it's mostly contractor shops with the exception of the SODEC laboratory, SODEC labs laboratory to the South.

And then am I looking at this correctly that there's about a dozen of those subcontractor shops within the proposed new building?

That would be a question for the applicant. I don't know what the intended use of the building would be necessarily the way it's designed with a number of units kind of carved out into that long building. It would appear that it would be a similar use to a storage contractor shop type building. If the applicant wants to expand on that, they certainly may.

Yes, I can expand on that. So yes, the building to the north is, like Ryan said, contractor shops. So lease them to small business owners. Same thing with the building to the east and then our businesses in the building to the south of it. And so that proposed building would be additional contractor type shops. That would be the same use as the stuff, the building to the north and the building the three buildings to the east of it.

How many contractors are you expecting to have in there?

Right now, we're still sort of undecided, probably around the 12 range.

Ryan, can you walk through the staff recommendation to combine the properties and replat?

Sure. So the question is regarding the staff recommendation of denial. When looking at a variance, we should look at those criteria and see if they're hitting the criteria or if there are other ways to mitigate an issue before going down the variance route. The variance route is kind of the avenue of last resort. There's no other way to solve the issue, variance would be a special case where they can't proceed without but for that variance.

In this case, I did mention and the application itself mentioned that the properties are all owned and common. And one solution before going down a variance route could be that the lots are replatted into one common lot. At that point, the side yard setback here being sought, the reduced side yard setback would not even be a discussion. It would just be needing the fire separation between buildings so they would actually likely have less of a hardship by coming to the lots. They they could probably go all way up to that property line that's there today or further.

We'll just need to be at least a fire separation required between the buildings. That would be the recommendation from staff is to deny based off of the ability to solve issue and other means.

Thanks Ryan, that sounds reasonable. Does the applicant have an opinion on that position?

Yeah, so I guess our response to that is the two properties to the north were both granted variances for setbacks and then also the cost of getting the properties replanted into a single parcel.

Other questions comments.

Do we know what the previous variances were for the building to the north.

Yes, so there have been previous variances granted to the north of this location. Most recently there was a variance granted, it'd be three lots to the north at this location here. There's a heating and air conditioning contractor that got a variance for our new building with a 10 foot setback to the north. And the staff report for that variance, you remember there was also a variance granted to the property to the south probably ten ish years ago for that building on the north end of that lot as well. So there has been a precedence of variances being granted.

The most recent was 10, not seven. And one difference would be those two lots they were were surrounded by other owned lots. They didn't have the ability to combine the lots as is the case in this situation. They were kind of surrounded by other private property owners. Those would be a difference in this case, but they both did get the side yard setback would be similar variances what's being asked for tonight.

Seeing no further discussion we'll call the vote. Brian? Jamieson?

No. Speer? No. Heinrich? No. Braun? No. Solem? No. Aiken?

No. Limmer?

No. Motion fails.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda for the variance 1100 Crystal Ridge Road notices hereby given that Susan Gannon has made a request for a variance on Lot 34 B Anoka Village of Indian Hills addition, also known as 1100 Crystal Ridge Road. The request is for an accessory structure located in the front yard area. Front yards of lots with residential uses shall be devoted entirely to landscape area except for the necessary surfacing of driveways and walkways used to to reach parking and loading areas. Notice is further given that said request will be acted on by the board of adjustments 05:30 Tuesday, 06/03/2025 in the Chamber Room on the 3rd Floor of Brookings City County Government Center.

Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Brian, would you like to introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The next item is a variance for property located at 1100 Crystal Ridge Road. The applicant is the property owner Susan Gannon. The property is located in a residence R2 two family district. The variance request in this case is for an exception from our yard area requirements which prohibit accessory structures from being located in the front yard per section ninety four point three nine nine C seven. The staff recommendation for this variance is to approve the variance, Board of Adjustment's action would be to approve or deny.

