Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So

Okay, I'm going to call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome those in attendance at tonight's meeting. We'll start with the board of adjustment, a seven member board which has a power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions. The concurring vote of two thirds of the full membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board. A seven member board requires five votes, a six member board requires five votes, and a five member board requires five votes.

In accordance with Robert's rules of order, we require a motion to approve a request before the request can be debated. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. The board under specific powers granted to it by the state shall authorize variances from the zoning requirements where special conditions existing on the land will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant financial disadvantage of the property property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. With that ryan can you call the roll.

Roll is noted with Commissioner Letty missing.

Alright can, get a motion to approve tonight's agenda. So moved. Second. Moved. Any comments or additions to the agenda? Seeing none, all in favor signify by All saying opposed? Next item on the agenda is approval of June meeting minutes. Can I get a motion?

So moved Aiken. Second.

Any comments on the minutes? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Alright, first item tonight for the board of adjustments item four a. South Dakota State University Foundation has made a request for variances on the South 58 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 Orchard Drive Addition, also known as 217 Miderry Avenue South.

The first request is to build a single family dwelling on a 58 foot wide lot. The minimum lot within the residents are one b single family district is seventy eight seventy five feet the second request is to build a single family dwelling on a lot less than 10,000 square feet in size ryan can you introduce the topic for us.

Thank you Mr. Chair the first item on the agenda is a variance at 217 Maddari Avenue South the applicant is the owner of the properties the south dakota state University Foundation. Location, again, is 217 Madari Avenue South, which is located in a residential r one b single family district. The existing or previously existing dwelling on the lot was destroyed by fire and the applicant would like to reestablish a single family use which would require two variances one for the minimum lot width and one for the minimum lot area. The minimum lot width in the R1B single family district is 75 feet and the lot only has 58 feet.

The minimum lot area in the R1B District is 10,000 square feet and the lot only has 9,000 square feet. Staff does recommend approval of the variance and the Board of Adjustments action today would be to approve or deny. With variances, we, use the hardship test, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and 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 property right that is essentially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

The variance request is the minimum variance which will alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. As mentioned the property is 217 Mid Area South shown in the outlined box located between Orchard Drive and Vine Street. Site plan has been presented for a potential house to be moved on to the lot from another location. It does show that a house could be placed on this lot with all the setbacks being met with the also with room for driveway access and potential garages in the future. But right now, the request is just for the variances for the lot width and the lot area.

And with that staff would stand for any questions.

All right thank you Ryan. With that I'll entertain a motion for approval.

I'll move to approve Solo. Second Jameson.

Okay we have a motion and a second. At this time we'll entertain, public testimony. If the applicant is present they'92re welcome to speak on this issue as well. No testimony in favor or opposition we will open it. Go ahead ma'am.

I'm sorry I

just came in is this 215 Mid Area South Avenue South?

217. And if you wouldn't mind using the mic and also identifying yourself and and where you reside.

And just to clarify, this is the one where the SDSU Foundation wants to move the house from 820? Perfect. Got it here just in time. Sorry. My name is Janet Merriman. I am the assistant chair with the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. And we support the SDSU Foundation's variance request. The house that the foundation is proposing to move to Middary Avenue South from 8 29th Avenue is a contributing structure in the University Historic District due to its architectural representation to the district. Built in 1915, it is listed in the nomination package as the H. C.

Hansen House. Back in January 2023, the STSU Foundation made their first request to the state historic preservation office regarding the removal of the house at 8 29th Avenue. We reviewed the foundation's case report and requested that they look for a way to save the house, preferably relocating it within the historic district. Six months later after further discussions, we accepted their proposal to sell and move the house within the city of Brookings, because they couldn't find a way to keep it in the district. And then a year later they couldn't find a way to keep it in Brookings.

So we we revised they revised their request to keep it in the county which we agreed to. But now they have an opportunity to keep this home within the city of Brookings. And while their proposal does not keep it within the historic district, it gives us the opportunity to preserve the architectural features and look within another Brookings neighborhood. The homes that were lost on Nuderry Avenue South were built in 1920 and have similar features to the house proposed to be relocated from 8 29th Avenue. An additional benefit is that older homes are considered more affordable and more sustainable and moving an older home onto the lot will preserve these benefits.

Approving the foundation's variance request would enable the found the SDSU foundation to meet the limitations set in the request to the state historic preservation office while also preserving a structure from a historic district and allowing it to further contribute and preserve the architectural features within another neighborhood. The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission appreciates the significant efforts that the SDSU Foundation has made to not demolish this house and supports their variance requests so this structure continue to be preserved.

Thank you.

Thank thanks for that context. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this motion? Alright, seeing none we'll open this to the commission. Any questions or comments at this time?

Mr. Chair. This is a Mike or Ryan question. Just for clarification, does moving this house out of the historical district still maintain that if something wants to be done with this house it has to go through the eleven one review with the state or is it outside of that district though?

Commissioner shmeichel once that house is outside of the district unless it' individually listed it would no longer be required to go through 11 review process.

Any other questions or comments from the commission?

So last month, we did approve the adjacent property at two fifteen, three variances for that property. How will the approval of these variances impact the, adjacent neighbors?

Commissioner Heinrich, it would be similar, to the previous variance from, last month. Previously there were two existing homes on the lot. There's not going be any changes to the lot sizes. Setbacks will be maintained. There will be very little impact on the adjacent properties. With the variances granted now, they show that they would be able to maintain their setbacks. It's just a lot area and lot with similar to last month's variance.

Okay seeing no further comments or question Ryan we can call the vote. Schmeichel? Yes.

Jamison? Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich?

Yes. Braun? Yes.

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

Okay we'll move on to item four b. Dave Dykhouse has made a request for a variance on Lot 1 in Block 10 Of Camelot Square edition also known as 1328 Westminster Drive. The request is to build a garage addition within the front yard setback the minimum front yard setback in the residence are one be single family district is 30 feet. Ryan

can

you introduce the topic for us.

Thank you mister chair the next variance is at $13.28 Westminster Drive. The applicant is the property owner in Dave Dyke House. The property is located within a residence R1B single family district. The applicant would like to add a garage addition to the existing structure. There was a variance previously granted on this lot back in 1993 to reduce the front yard setback to 15 and a half feet.

The original variance was approved. I'll get into more some more details. The stat does recommend approval of the variance and Board of Adjustments action would be to approve or deny. We read the special conditions required for variances, same apply here. As mentioned, 1328 Westminster Drive is the location outlined in blue.

Yellow area here is where the applicant would like to expand that garage. The original variance was approved in 1993 for a garage of, 18 by 24 feet. However, the, garage was only constructed at 18 by 24 was constructed. They were approved 18 by 32 with the original variance. So they did leave eight feet unused in that original variance.

They would now like to expand the garage to a depth of 44 feet, so 12 feet beyond what was originally approved in the 1993 variance. So that additional garage depth would be the requirement for basically renewing the variance from 1993. The, garage addition would have more than the 15 and a half feet of front yard setback. As you can see, Westminster Drive kinda curves away from the rear of the property. So we do get to a point where the garage actually does have the 20 foot required.