Again, the Board of Adjustment is authorized from the state of South Dakota to grant variances using the special conditions. I won't read them out this time. We read those out for the last variance. The location, 1100 Crystal Ridge Road. It's located on the corner of Crystal Ridge Road and Indian Hills Road.

The applicant owns the corner half of this twin home development right on the corner of Crystal Ridge and Indian Hills Road. A shed has been placed on the property currently in that area that is prohibited in the front yard. The red box shown on this site plan here is the approximate location of that shed and pictures below do show that located in the front yard on the Indian Hills Road portion of the property. And here are some pictures from the rear side. That ends my staff report and I'll stand for any questions that you have on the variance.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the variance? So moved Aiken. Second. Second.

Motion has been made and seconded. We'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak regarding the variance?

Good evening. My name is Susan Gannon. I would like you to consider letting us keep our shed. It was on a misunderstanding on our part before we put it in. And I don't really have a location to move it to to keep it.

Okay. Thank you. We'll call you up if there are any questions during our

I I actually do. Ryan, can you go to the other set of photos? That one. On this photo that shows on the bottom right, is that the shed? Is this your fenced yard and is that the shed?

This is actually our backyard. It shows the slope where the shed wouldn't be allowed to be placed because of the slope. So what you can see there is actually the house.

And then whose shed is that?

That is my neighbor's shed.

And does it have the same slope?

Yeah. Well, he his his does not. His is on the outside of his fence where the ground is level.

Okay. Thank you.

Since you're since you're up here, we could ask questions later. I'll just ask a quick one. Do you have any, aware of any concerns by any of your neighbors?

I am not. They actually I had a couple volunteer to come and talk with or come and support me tonight.

Oh so you do have neighbors in support of your request?

I

do. Okay thanks.

And then just a tag on to that one. Are there any that you know of HOA rules or?

There are HOA rules, but it's only with our house and my neighbor does not object. So it would be the other owner of the twin home.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding the variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and, open for board discussion.

Questions, comments, anyone? Mr. Chair? Just a question maybe for staff or a little insight. When we have a corner lot like this, instead of having two side yards, one front yard, are we in effect dealing with two front yards? Is that how the ordinance would apply to this case?

Yes, that is correct. So on a corner lot, well, any right of way street that a lot would abut would be considered a front yard. So in this case, it's a corner lot on Crystal Ridge and Indian Hills, so there's a front yard located on both of those street frontages. And in this case, being that it is a twin home built on a common wall, there's really no side yard that would have two front yards and a rear yard in that back corner. So there's really no side yard.

Just to note, kind of based off of some of the questions that have been raised. So the other half of that twin home is not on the corner side of that intersection of Crystal Ridge Indian Hills Road. So they do have a side yard on the south end of the other half of the twin home. So they could locate that shed on that side yard because there's not a street on that south side causing another front yard. So to answer the question, yes, both of those would be front yards. And we prohibit anything in the front yard in residential districts except for driveways, sidewalks, landscaping,

so an excess restructure would be prohibited. Thank you for the explanation, Ryan.

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

Speer? No. Heinrich? No. Braun? No. Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Jamieson? Yes.

And Limmer?

Yes. Did I miss anybody? So the motion fails.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda for see variance for 215 Maddari Avenue South notice hereby given that Richard how he has made a request for variances on the North 52.36 feet of Lot 2 in the South eight feet of Lot 1 in Block 1 Of Orchard Drive addition also known as 215 Mid Area Avenue South first request is to build a single family dwelling on a 60.36 foot wide lot. The minimum lot width for the residents r one b single family district is 75 feet. The second request is to build a single family dwelling on a lot less than 10,000 square feet in size. The third request is for a five foot setback for an accessory structure.

When accessory structure is located within 10 feet of a primary structure, the accessory structure must maintain the same side yard setback as the primary structure. The minimum side yard setback for the resident residents are one b single family district is eight feet. Notice is further given that said request will be acted on by the board of adjustments at 05:30 Tuesday, 06/03/2025 Chamber Room 3rd Floor Brookings county government center. Any persons interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan would you like to introduce the topic?

Thank you, Chair. Next we have a number of variances requested at 215 Madari Avenue South. The applicant is the property owner Richard Howie. 215 Madera Avenue South is located in a residence R1C single family district. As mentioned, there are three requests.

One would be to place a dwelling on a lot without the required lot width, one without the required lot area, and the second or the third would be for the location of the accessory structure detached garage and the side yard area. Staff does recommend approval of all three variances. Just a note, once we get to the end of the staff report, I will call for two separate motions and votes. I do want to do a motion and vote on the lot width and lot area first. It's kind of a package deal for the lot variances.

And then I want to do a second motion and vote on the accessory building setback. So the Board of Adjustment's action will be two motions and to approve or deny those requests. February, as shown here in the blue outlined box, it was actually a home that was demolished by fire a few months ago, and the property owner would like to place a new residential dwelling in the same location on that lot, but keep the existing detached garage in the location that it is, so the lot would use that existing driveway, use the existing detached garage, but they would like to rebuild a new single family dwelling on that lot. Here is the proposed site plan showing the location of the proposed new dwelling. It does show the dwelling itself meeting the front side and rear yard setbacks.

It does show, in this case, that the dwelling would be six feet two inches away from the existing garage. And when a detached structure is located within 10 feet of the primary dwelling or located within 60 feet of the right of way, that accessory structure has to meet the side yard setback requirements. In this case, would be the eight feet required on the north. The existing detached structure has a setback of five feet, which is the typical setback required for an accessory structure. But in this case, the extra setback is required due to the separation between the garage and the structure.

The lot width shown here is 60 feet in width. The minimum lot width required is the 75 feet and then the lot area again was the first variance applied for. The drawings here shown are the proposed elevation drawings of the single family home and a rendering of what the home will look like. And that does end my staff report. I would suggest opening it up to the public hearing and then proceeding to individual votes.

Thanks Ryan. So you want me to just open the public hearing. Okay, we'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak?

Need a motion first. Motion to approve. Okay.

Chair, I'll move to approve motion one regarding lot width and motion two regarding lot size. Thank you.

Is there a second? Second. Solemn. Thank you. Motion has been moved and seconded. We'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak regarding the variances? Please come forward. I'm Richard Howie. Good evening.

So the garage setback, tentatively I've got in the future plan for a three stall garage on the front of this house, but I can't do it today with fundings. So I need to leave the existing garage. So I've got a garage. I've left enough room on the house setback to add that garage in the future. That's why it's set back so far.

Would your intent be then to demolish that single garage when you put up the other one?

Yes. Move the driveway and the approach.

Okay. Anything else for Richard while he's up here? Thank you. We'll call you again if needed. Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding the variances?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Question, comments, anyone?

Mr. Chair, just a quick question, I think, for staff. We have, information on what the lot width what the lot width is versus what it should be to not need a variance, how short are they on the square footage? Did I miss that?

The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet is what' required. And they have roughly 9,000 square feet so about 10 about 1,000 square feet short.

Others? Do you have something? Okay. Anyone else? Ryan, please call the vote please.

So for the lot area in the lot with first Heinrich.

Yes. Braun. Yes.

Solem. Yes. Aiken. Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Speer? Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Motion passes. And for the accessory structure setback Braun?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Enlimmer? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks, Ryan. We will now reconvene as the planning commission. I will now call this meeting to order. I would like to welcome those in attendance at tonight's meeting. 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 amendments, and other matters.

The commission makes their recommendation based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. After a motion is moved and seconded, 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 finding effects, and forward their recommendation to the city commission. First item on the agenda five a future land use amendment. Ryan would you like to introduce the topic.

Thank you mister chair

the first item for the planning commission agenda is future land use map amendment for 3707 Main Avenue South. The applicant is the property owner Matt Wagner. The request is to amend our future land use map which is a component of the city's 2040 comprehensive plan. The request is to amend that future land use map from the existing future land use of urban low and open wetland to an urban medium future land use category. The existing zoning in place on the property is a mix of agriculture, residents R3A, multifamily and business B3 heavy district.