However, because it is an expansion to a structure that has the 15.5 foot setback, is the need for the revised variance. The applicant did provide some elevation drawings for the proposed garage and staff will stand for any questions you have on this variance.

Thank you Ryan seeing hearing that will entertain a motion for approval. So moved. Second. Having a motion and a second we'll now open this up to public testimony. If the applicant is here and like to speak on this topic they' welcome or anyone in favor of this motion can speak now.

If there is anyone that like to speak in opposition to this motion they may speak now. Okay we'll close the public testimony and open it up to questions or comments from the commission. Well in that case Ryan we'll close the testimony now and call the roll please.

Jamison?

Yes.

Spear?

Yes. Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Taken yes shmichael yes motion carries.

Okay next next item on the agenda item 4C Ben stout has made a request for a variance on Lot 9 Block 9 Peterson second edition also not known as 6296 Avenue. The request is to install a six foot high fence for a length of 60 feet at the property line along 7th Street the maximum height allowed in between the front line and the principal building is four feet in a residential district Ryan could you introduce a topic for us.

Thank you mister chair the next variance is at 629 6th Avenue request is from the homeowner been stout and the locate the property is located in a residence are to two family district Requests for a six foot fence within a front yard setback When a maximum of four feet would be allowed within the front yard setback area. Staff recommends approval and the board just mentioned tonight would be to approve or deny. The property located at 629 6th Avenue shown here outlined in blue There was a previous variance granted I think in 2000 in this case for approval of a five foot high fence In the red lined area shown on this map The applicant would like to Renew that variance To allow up to six feet compared to the original five feet allowed. The applicant has provided a few renderings of what that fence would look like Shown here Looking from the east towards the west this would be the Rear yard and the front yard along 7th Avenue. And another view from 7th Avenue facing the south.

And with that staff would stand for any questions.

Thank you Ryan. Entertain a motion for approval.

Second.

Alright we have a motion and a second so we'll now open this up for public testimony. If the applicant is here, you're welcome to speak on this issue.

Yeah. Thank you mister chair, members of the commission. Ben Stout, 1003rd Street here in Brookings. This has been a property that I've been doing a lot of work on over the last couple of years. Pretty simple request, just would like to put a privacy fence in the backyard and due to the existing regulations.

As I understand it and and mister Miller may wanna correct me if I get any of this if I misspeak on any of this, but we can do a six foot fence in the back along the alley and then also on part of the east side, but not on the we can't be too close to the sidewalk with a six foot fence. So essentially what would happen is, you know, if we went by the rules, again, is a 50 foot lot. We've already heard quite a bit about 50 foot lots this evening. With setbacks, we'd have to go from six foot down to four foot back up to six foot. So the request is simply to enclose the backyard with the six foot fence.

You know, that's kind of standard sizes for what's available now at most building centers. So that's what we're proposing. If we could go back to back one picture. And kind of how I I picked the spot, that's a really nice walnut tree that's gonna be there for a long time that you see on the inside of the fence. There actually was a privacy fence pretty close to where the edge of the sidewalk was of similar height.

It was installed by a previous owner. It was in bad shape. We took it out and and would like to replace it with something new that looks nice. Definitely would take any questions from the commission. I've learned a lot about 50 foot lots throughout this process. I'm sure at some point you'll be hearing an application from me on a garage for this one. Interestingly enough, anecdotally, we talked about putting a new basement under this house and we would actually have to do a variance to pick the house up, put a basement on and put it back in the same spot just due to the 50 foot lot regulations. So, know, these narrow lots can be a real challenge to build around.

Alright. Thank you. I think we'll open it up for additional public testimony if the commission has other questions, we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this motion at this time? Yes ma'am.

Good evening. I'm Doris Schumacher. I live at 628 5th Avenue. So our backyards would be next across the alley from each other. So I'm pretty much just going to express some awareness.

This is also the historic district that we're talking about. Previously when the fence went up, it was for a pet, to keep the pet within the area of, an elderly couple. And I was here at that time speaking for the fence, the lower fence. I'm also concerned in our neighborhood that of the list that I received in the mail, there were 17 names listed of ownership and 11 of those are rentals. And I don't know if I caught if this is going to be a rental or a one or two family dwelling, but it's a concern that we have so many rentals.

And with a high fence, We already have the police traveling in that alley when it's springtime for the different parties and the noise. With privacy, I think there is a danger if we're talking about renting it out to younger people.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this at this time? Okay, seeing none we'll open this up now to the commission for comments or questions.

Mr. Chair, Question for staff, do fences or any of these kind of like accessories do they go through a review process with the historic district?

Commissioner Eagan some do some don't. A fence does not require a historic 11.1 review accessory structures of a certain size like sheds or garages would require a historic 11.1 review but fences do not require

Thank you.

I would say if Mr. Stout would like to address any of those comments he could do so.

Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for the concerns that were brought up. I guess the intent with this, at one point in time I was looking to sell it, got a ton of money stuck into it and quite frankly it needs to, I need to hold on to it for a while. I do have a family that's going to rent it as soon as we finish everything up. I would like to keep a family in it. You know, I actually own the property on the one to the south, 625 6th Avenue. When I lived there, there were five or six college kids in this house and it was in really really tough shape. And I don't like to see that either I guess. We put a lot of hard work into this and I wanna keep it a nice house that adds to the neighborhood.

I have a question. What are the and I can't tell from the drawings, where are the gates gonna be in this fence?

Basically on the sidewalk where you see 6296th Avenue. And then we'll probably put one in the front on the south, would be the Southeast side as well. And maybe, Kenny in regards to the comments about the traffic through the area, that's exactly why I want a privacy fence. This corner lot is it's wide open to the alley and two streets really.

Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for the applicant at this time?

Thank you.

Thanks. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Alright seeing none, I'll call the call the vote. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jamieson? Yes. Motion passes.

Alright we will convene now as the city planning commission. City planning commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make the recommendations to the city commission regarding request for land use classification changes subdivision plats 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 findings of fact, and forward their recommendation to the city commission. Alright. So the next item on the agenda is item five a. This this item is has a number of components to it.

They it is involving around a rezone of various city properties from various districts to our newly developed civic district. Try to kind of summarize that and I'll allow the city, Brian to introduce the topic at this time.

Thank you Mr. Chair. The first item for the Planning Commission agenda is, rezone, various city owned properties from various zoning districts to civic zoning. The applicant in this case it is a city initiated rezone of roughly six sixty properties around the city with zoning districts from ag, floodplain, residents r one, residents r one b, residents r 2, R 3, R 3 A, Business B 3, Industrial I 1, Industrial I 2, Industrial I 1 R and planned development districts. From all those lots, those will be rezoned to our newly, created Civic Zoning District.

The staff recommendation for the rezone is to approve and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and that action is a recommendation that we made to the city council. Here's a map of the properties within the community. As mentioned there's roughly 60 properties, primarily city parks, open space, drainage, lots and a few trail lots, mostly lower intensity uses that are located primarily on residential settings. So like I said, a lot of parks, trails, drainage retention lots. And these are proposed to be rezoned to the Civic Zoning District.