The staff recommendation for the future land use map amendment is to approve. The planning commission's action would be to approve or deny any action taken on this item is a recommendation made to the City Council. 3707 Main Avenue South, shown here the area outlined in yellow, is four different parcels located on that South Main address. Future land use map shown here, as mentioned, it's a combination of urban low, which is the light blue shaded area on the left side of the outlined area, and open wetland, which is the orangish color on the other two thirds of amendment area. The request would be for this entire area to be shown as urban medium, which would be similar to the urban medium shown on this map to the North, the darker greenish blue color to the North, and to the West as well as urban medium.

Existing zoning, as I mentioned, is currently a combination of ag on the East End and business B3 and R3 on the West End. Whenever we're looking at our future land use map in places that involve open wetland or open floodplain, a few things we want take a look at are the floodplain map and the suitability model that is built into the comprehensive plan. This is a map of our floodplain map showing that there is no floodplain within that open wetland area of the comprehensive plan. And the second is a suitability map. This is a model that was developed by the drafters of the comprehensive plan.

They took a look at development conditions in areas, including soil suitability, the ability to develop plans in low lying areas, wet areas. So the suitability for development. In this case, it does show the Eastern twothree of that area as an area of moderate moderately difficult development conditions, likely due to the very flat low lying area here, which would potentially cause some issues with high water table and your drainage plan, figuring out your drainage for the lot. That does end my staff report, and I'll stand for any questions.

A Do Is there a motion to approve the amendment?

Mister chair, I move to approve

Soleim. Thank you. Second?

Second.

The amendment has been, motion has been made and seconded. Is there public comment? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in regards to the amendment?

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, members of the commission. My name is Matt Wagner. I am the owner of this property. Prior to purchasing this property property, I consulted with Civil Design Incorporated to ensure that we weren't going to have any issues for future build.

That's the ultimate goal and the intent of this amendment is to ultimately have b three zoning for our company, excuse me, our company and our our shop, our forever shop. So when I consulted with CDI, we did rule out the issue of any wetland areas in there according to the US Fish and Wildlife Services. Knowing full well that there were some low lying areas to the east, I also consulted with CDI to establish final grade elevations and what was going to be required to make sure that we weren't going to be too low at this property. Once that was determined is when we purchased this property, the ultimate goal again is to take and build the shop there. I think it's important to note that currently both to the north and to the south of me, although it is urban low designation the property to the north of me is currently zoned urban medium the property to the south was also just last year zoned urban medium so this falls in line with what that area is eventually going to be used for, I feel.

In addition to that, I think it's important to note that although the the future land use is is phrased open wetland. I think it's important to note that there should really be a designation between open and designated wetland because those are significantly different. In fact, through the the notes when I met with the development review team even said that there's open space slash wetlands. So there is a significant differentiation between those two. And after we did work with CDI, we did establish that it is it was open space, but it is not a wetland.

And I think that's really important to designate. So other than that, I'm open to any questions that you may have for me.

None at this time. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak regarding the amendment? Please come forward. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Question, comments, anyone?

Mister chair, I do have a question for staff. Could you, Ryan, you provide us just with an education of what is the difference between open wetland and flood plain?

So our comprehensive plan has a number of categories in our land use section. Just going to locate those descriptions here. So our future land use map, it does have the open space wetland future land use category and it does have the floodplain overlaid onto the map as well. So the open space, wetland, future land use category, it's a space that is typically in a similar area to the floodplain. It's the area where we do typically see a lot of water and large rain events, low lying areas or areas that are wet.

A lot of the town on the West side, west and south side would be in this open wetland area as well as a lot of like historic drainage flows on the south side of town. You'll see streaks on the future land use map of open space wetland through the south part of the community. Even though we have had development occurring in those areas, it is classified as open space wetland. In areas where the comprehensive plan drafters wanted to try to protect open areas for drainage, for natural flows towards the wetland, which is a separate I'm sorry, towards the floodplain, which is a separate description. It's an actual delineated location from the federal government where the one hundred year floodplain is, it's a protected area for homeowners insurance, and that would be the difference there.

The open space, wetlands, does that explain your does that answer your question? Okay.

Yes, thank you.

Other questions or comments on the amendment? Seeing none we will call vote. Ryan? Lemmer?

Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Letty? Yes. Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda 5B commercial corridor design review overlay district site plan 2118 Main Avenue South Notice is hereby given that Dakota Land Design LLC has submitted an application for approval of a commercial core design review overlay district site plan on the following described real estate. Lot 1 and Track 2 of Fox Run Addition, city of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. Notices further given that said application will be acted on by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday 06/03/2025 in the chamber room on 3rd Floor, Brookings City And County Government Center. Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation to the city council. Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter.

Ryan, would you like to introduce the topic?

Thank you, mister chair. This is a Commercial Corridor Design Review Overlay District site plan at 2118 Main Avenue South. The applicant is Dakota land design LLC two one one eight main avenue south it's a business b two zoned lot also located within the Commercial Corridor Design Review Overlay District along Main Avenue South. Any development, any new construction or addition that would impact the facade of a structure within the Commercial Corridor Design Review Overlay District has to come through Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval of any site plan. The staff recommendation for this site plan is to approve.

Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny. And any recommendation made by the Planning Commission or any action taken by the Planning Commission is a recommendation made to the City Council. This is an expansion to an existing structure at 2118 Main Avenue South. The Planning Commission previously approved a site plan for the initial phase. This is the Be Well fitness facility on South Main.

You can see the original site plan elevation drawing from the 2023 plan. The original proposal came with two exceptions to our commercial corridor design review overlay district regulations. One was to eliminate a portion of the side yard landscape area to allow for shared access and parking. And the second was to allow a portion of the second story to be located within a 15 foot front yard setback. The proposed expansion, the proposal is to add an additional 2,362 square feet on the north side of the existing structure.

The addition would not require any other exceptions from what's been granted, and there are no additional changes to the site plan with the exception of the small building expansion to the north. The project is located in the yellow box, slightly to the south of 20th Street South and Main Avenue Intersection. The site plan shown here, as mentioned, there's no changes to anything on the site plan beyond the darker blue box area on the bottom, kind of bottom center. That is where the new addition would go on the north end of the existing building. Revised landscape plan was submitted as well, showing that the addition would also meet the landscape ordinance requirements as did the original building.

And elevation drawings submitted here showing the design of the addition. Mainly look to the two southern, two bottom elevation drawings to kind of see where that addition would be. On the bottom left would be the expansion on the front facing side, so the east facing side along Main Avenue. The addition would be on the right hand side. The bottom right would be showing the elevation from the rear side in the parking area. South elevation on the top right would not change. And then the north elevation on the top left that would show the north end of the expansion of the building. And I believe that ends my staff report and I'll stay in for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the site plan? So moved. Second? Second. Sold. The motion has been made and seconded, we will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in regards to the site plan?

Thank you counsel. I'm Alicia Hike with Dakota Land Design. We're here representing the owners of this addition. So like Ryan said, we're just adding on to the North Side of B Well. We're not asking for any exceptions or variances on this one. We're just looking to seamlessly design with the existing facade tying in with that so the business can expand their services to their customers. And I stand for any questions that you guys may have.

Any questions at this time, board? Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding the site plan? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Question, comments, folks?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, first of all, congratulations to the owners who I don't think are here, but, a great project. It's really exciting to see the expansion this rapidly. I do have a question for staff regarding the changes that the city council is looking at in terms of streamlined approval for a project like this if that had occurred would we be seeing this project tonight?

No but the ordinance amendment date did get approved. Yeah. But there's a twenty day referendum period from the date that the ordinance is published. Unfortunately this application got caught in a window so the ordinance would take I think effect four days prior to when this would go to the city council and we just advised them to go through the process in case for any reason it would get referred we didn't want to hold up their project so.