For any questions that do come up here I do have links to all of the allowable the permitted permit special or conditional uses within the civic and all of the existing zoning designations for the lots and with that I'll stand for any questions that have that staff at our commission has.

Thank you Ryan. So we will deal with this in one motion which I'll entertain a motion for approval at this time.

Motion to approve.

Second Jameson.

All right we have a second a motion and a second so at this time we'll open it up to public testimony. We have two hours until a joint jurisdiction meeting so we have plenty of time but would ask that if you come up and offer your testimony to please identify yourself and your your residence and keep your comments reasonably concise out of respect to the others.

Good evening. Al Ostreim, 928 Yosemite Lane. When I saw this come up, I guess it triggered more questions than answers. As I just counted when it came up here, we have 12 different zoning categories and we're gonna lump all of this into one civic zoning. That seems way too broad to me.

One of the other questions I would have is why we would include parks in that. Don't our parks already have an intended use? What would ever change that use and why would we want to open it up to such a broad spectrum of what it could be used for? You know, zoning should be based on use. What is the land gonna be used for, not who owns it.

That just seems backwards to me. Maybe someone could help educate me, I guess. I have five questions that I have been put forward to the the city council that I can't get answers to. I'll read them off here. What danger exists with the current zoning of our parks? Did the city of Brookings take an active part in changing state law that went into effect that does state law used to require a public vote in order to sell a park? Did the city take an active part in that? If they did, why? What's the reason? You know, maybe there's a good reason.

What is it? Why can't we have a park zoning? I mean we already have 12, we're gonna add, we have 13 now, let's just have 14 and have a park zoning. We can make the regulations for our park zoning that parks cannot be touched. What would ever create the need to change the use of a park?

I mean why we have them for a reason, they were designated a park for a reason, why would that ever change? And the last question, if a park is zone civic, what process would be required to change the use of that park? You know, I and like I say, these are questions that I have and I I don't have the answers to them. Hopefully, maybe you do you do. If you don't have the answer to those questions, I would find it hard to believe that we could in good faith vote in favor of this without a lot more due diligence. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak on this topic?

I just got some questions. Oh, come on.

My name is Rebecca Schmeding and I live at 1133 Indian Hills Road, which I believe is right by the I gotta figure out. This map is really fun to read, by the way, guys. By number 16 in the in the in the map. So I read this and I had no idea what was supposed to be happening here. What's this land being re zoned for? Why are we doing it? What's the purpose of it? Okay? I bought my lot to build my house on because there was Indian or Arrowhead Lake Lake, say that with a little parent on it. If you've ever been back there, it's not really very big.

But I bought it back there because I wanted to be able to view nature. And I don't know how this affects my ability to be able to maintain that because it looks to me like you could go put something on that area that's between me and the pond, which I actually have have a contract with the city to maintain the grass in that area because I was the one that took some of the brush away so that I could actually see it. I was given permission to do that. So I don't know what that means to me. In addition, I'm the sec or the treasurer for the homeowners association, then there's a lot of Indian Hills property in this general area that has some stuff associated with it.

And I don't know how it affects our association. So I don't know, unless you guys can explain to me, exactly what this means to me and to my association and to other citizens in the area, why it's a good thing to do. What's the benefit of it? What's the detriment of not doing it? Those types of things. Because so you could could you answer those questions for me?

Commissioner Limmer, I don't know if this is an appropriate time or if you wanna let the public testimony continue and then I can provide a response after we close the public hearing.

Yeah. Would prefer to have all public testimony and then we can address it from the city's perspective.

Okay. So I'll be looking for an answer to what's the benefit, what's the detriment, why are we doing this?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon or good evening. I'm Jeff Streery. I live at 2004 Rio Grande, Brookings. There's a small parcel in green in the Southwest corner which was donated by the developer to the city of Brookings to give us this park. And when I noticed the notice the notice that this was possibly gonna be rezoned, I have questions on this too as far as what is the city gonna do with this.

And I hope it's it's up to you guys to take our parks out of this rezone and put it into the Civic because as mister Ostreem noted that we need to protect our parks. Anytime you get rid of green space for children, which this park is for, we're doing a disservice to our community. And if this is part of community development to give the city prerogative to change parks into something else, then I guess we have the disagreement that we're gonna have back here. So I would hope that you could entertain a motion maybe afterwards that you remove parks out of the civic zoning process. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Johnny Einspar and I live at 1127 Copper Mountain Road. That is Block 1 of the Timberline addition and backs onto Western Avenue. At the end of our block, a piece of property that was going to be another additional twin homes had to be acquired by the city in order to create a diversion of water that was coming down Summit Avenue following a couple of very bad rains. And so now this end of the block is part of a detention pond. My concern is that the city after they had to acquire this promised all of us at this little HOA there on Block 1 that they would continue to maintain the property in a manner that was consistent to the neighboring homes.

And while there has been some some difficulties with it, it actually has, they have actually done a very good job of taking care of it. If it's left untended it houses feral animals. It makes it easier for undesirable trees, invasive weeds, and other noxious weeds to grow. And once they tower up beside that waterway it's going to be a really bad mess. Unfortunately the trough that runs from one end of the property to another is breaking up.

And now weeds are coming up through the cracks of that. And then that encourages sludge to accumulate in the trough and it's kind of blocking up again. So our concern is that if that maintenance goes away it will be a horrible eyesore for the rest of the neighborhood. And I would like to have assurance that we can continue to depend on the city to maintain that piece of property. Can any of you grant that?

We'll allow the city to respond after all the public testimony has been had.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Name's Doug Ostrine. I'm from 216 Mustang Pass. Clarify a little bit where where I might be coming from, but I've been around a long time. Been involved in city government and other communities. I was on the National Landscape Association Board and dealt with a lot of different park issues from that aspect.

So I feel like I'm fairly confident in talking about parks. Parks in the whole United States is a very high priority. We get a lot of attention when we talk about changing the use of national parks, national monuments, and so on. So it's important to everybody. We also have been very highly important in the city of Brookings.

Brookings is known for its parks and how well we've done, and we've put a lot of emphasis on developers to make sure that they donate a certain amount of parkland every time we open up a new development. We want our parks. But now, all of a sudden, we come up with this whole new idea of zoning things based on ownership and not on usage, which blows my mind that you would have a park would have the same zoning as a sewage treatment plant or anything of that nature. It just doesn't make sense. Parks should be left as parks.

Right now, I think most of them are pretty safe just where they are. But I think there's something afoot. Because just as of today was the first day that it would even be legal for you people to make this zoning change. Because up until today, to change the use of a park in South Dakota, you had to have a public election. As of today now, it can be changed by city ordinance.

And it's my understanding it was the city of Brookings that lobbied the legislature to make that change. So I'm curious of what's going on here. I have a feeling that somewhere there's a proposal for some type of a building or structure. And I think I know what it is, but I'm not gonna say it because I don't wanna be out of line on that. But I think they're looking at something somewhere that they wanna put on Parkland.