So we we would would we have seen the first version because of the exceptions then? Yes. But not this one.

Correct.

Okay. Thanks. Good question. Any others?

I just have a quick question. I too am so glad that they are so successful. The feedback, the only feedback that I have received from some of their patrons is parking is tough sometimes. And so with this additional square footage and I'm assuming they're just expanding their services, there's only four additional parking spaces that are needed because of this addition is that correct staff?

It looks like they did add four additional spaces. You know there would be other room on-site if there were ever a need for expansion in the future. It does show snow storage on that kind of north end of the parking lot. It would be up to the business owner and the property owner to decide if they did want to expand that parking area, they would have room on that north end. In the commercial corridor design review overlay district, you can also have parking to the side of the building, like you see on the south end of this development.

There is some parking here on the South end. Parking could also be located on that North end, just cannot project any closer than the front setback of that building. So there is room on-site to expand the parking if needed, so that is good feedback to provide to the applicant.

Yeah then my second question is knowing that it says required for spaces when presented with something like this would be want to see a site plan with those additional four spaces as intended.

So every site plan that's submitted, we would review for compliance with our zoning and supplemental ordinances, including parking, landscaping. Those are all reviewed. They do have the required parking necessary for this use and the square footage. Those are reviewed at the time of the billing permit.

Great. Well, I just I hope they're a continued success. And so, I I want people to get in there and get out too. Thank you.

Any others? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Rain.

Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes.

Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Letty? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda five c amendments to chapter 94 to the expiration of a conditional use permit for the purpose of administration of the zoning ordinance. Notices hereby given, the city of Brookings has submitted amendments to chapter 94 pertaining to the expiration of a conditional use permit for the purpose of administration of the zoning ordinance. Notice is further given that said request will be acted on by the planning commission 05:30 Tuesday, June 3, Chamber Rooms, Brookings City County Government Center. 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 you like to introduce topic?

Thank you Mr. Chair. The next two items are going to be ordinance amendments that are being presented for planning commission and city council's review. The first is an amendment to chapter 94 conditional use permits specifically section 94,229, which discusses the expiration for conditional use permits. Currently, use permits expire after one year from approval if no significant work has begun on the project.

We typically consider significant work being they have pulled a billing permit and are ready to begin doing work. We've run into a few situations in recent times where conditional use permits were approved by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council and the applicant didn't pull their permits within that one year time period for a couple of different factors, just not knowing that that was an expiration. And also, some projects are complex and require other site work to be done before a building an actual building permit would be pulled for the conditional use. And so, staff did do some research into expiration dates for conditional use permits in other communities and settled on a proposed change to having the conditional use permit expire after two years. And that is a summary of the changes.

Staff will stand for any questions you have on this. We do need to do a motion public hearing even though we don't have anybody here, but we do have to go through our steps here.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the amendments?

So moved. Aiken. Second Jameson.

Motion being made and seconded, we'll now open the public hearing. Seeing no public hear, we will now close the public hearing and open for discussion. Question, comments, anyone?

Yeah, one question. So in the example cited in the notes talk about a townhome project. And so it expires if there's no significant work done, in this case there was significant work done, just not the type that qualify to keep the permit valid right? Correct. You could approach the problem by redefining what significant work would be?

That would be another approach if we wanted to define that section of ordinance definitions or an explanation of significant work could be another section of our conditional use generally division one, that could be another approach. The proposal would be to simply make the expiration two years.

And that's in line with other communities in the area you said?

Yes, based off research from peer communities.

Speaking from personal experience, appreciate that we're measuring it in time because oftentimes it's hard. It's hard to find people to complete the work. Talk about my personal experiences. And so having a little bit more time as you applied for this permit would be beneficial.

Mr. Chair, I'd just make a comment today. I think this is a good change. I think this should benefit a lot of folks trying to get things done.

Thanks everyone. Seeing no other discussion, we'll call the vote Ryan.

Spear?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solem? Yes. Bacon? Yes. Lemmer?