And if that's the case, let's just get it right out in the open. Because I think we need to be honest and open with everybody. And I think a 100 we should if we wanna do something with parks, let's just have a park zone, and then we can put this water tower and the city offices and all those other things into their own zone. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments.

Good evening. Mike McClemmons. 613 Cypress Point Circle. Think about that a minute we just moved. This ordinance is interesting.

I received three letters because of property my property adjoins to this. I donated to the city bike path along Madari Avenue from 20th to about what would be 14th Street as well as on the north side of our mobile home park as well as a park called McClemmons Park on the very corner of 15th And 7th. We recently, three years ago, did a project with the city on a drainage pattern hoping to improve drainage. And I just, I'm kinda like everybody else, I'd like a little more information on what the intent is here. I mean it's rolled along for the thirty years I've been involved in it and I don't see a I don't know of any problems or see any problems.

So I think you probably need to get more information put together on how this affects the neighboring properties even though most of it is developed or most of it is on a city street. But there's just a tremendous amount of stuff in this ordinance and it is in areas where again the property was donated for a specific use not with an intention of changing it to a different use. Why don't you see what you can do about getting more information out on it. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. Are there any other comments, from the public at this time? Justin Ruch, 2701 Sweetgrass Drive. Concern on Property 28 that is in a wildlife easement till I think 2035. With being rezoned to Civic, what does the city have long term for drainage?

Obviously, the long rain that we had here with the drainage that closed Madari off, Just a little more clarification what Civic does for that type of drainage there. And then also, if it is rezoned to Civic, can the city sell that without a vote once something is done on that end? Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public?

Alright. I think this would be appropriate time for the city to respond to the comments and questions raised by the public.

Yeah. Thank you commission members as well as all the audience that has provided comment tonight. This has been essentially been in the making since about 2018. Our comprehensive plan identifies this as something to look forward to. To summarize it very easily for you is the civic zoning provides greater protection than what is in place right now.

All of the uses in the civic zoning district were taken straight out of the residential district zone. So if you looked up the zoning ordinance and went to R1A, R1B, it would list all of the uses that were carried forward into the Civic Zone. What the intent was is we wanted to align it more closely associated with what its intended purpose is, public. These properties are public properties intended for public use. So the Civic Zone makes that known and creates awareness.

Believe it or not, I get about 15 to 20 calls a year for people from out of town, out of state, realtors asking to buy property that is publicly owned property. And so they look at a zoning map, they see it's owned residential, they see it's undeveloped, they put in a request to purchase property and we turn them down and so to alleviate that. It's a way to make greater awareness to the public that these are public spaces. Now in regards to the comment about this is the first day that we could actually do this rezoning, that's false. You can do rezonings at any particular time.

You can create zoning districts at any particular time. What he's referring to is a state law that passed and how you can dispose of, parkland. That has changed and yes, it did take effect July 1, but this ordinance was in place long before that. With any ordinance, it takes time to research. It's pretty common in zoning ordinances.

It's referenced as institutional. It could be public, it could be civic as a designation for a lot of different public properties. The other thing we looked at is when you're doing a district like this, because it's a public purpose district typically they're held to a higher standard than what your traditional zoning districts would. So in this case we aligned our front and rear setbacks typical of what you would find in I think it was an R3 district but our side yard setbacks increased. So if any sort of structures were to be built, the side yard setbacks are greater than what would be required in any of the residential zoning districts or even the business zoning districts.

This isn't an intent to try and sell property by any means, it's to try and provide greater protection and create awareness that these are public spaces for the public to utilize. There's some questions about why would you ever get rid of Parkland? Well, we did it for Hillcrest Elementary School. That's how they built the building is they built on city park land. So that's a conversion of use.

Schools are an acceptable use in the Civic District. The first wave that we chose to move forward with are more city owned properties. If the school district which decided sometime in the future they would like to follow suit, the county could do the same thing. We even provided in there that religious institutions could do the same thing. Typically when items come before the Planning Commission and some of you may be aware of it, Our Planning Commission members definitely are.

But when developers propose zoning districts, it's a process if it's undeveloped land, it goes through annexation, then they go through the rezoning, the preliminary planning process and then there's final planning process and such. There's a multi step process. You have to identify zoning and so and this is a part where our planning commissioner is very familiar with is R3 zoning creates the most controversy in this community. It's the most flexible residential zoning district but typically what happens in a residential subdivision is they'll show a preliminary plat and they'll show the lot layouts but they typically leave larger chunks of land near some of our collectors or arterial streets for a number of reasons. They could be to accommodate some sort of a school in the future, a church, it could be they're looking at high density multifamily development.

If you're interested in purchasing a home or lot to build on that's adjacent to one of these large blocks, if it's zoned civic, it gives you the idea that it's gonna be for a public purpose. It could be any of the identified permitted special uses or conditional uses that's listed in the Civic District but those are already allowed in a residential district. But what it doesn't allow is it wouldn't allow the high density multifamily to be built there. That's not allowed in the Civic. It's a public purpose.

So it could be parks, drainage ways, it could be a public library, it could be a police station, could be a fire station, could be a lift station. Those are the other uses. One of the things we found out is anytime we build a lift station in this community we're either given a variance or they have to buy more land than what is necessary. So in some of the zoning districts you have to have a 90 foot frontage and a 10,000 square foot lot. That's unnecessary for a lift station that is basically a 10 by 10 building with a pit outside.

And so it's not appropriate to unreasonably require additional public investment on purchasing raw land for such a small facility. In addition, we do allow in our current parks, I think there's three or four parks right now that have telecommunications facilities in there. So we carried that through into the Civic District as a conditional use similar to what it is right now in a residential district. The water towers are located in residential districts. We included them in the Civic Districts.

Likewise, we have a couple electrical substations that are allowed in residential areas. We allow them and we're proposing to allow it in the Civic District or as such. The thing that we prevented from being in the Civic District, we prevented large facilities like maintenance equipment type facilities that have large vehicles, large equipment and maybe storage yards because typically a lot of our parks, our lift stations, our substations, our water towers are located in and near residential areas. And those facilities are more suited for an industrial zoning district with light uses of larger buildings, used to big trucks, big equipment, and lay down yards to store materials. So that's why we chose the Civic District to provide a greater protection.

So if the rezoning goes through, it's rezoned to Civic. The Planning Commission can't speak to nor is not responsible for a change of if the city decides to change Parkland to a different use for whatever means. Responsible for the zoning side of things but this creates a greater protection that if that were to come up in the future in order for the private sector to do anything with the property they would have to go through a rezoning process to a particular district that would fit their intended use. From the city side, know, all of the uses that are proposed in the Civic District, they could do in its current zoning right now. But the Civic is intended to create greater protection, identify these as public spaces, public uses, and to create greater awareness.

In addition, I wasn't really gonna go down this route, but I brought up the Hillcrest Elementary site. That still hasn't been resolved and that the land was transferred to the school district, but there's a financial cost to that. And because a lot of our parks were developed with land and water conservation funds, which is a federal fund, You have to do a yellow book appraisal. The school district, is on the hook for a significant dollar amount because when they do the appraisal, it's based upon the zoning. And that property was zoned R2 as a conditional use, they could do apartments.

So the property got appraised at a multi family value and it cost the school district significantly. So that is another component of it is we have a lot of partnerships with other governmental entities between the city, the county, the school district, the university and such. And sometimes there's uses that need to be accommodated on properties and so we tried to find a zoning district that more aligned with the public purpose and that's what the Civic is about. Whether the Civic gets approved or not, it doesn't change really how the current use of the property is. I would just say that the Civic use provides a greater protection to the public than what it is currently zoned because right now as a residential property if a decision was made to dispose of that the only opposition would be is to potentially comment at that decision you know that the council would make.

It wouldn't have to go through any sort of a rezoning process. So I don't know if that provides any clarity for those

I'm confused.

You'd have to speak to

the You would need to come up. Everyone in the room can hear you but there are people listening from home.

I'm sorry Mike. Could not understand what is the benefit to the additional benefit or protection benefit that we get. I it you keep saying it, but I didn't understand the explanation of what the benefit is. I mean you went on and on and you kinda referred to it a couple of times. I'm looking at it and I'm thinking, okay, I've got this pond over here, the city owns it, right.

First you said, you know, somebody wants to come buy it. Well the city owns it, you're not going to sell it. So that to me was mocks nicks as my German grandma used to say, right? Mocks nicks makes no sense, makes no difference. What benefit do we get by rezoning this because you guys are the ones that are going to sell it or give it out And at that particular point in time, we could then say, we don't want you to do it there. We don't want that to happen, right? Don't we have it at that particular point in time when the request to rezone it happens then, we have an ability to actually say, hold on, stop, we don't like this. Am I missing something? I'm sorry, I'm not a big zoning person, I'm a computer programmer by background, so.

So with the zoning option, there's two components there to your question and there's two opportunities for input. One would be on the zoning side, if it's zoned to Civic to rezone it from Civic to anything else would go through another process like we're here tonight with the public hearings at the Planning Commission recommendation, first reading and then a public hearing and second reading at the council. That would be just on the zoning side of things. And there'd be some ability for input at that level. The transfer of the property or whatever that decision is like that is solely with the city council but there would be another opportunity at that point in time to comment on that.

But what we're saying now is if someone wanted to rezone this to something different, they would have to take it through the zoning commission here, right?

If it's zoned civic, because civic only allows for public purpose, public assembly type uses.

Okay. Private. But what's my protection for the city coming coming and do something that maybe somebody here doesn't want? What's that what's the what's the protection for that? I guess that's the

No different than what you probably have right now because all of those

But they're probably gonna re rezone it to something different.

All of these uses right now are all these uses in the Civic District are allowed in the current districts as it sits today and has been for the past years. Moving forward what it would do, it would provide protection that if for whatever reason they would choose to put any sort of a structure or anything on there, there are increased side yard setbacks that would come into play. There are if it were sold on the private sector for whatever reason, they would have to go through a rezoning process to get the appropriate zoning so they whatever would be appropriate for that neighborhood if it's a similar R1B or an R2, R3 or whatever it would be, They would have to go through that process and there'd be multiple public hearings to do that so through the zoning process.

Do you guys understand that? I'm looking at the audience here. Do you

guys Well at this point.

Well it's not a polling question here to the audience. Guess to direct the questions to staff or to the planning commission.

I'm just asking them if they understood what you said because I didn't and I just wanted to know if I'm being dumb or if there's other people that don't understand what's being said.

So maybe I can try to

Come up and ask the same question, I guess that's the question I have.

Well I

think I still understand what you said and why it's a benefit.

I think at this point what we can do is have the commission ask questions because we have heard public testimony. I know I have questions for the city and we may answer your questions in that process so at this point we'92ll open for questions and comments from the commission.

Mr. Chair I wrote down some of the things addressing your concerns. Will the city still if this is civic, the city still maintain those properties?

Yeah, the city is going to their public properties. They have to maintain them with the exception of some of them have been declared by the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Board as no mow areas as kind of the sustainable areas. But those are typically our larger parks. I think the golf course has some areas, the nature park. As far as like the individual neighborhood parks, those are not going to change in how they're maintained.

Any other questions from the commission?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I've got a question. I've heard a lot about parks and a lot of, I think, very valid concerns about some changes to those areas. Maybe staff could just clarify, are all parks zoned different things? Is that what I'm understanding? It's kind of this patchwork?

Yeah. The parks are zoned, I mean they range from being zoned A to R1A, R1B, R2, R3, R3A. Don't know if we've got any in the commercial zoning. They're predominant. I think there's one in the Floodway District Community Gardens up north. So it's a variety of zoning districts.

Okay. So in a in a lot of ways this

would kind of bring some more cohesive zoning to that area. I I definitely hear the concerns of the of the folks here tonight that this could open up maybe some flexibility in some areas. So, also, I do hear those concerns. Absolutely. I do agree with the idea of of adding some kind of cohesive zoning to these areas. This though because right now it's just it's a patchwork.

I think I would not agree with your statement is in providing flexibility. It makes it more difficult to change these uses once civic zoning hits.

As an example a lot of the parks are zoned this residence R1B single family district that I have up here so in those permanent uses which a lot of parks are today permanent use to include single family dwellings. Permanent special uses include conditional uses include two family dwellings group homes retirement homes nursing homes those sorts of things would be eliminated when it is in the civic zoning district that no longer allows the single family uses, the conditional uses no longer allow for the two family dwellings, apartments, those sorts of things. So it does eliminate a number of potential uses from the residential zoning districts same thing in the case of a business district you may no longer be able to have an all the use of a grocery store if it' a park zoned business or sort of industrial use of its own industrial. So that would be one of the differences.

Mr. Chair, Mike O'Ryan, how tall is the tallest school in our school is the reason I'm asking is because the allowable sizes is 60 feet I can't think of a reason why you need to put a 60 foot structure up on these or anything on these so what I'm asking is are the schools 30 feet tall 40 feet tall could we whittle that I guess I would make a motion or make an amendment to this to move that down to 40 feet or just like to talk about it I guess to know where we're at with I mean with the conditional uses I understand a water tower that's conditional use process is going be different anyway right and we need variances anyway.

Anything described as a conditional use in here would have to go through the same process as any private developer Right. Bring in conditional use if variances needed the same process The 60 foot height that's just a great common height across our zoning districts Placed in there as a comparable height for all of our other residential business zoning districts. That's where the basis of that height was. How tall is this building?

I don't know, but I think the

You know where I'm going with this? I think the concern is

Loffset Park Hill on 6th Street is 48 feet.

Can you go up to the uses again Ryan just to see not the conditional uses the other. I guess I'd like to know what what's everybody and before putting in the amendment to this already out there how's everybody else feel about that

you would have to make we do

have to make the motion all right let's do this I will make the motion to move to move the allowable height from 60 feet to 40 feet.

Is there a second?

I will second that motion.

Alright we can now open discussion on the amendment. Commissioners Michael be my understanding that this amendment would apply to these particular properties only that we are entertaining rezoning tonight not to civic districts in general.