Yes.

Jameson? Yes. Luddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda 5D amendments to chapter 94 zoning for the addition of concrete asphalt and rock crushing facility as an allowable conditional use. Notice is hereby given that city of Brookings has submitted amendments to chapter 94 zoning for the addition of concrete, asphalt, and rock crushing facility as an allowable conditional use. Notice is further given that said request will be acted on by the planning commission at 05:30 Tuesday, 06/03/2025 in the Chamber Room 3rd Floor Brookings City County Government Center. Any action taken by the planning commission is an recommendation to the city council.

Any person interested may appear and be heard on this matter. Ryan, would you like to introduce the topic?

Thank you, mister chair. The last item on the planning commission agenda is an amendment to chapter 94 for the establishment of a new use identified as concrete asphalt and rock crushing facilities. This would be a change to Article I district regulations, specifically section 90 four-one definitions where we would define this new use as concrete, asphalt, and rock crushing facility. The use in which the principal activity is performed in an open area where concrete, asphalt, rock, brick, cement or other similar paving or building materials are crushed, ground, pulverized, brought bought, sold, exchanged, stored, mixed, packed, disassembled or handled. A concrete asphalt and rock crushing facility does not include, one, the use of a public roadway construction or repair project approved by the city engineer, or equipment which does directly move, which directly moves along the roadway surface and grinds or grinds, reconstitutes or resurfaces the roadway, or two, the temporary on-site crushing, grinding, or pulverizing of a raised building, parking area or structural materials.

So that will the definition of the new use rock crushing facility. We'll also be amending other sections that pertain to this new use, including Article IV district regulations. This new use would be permitted as a conditional use only in the agriculture, industrial I-one and industrial I-two districts. So, it's the agriculture, light industrial and heavy industrial. There will be conditional uses in those three districts.

And with conditional uses, we also have a section in Article V, Division III standards, where we identify the standards of approval for said conditional uses in those districts. In this case, there are five proposed standards of approval for a concrete, asphalt, and rock crushing facility. The first being all concrete, asphalt, and rock crushing facilities shall be located at least 300 feet away from any non industrial or non agricultural zone district boundary line. B, the crushers and stockpiles of materials shall be set a minimum of 100 feet from the property line and or right of way line. C, hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.

M. To six p. M. Monday through Saturday when abutting agriculture or industrial zone properties and eight a. M. Through five p. M. Monday through Friday when abutting residential properties. D, the use shall be conducted, operated and maintained in accordance with any necessary local, state and federal permits, copies of which shall be provided to and maintained on file in the community development department. And lastly, the following shall be provided with an application for a conditional use permit.

One, a site plan drawn to scale showing the location of buildings, areas of outdoor processing and storage, fences, walls, landscaping and screening vegetation, and the location of any stream, river, lake, wetland and major topographical feature within 300 feet of the site. Two, a dust management plan describing dust emission sources, their quantity and composition and indicating conformance with all applicable air quality regulations. Three, a drainage plan for storm water management and runoff indicating conformance with all applicable storm water regulations. And lastly, a traffic plan describing the number of truck vehicle trips the proposal will generate and the principal access routes to the facility, including a description of the facility's traffic impact on the surrounding area. Those would be the standards for review and approval of a conditional use.

Mike has a comment here.

Thank you Ryan. I think we need to take a quick look at letter C. We found a I just noticed a loophole I think the intent was is when a budding non zoned agriculture industrial zone properties, the hours of operation shall be limited to 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, not just residential. I think it was also intended for residential and commercial zoned properties. So we may wanna have some discussion on that.

The intent was hours of operation could be a little longer and extended an additional day when you're in the kind of an industrial setting or agricultural setting because currently mining operations are allowed in agricultural settings. And this would be a similar type of use. But when you start to get closer to residential properties or more of your normal commercial retail office type, those hours of operation should be a little bit more limited and scaled back. So it's something you may want to consider with your motion if we want to correct that particular language. My apologies, but I felt like we just opened ourselves up with a loophole there that what do you do for hours of operation when adjacent to a commercial zone property?