That's not changed. Isn't this the civic Zone? So it's just these properties?

Yeah. You're not changing the ordinance. The ordinance was adopted in February. So it's just that the issue tonight is whether or not you approve that these properties should be rezoned from their current district to Civic District. I think would

I still don't like the height. I don't like it. I don't like it with the park with like the parks being involved. I understand what you're saying. I just I don't I can't see a reason on any of these properties other than the conditional use that you would need a building taller than 40 feet.

I don't know what the churches would be like in the community if some of them. I don't know the height of all of them.

Right. But you this those aren't on this right now. Right?

No. But what you're I mean

thought we

were Michael, just you can't change the height tonight.

Okay. Alright. That's fine. Okay. Then then then never mind. Withdraw the motion. Is that does that how

The item tonight is simply of whether or not the rezone is appropriate to rezone from their current districts to a civic district.

Got you.

Want to change the ordinance amendment we can bring that back as an actual ordinance change the actual ordinance itself in the district regulations.

Got you. Yeah. My understanding commissioners Michael is that we now have to just vote on this amendment. If Are there any other comments on the amendment amendment in particular?

I I do have a question please for staff. If I'm understanding correctly then what is being proposed is to change these particular properties to civic zoning. And you're saying that if it's civic zoning then we're restricting more of what can be used on that property.

Correct.

Now for those things that are now allowed for those properties, the restricted use such as the school, what changes with respect to getting that school now built on that property compared to if it was not rezoned as civic? That makes sense?

We do have different design standards in this zoning district so there would be changes required to their site plan if if there were a proposal to to place one of these uses in the new civic zoning district that would be required to adhere to our new zoning standards of yard area setbacks and height as we've just discussed. That would be one of the new requirements for that used to take place in that zoning district.

Okay, so there'd be structural restrictions in place with the Civic that aren't there now?

Correct. There'd be a there's a larger side yard for example, required in the Civic District as opposed to the residential district, so there would be larger setbacks required.

Okay. And what about the steps they'd have to go through in order to make that change or to add that school onto that park? Just as an example. Is that changed in any way by making it civic zoning?

No those processes wouldn't change with it being zone civic.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Yes I'd like to keep it germane to the amendment and then once we move through the amendment we can go back to discussing the motion. Any comments on the amendment? Okay so vote on the amendment now please.

Schmeichel no. Jameson Speer

No.

Heinrich? No. Braun? No. Solem? No. Aiken? No. Lindmer? No. Motion fails.

Okay at this point reopen the discussion to the main motion and initial Thank you Mr.

Chair this is a question to staff. Are there any provisions in the civic district for having subcategories? I appreciate the comments that many of you made out here. And and looking at the list, there are a lot of parks and and trails in this list, and they're totally different than an electrical substation. So can we take all of the parks, for example, parks and trails, and call them Civic one or Civic a, okay, that puts all the parks in that category and protects all of the parkland, parks and trails.

Everything else then, fire station, water tower, electrical substation, lift station, could be in a Civic B. Okay. Now that's a different category, and and we, as a group or the city council, can manage those two different ways or or have restrictions for those subcategories. I mean, is that entirely feasible or or maybe we just can't do that with this document that we're working with.

We would have to go back and change the document, but I will tell you is we have a couple of substat electrical substations in our parks. Pioneer Park, Fishback Soccer Park. We've had some other electrical substations that we have decommissioned and those spaces have transitioned. We have lift stations in or near parks. So now you're going to start having little isolated islands located in really odd places because sometimes that's where the best place is to put those infrastructure is in those unique locations.

And again that would be an item separate item from our discussions might be a an amendment to the zoning ordinance not pertaining to the petition to rezone into this district.

I have a question for staff. If an entity outside of of this this is a civic district question I guess so. If an entity outside of this this motion tonight were to ask request a rezone and they meet the permitted uses are we required to allow that rezone? So if somebody wants to if a church for example wants to request a rezone from r three to civic are we required to allow that?

I mean the district is set up to accommodate that each rezoning request you have to look at it on its merits to make sure that it fits kind of within the general parameters guidelines of our comprehensive plan. But that is, you know, our comprehensive plan did talk about, you know, categorizing civic type uses, public uses into you know essentially a centralized zoning district. But you know typically you know you'd see you know in schools, churches, public properties, know even vocational, universities, all of those fall within like a civic or you know we chose to define it as civic some call it institutional some call it just public.

So can I follow-up on that?

Yes thank you.

So in the February City Council meeting you spoke that churches specifically would be a case by case basis which seems to not be what you just said. That would be categorized.

Our ordinance supports it and like I just said each rezoning is handled on its own unique circumstances. Doesn't mean you have to automatically approve the rezoning but it is something that is accounted for within the Civic Zoning District. It would support it but it needs to stand on its own merits.

It would be less advantageous I think sometimes for private, property owners like a church to go into the Civic Zoning District because some of the some of the additional regulations we put in the district, the additional setbacks, and we have some conditions for approval on the permanent special uses conditional uses may not benefit all users and property owners and all those cases to even petition to zone to the Civic Zoning.

Thank you. Any other comments

I or do have a comment and then a question for staff as well. I do believe that the civic district is here as a safeguard as a safeguard to important public spaces from incompatible development and ensures that the land use aligns with the community' overall plans and goals. So I do agree with that. The question and concern that I have is with a civic district classification, it can be perceived as a precursor to eminent domain. Can you confirm or deny or debunk that?

Eminent domain is a significantly different process. Zoning doesn't really impact the eminent domain. I believe in my tenure with the city we've only really started down the route of eminent domain one time. We never got past the first step of like 10 steps. But what it did allow us is to continue those discussions and still keep moving forward with the process in case you can't come to a resolution.

And I don't think anybody would disagree with us that that particular project that we started on wasn't important for the community because that's where Dakota Prairie Elementary School is. But eminent domain is a completely separate process from a rezoning. The Civic wouldn't necessarily open that up for eminent domain. There's a pretty lengthy process that you have to go down With eminent domain it's not a quick process, an easy process, or an advisable process, but it's really utilized when there's an impasse that cannot be resolved.

Thanks Mike.

Mr. Chair? Yes.

Mike or Ryan, can you give me a little bit of a just for people in the audience as well, like let's take Pioneer Park, Sex Hour Park, Larson, Hillcrest and I don't know let's just start with those. What are those zoned as right now?

So currently Pioneer Park is zoned R 22 Family District. Sex Hour Park is zoned looks like egg partially egg and partially floodway is it?

Think the only only floodway is Community gardens.

There's another layer here making it darker but it's zoned ag. You said Hillcrest was R2 right? Hillcrest is R2, know Lions Park is R2, Madari is R1B, Camelot R1B, so primarily the parks are primarily R1B and R2 zoning districts.

Would it be correct to say then in its current state would be easier to develop a neighborhood for example in the park left under that zoning.

Correct. It would be in its current you know current zoning. Correct. Know, Commissioner Schmeichel you brought up an interesting property Larson Park. There's a number of different uses going on on that park that people may not realize is you know obviously you see the water tower but you don't necessarily equate it.

That's actually Zone B2A. You have the park itself. There's also telecommunication towers on the site. And so that's why there's you know some of the different uses that are listed in the Civic District. All of those uses are listed as allowable uses in the residential.

That's how we carried them through because we researched to see what our existing uses could be in the residential districts and if it's and then we carried it into the Civic District. But the Civic is really intended to provide more protection and to create the awareness that these are public spaces for the public.

So there was a question on what was identified as Property 28 and a wildlife easement I believe it was referred

Yeah. To That's not clear on that southwest part of the community. It's in a conservation easement kind of adjacent to Madari Avenue in the Prairie Hills Subdivision. We continue that conservation easement until it expires. Can't predict what the future would be but my guess is that's probably going to be an expanded drainage area in the future. We've tried to pursue that previously. Unfortunately, the conservation easement won't allow us to touch the grading of that property, but we would like to expand the drainage capabilities down in that area.

So this rezone does not affect the easement?

No. It doesn't.

Same with the golf course. Right? Isn't there a conservation easement on there

No. Or

That's covered. Many of our parks are covered by Land and Conservation Water Fund. That's a federally program that if you receive those funds for the development of a portion of that park you have to maintain it in perpetuity. If not then you have to go through that whole appraisal process which we had to deal with when we were they looked at Hillcrest Elementary School expansion and then you have to replace that land that's been converted with like parkland and maintain it in perpetuity. And so that's the process where we're at with the Hillcrest project is trying to find additional parkland to replace what was lost for the school addition.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commission at this point? Alright, I think we're ready for the vote, Ryan.

I

say this with the caveat that I appreciate the people bringing their concerns here and I think you should do the same thing at the city council meeting bring your concerns there as

well. Jameson? Yes. Spear?

Yes.

Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

Alright we will now move to item 5B. Petition to rezone and drew vercota has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings in Brookings County South Dakota. The south 100 feet out lot a in the Southwest Quarter in Section 20 Township 110 Range 49 City Of Brookings Brookings County South Dakota also known as 716 34th Avenue the request is rezoning above described real estate from agriculture agriculture a district to a Business B 3 Heavy District ryan could you introduce the topic

thank you mister chair the next item is a rezone of a property address that 716 34th Avenue The applicant is the property owner Andrew Ricotta. Currently the property is zoned agriculture a district and the petition is rezone this to Business B 3 Heavy District. The property is located within a general industrial category on the future land use map which does support a request to rezone this property to Business B 3. The staff recommendation is to approve the rezone. The planning commission's action time would be to approve or deny and that recommendation is made to the city council.

716 34th Avenue is the area outlined in blue here located along 34th Avenue just a bit north of Highway 14. The existing zoning map here shows that zoned ag with adjacent property to the North zoned industrial I one other adjacent zoning includes a plan development district to the Northwest and a B two business district to the South. This does not show a recent rezone of property to the South and East, which did go to a business B3. Future land use map here shows the area zoned shows the area as general industrial as I mentioned on the future land use map which supports that B3 zoning. And with that I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you Ryan. I'll entertain a motion for approval.

So moved. We

have a motion and a second. Now open this to public testimony if the applicant is here like speak on this issue. If there is anyone that would like to speak in favor of this motion they can do so. Anyone like to speak in opposition? All right. We'll now open close public testimony and open it to questions and comments from the commission. Alright hearing none we will call vote Ryan.

Braun?

Yes. Solem?

Yes. Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes Heinrich yes Thelmer

yes

Motion passes.

We will now move on to item 5C. Legacy Storage Condos LLC has submitted a preliminary plat of the following proposed real estate situated in the city of Brookings in Brookings County South Dakota to it block one of legacy addition. Can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, mister chair. The next item is a preliminary plat, described as legacy edition. The applicant will be the developer of legacy storage condos LLC. The location is 34th Avenue it does actually include the previously discussed Lot 716 34th Avenue along with two adjacent parcels to the south and east those parcels will be, combined into this block one of legacy addition. The zoning will be Business B3 District.

Currently, there are, two existing lots, three existing lots. There's Lot 1 in the clock, Clark second edition, Lot 2 in Clark 2nd edition, and the, 716 34th Avenue. Those will be replattered into one block, Block 1 legacy edition. Staff recommends approval, and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and the recommendation is made to the city council. The block one will be in the general area here outlined in blue, including those three lots.

Now all three would have, recommendation to rezone these to Business B 3 District, and the proposed block one will be shown here. It does show some access drive locations in there potentially to be shown as easements on a final plat but in this case just general locations where access drives may be shown through the block. The block does meet all of our zoning standards for the B3 District. And as mentioned, staff does recommend approval of this preliminary plat and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you Ryan. Having heard that I'll entertain a motion for approval. Second. With a motion and a second we'll open this to public testimony. If the applicant is present and would like to speak, they may. If anyone else is in here in favor of the motion they can speak now. And if anyone like would like to speak in opposition. Alright we'll close public testimony open it to questions or comments from the commission.

Mr. Chair, just one really quick question. I know it says on the item staff recommends approval. Is this to the point that it would go to DRT, a preliminary plat, or is that before DRT, or is it just general staff?

The development review team does review items that come to the planning commission not the board of adjustment the planning commission so the preliminary plat has gone to the development review team for review and we're supportive of the program plat. That carries through as the staff recommendation. It's staff DRTE reviewed.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks for the question. Any other questions or comments from the commission at this time? Hearing none, we'll

call the roll. Solemn?

Yes.

Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes. Jameson?

Yes. Speer? Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Limmer?

Yes. Motion passes.

Item 5D. We're now looking at amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the city of Brookings pertaining to the future land use map the following described real estate South South 226 feet of the West 1,213.5 feet north half of the Northeast Quarter excluding the West 288 feet of the South a 196 feet thereof in Section 11 Township 109 Range 50 Brookings County South Dakota. The request is to amend the future land use map from open wetland to medium urban medium intensity. Ryan can you introduce

Thank you mister chair the next item is a future land use map amendment request at 3439 Main Avenue South. The applicant is the property owner mark Hayes 3439 Main Avenue South it's currently described in our future land use map as an open wetland and the owner would like to amend that to be urban medium intensity. Current zoning in place is agriculture. The staff recommendation of the amendment is to approve plan Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and that action is a recommendation made to the city council. The property located, at 3439 Main Avenue South is shown in the blue outline box here.

It does have a frontage on Main Avenue, a small frontage on Main Avenue that extends back to a larger five acre lot to the east. Shown here is the future land use map currently, so it is currently surrounded by the open wetland category. This request is fairly consistent with a number of future land use map amendments we've seen on South Main Avenue, both to the north and the south, recently with the request to amend the future landings map to urban medium. Consistent with those requests, zoning map here shows the property of Zone Ag. There's adjacent property of R3A multifamily to the south and some in close proximity business be three districts to the south and west.