Thanks Ryan. Thanks Mike. Is there a motion to approve the amendment? If you do want to make that change, do so that Mike mentioned.

Yeah. I'll move for approval of the, ordinance along with, adding commercial, commercially zoned or commercial to, C and whatever that is. 9426. Yep.

Thank you. I'll that. Thank you. Thanks, gentlemen. The amendment has been, made. The motion has been made and seconded. We will now open the public hearing and as well as close the public hearing with no one here for comment and open up for board discussion. Question, comments, anyone?

I do have one question, Mr. Chair, and it's for staff. So, current operations that are processing concrete, asphalt, rock crushing that are in city limits, what are they classified as now? And, do they have conditional permits, Are they not classified at all? Maybe Mike has a response.

Part of the reason why we have the ordinance here before you tonight. We don't specifically address it. There was an issue. We're trying to address it now. There are some locations that, you know, we could probably make the case that they're affiliated with existing concrete plants and it's kind of an accessory use to the primary use of a concrete plant.

We had situations where it was a completely separate site where they were simply stockpiling and crushing materials on a kind of a vacant parcel close to residential zone property, existing neighbors. It was close to the road right away. And part of the reason for some of the buffer zones is to hopefully get enough space to provide adamant screening as well as vegetation to help control some of those nice windy days that we occasionally get in South Dakota so that material isn't flying all over and creating dust on adjacent properties. And then also just to help, to a certain extent, help minimize the noise. I don't think anybody would want to be next to one of these crushers when they're operating for eight to ten hours a day hearing that noise.

But the existing ones, you know, there's a couple that are more affiliated with concrete plants, but there is there's one site and there's another site we're noticing. I don't know what their intent is, but I noticed they're starting to stockpile south of town.

Yeah. Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the clarification. Yeah, it can

be it's a I think this is

a really good idea. This can be a really loud, disruptive, messy kind of business and appreciate this having this being in front of us. Thank you.

I do think it is something that we need to account for somewhere in our zoning ordinance because it is a very good reuse of materials In this particular location, they plan on using a majority of the crushed concrete as the base course as they install new roads into this particular element. So it is a good reuse. It's just finding the appropriate locations and having the appropriate conditions in place so that you can minimize the impact on the adjacent properties.

Are the three hundred and one hundred feet, are those determined based upon noise studies, dust study, anything that the state can provide or this local city provides?

There really isn't a whole lot of scientific data behind it. I'll be honest, it was kind of borrowing from some other communities and what they had for regulations. This isn't very popular in zoning ordinances across the state. We looked at, some of our regional bordering states as well as Michigan, Texas, the East Coast. We kind of modeled this a little bit more after the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul and what they were seeing for separation distances is kind of how we utilized it.

Seeing no further discussion we will call the vote Ryan.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solem? Yes. Yes. Jameson? Yes. Sister?

Yes.

Letty? Yes. Motion passes.

No further agenda items I will call for adjournment.

Move to adjourn.

Before we do that we were discussing was there

a

third item about the existing garage?

We voted on.

So we voted on two.

We voted on two. The first one was the lot area and lot width. So those, we did two variances in the first motion and then the second variance was the garage.

Got it. Thank you.

Yep.

The square footage was in there somewhere too or not?

Yep. Lot area, lot area and lot width was the first variance.

Okay. Yep. Okay. Now how about an adjournment? Is there a motion?

Can I bring one more thing up before we adjourn? I think the first Tuesday in July is the first, the day oh, never mind, excuse me.

No, please go ahead.

One more time.

I'll take out my comment. To adjourn.

Second. Second.

Meeting adjourned, thank you. So we do have a joint city county planning commission meeting here tonight at eight p. M. So we have about an hour and fifteen minutes here between meetings. We have one item on that agenda. It's a rezone in the joint jurisdiction area. Otherwise, the next meeting would be Tuesday, July 1, back here at 05:30 p. M. So please stick around.

So