Whenever we're looking at a future land use map amendment that changes the future land use from an open wetland or open floodplain, we wanna take a look at the floodplain map. In this case, this is the revised floodplain map that takes has taken effect here in 2025. It does show that the property is entirely out of the floodplain. Just to the east, you can see some red shaded areas. That is the, now enact floodplain maps list.

Does not include any floodplain. The suitability map, was a part of our comprehensive plan, does identify some potential difficulties of development that may have taken into account previous floodplain map or, you know, soil classifications, the low lying area, potentially some wetter areas. I did check also the wetland mapper. I didn't include that as a map here, but I did check the national wetland mapper, there's also no wetlands on this property. But potentially, you know, some potential development constraints with that suitability map. And with that, staff will stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan. Having heard that, I will entertain a motion for approval.

So moved.

Second Jameson.

We have a motion and a second. We'll now open this to public testimony. We're running out people to talk so anyone in applicant or anyone in favor or opposition hearing none we'll now open it to questions and comments from the commission

Mr. Chair. Zoning urban medium intensity Ryan is that what zoning districts would that be or what uses would that be

in the. It wouldn' necessarily support any uses it supports zoning and I' pull up. Zoning yeah. Our comprehensive plan here. Maybe I won't.

Not loading here but I have it up on my laptop here, the urban medium future land use. It would support potential potential zoning a single family zoning, dwelling district, townhouse district, office district, local retail district, mixed use residential business, and it does actually have some use use considerations as well. It states it's a mix of complementary uses including single family housing, multi family housing schools, mid sized parks, churches, commercial and mixed use, our potential uses in the urban medium. It discusses some form and compatibility with adjacent properties, looking for high connectivity. This would be located on Collector Street for connectivity.

If I can get back to my slide.

So it kind of

supports a mix of medium intensity zoning districts, residential or commercial. Doesn't typically support higher level industrial, but you can get up into some higher density commercial or residential.

I think a lot of times with the urban medium intensity, it's associated with what we've seen most recently is B3 type zoning.

I

think for reference a lot of the locals maybe recognize this property as it was the former WES's salvage yard and so it's under new ownership and they're looking at cleaning up the site and redeveloping it into something different than the salvage yard.

Any other questions or comments at this time hearing none we will call the vote.

Aiken Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes. Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

We''ll now move to item five f city of brookings has submitted amendments to chapter 94 article six division six pertaining to section 94 dash five zero five regulations relating to cannabis cannabis dispensaries. Ryan can you introduce a topic for us.

Thank you Mr. Chair the final item on the agenda it's a pretty simple one it's an amendment to the allowable zoning districts for cannabis dispensaries. A number of years ago the city of brookings did adopt a cannabis ordinance which identified the approved zoning districts for cannabis dispensaries. And, at the time, it did include the following districts: Business B1 Central District, Business B2 District, Business B2A Office District, Business B3 Heavy District, and Business B4 Highway District. Those were the approved zoning districts for cannabis dispensaries.

Since that time, there has been concerns brought up from time to time about the inclusion of the Business B 2 Office District. That district was included in the cannabis dispensaries allowable districts due to the B-two Office District allowing pharmacies. And we just, at the time, treated the cannabis dispensaries similar to a pharmacy. But there has been some rezones to B2A and areas of B2A that are adjacent to residential districts where there was concern about the ability to have a cannabis dispensary in closer proximity to residential, which the business B2A Office District is intended to be kind of a buffer between residential and some higher intensity business. So we did, based off of the concerns, present a change to the amendment to the ordinance to remove the B2A office district from cannabis dispensary allowable districts and staff will stand for any questions.

Thank you ryan having heard that will entertain a motion for approval.

So moved so. Second

We have a motion and a second is we'll open this now to public testimony is there any public testimony on this motion? Having heard none we'll close public testimony open to questions comments from the commission.

I do have a question. Are there currently any dispensaries in this particular district?

No there are currently no dispensaries in the business b to a district.

Anyone else? Entirely?

The cannabis dispensaries are only allowed as a special permanent special use and, they're only allowed in these districts that's one of the conditions for approval so it will not be permitted won' be permit special, be conditional, it' not allowed entirely.

Okay, thanks.

Seeing that there' already additional guidelines of no cannabis to operate within 300 feet of a religious institution preschool detention facility and within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, I feel like that's just additional things to keep it away from certain elements that you'd maybe want to keep it away from just a blanket residential. It seems unnecessary to remove it to me.

Ryan this is a conditional use cannabis in b two a?

They' not they' not a conditional use. It was

just it was added into it right it wasn' like a.

They're only specifically allowed in the these districts as a use it's not an additional conditional use.

I think I think the concerns that I heard about this was because of drive throughs and then hours of operating. Dispensary typically does not for the most part does not operate at nine to five and that's what I thought like this and all pharmacies typically stay open a little later too but not I think that was the concerns I heard was hours of operation.

Yes so it is on the second line here cannabis dispensaries shall be considered a permanent special use and the conditions are allowable in those districts and they also shall not operate within 300 feet of a institution preschool or detention facility. And no dispensary shall be within 1,000 feet of a public or private school existing before the date of the cannabis establishment application. So there's no nothing about hours of operation. It's about specific zoning districts and a buffer between churches, schools, jails, and public or private schools.

No, I was yes, I was just bringing up that was the concerns we heard was they're open late, those kind of things and that's what I thought B2A was that buffer. So people can go home at night and enjoy their backyard without business I guess like that's why I thought the concerns were with it.

So I'm interested in Commissioner Jamieson's point. Can someone from the city talk about how the Planning Commission would view permitted special use in B2A currently? Like there is still scrutiny.

So the way we're set up with our uses is permitted, permitted special use, conditional use. With the permitted special use, it's you meet all the requirements of the district regulations from like a lot area setback, height, all of those density and yard requirements, you're allowed to do it by right, permitted use. Permitted special, you meet those same criteria and then there might be a couple of criteria that they have to meet that are specifically spelled out in the ordinance. They meet that, it's permitted administratively. Conditional use would require to come before the planning commission and with a recommendation moving forward to the council.

So as a permitted special use, it wouldn't be subject to Planning Commission and City Council review and consideration.

Yeah, thanks for that clarification.

I think to help better understand it too is B2A is a lower intensity based commercial district that is intended to act as a buffer between your residential neighborhoods and your more intensive commercial uses like B2. Ironically, in Brookings, most of our b two a is between sixth Street and the railroad tracks on 22nd Avenue, 20th Street South, and there's a couple of hit and miss places along 6th Street. But when we discussed this, we felt that is it appropriate to have this type of cannabis dispensary this close to a residential setting and there's still the b one, b two, b three and b four districts that they could choose to locate in, and that would be appropriate. So we felt there was appropriate other zoning districts and available currently zoned in those other four districts that could accommodate if somebody was looking to to establish such a a use.

Mister chair just a quick comment hearing ir good I

I

zoning from the dispensary. I do think agree with it personally.

Yeah, I would agree with you. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Okay, we can call the

vote. Schmeichel? Yes. Jamison? No. Speer? Yes. Heinrich?

Yes. Braun? Yes. Solem?

Yes. Aiken? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

That concludes our business at this point entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. We are adjourned.