Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening. I'll now call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome those in attendance at tonight's meeting. City Planning Commission is a nine-member commission whose function is to make recommendations to City Council regarding requests for land use, classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters. The commission makes their recommendation based on the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Brookings and the surrounding area. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. After a motion is moved and seconded, it is open for debate. Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons. Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons. After everyone has been given a chance to be heard, the commission shall review the testimony and information presented, make findings of fact, and forward their recommendation to the city council. Item number one, roll call. Ryan, will you call the roll? Roll is noted with Schmeichel absent. Thank you. Item number two, approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion and a second? Move to approve. Second.

And Schmeichel is now present via conference phone.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Approval of the agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right, thank you. Item number three, approval of the July 7, 2026 minutes. Can I get a motion and a second?

Motion to approve, Heinrich. Second, Braun.

Thank you. Any changes or additions to the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. All right, moving on to item number four, open forum. At this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation or request time on the agenda for an item not listed. Items to be added to the agenda will be scheduled at the end of the meeting. Any requested action items may be scheduled for a future meeting date. Individuals will state their name and city of residence for the record. Public comment is limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. Comments and views expressed by the public are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the City of Brookings or the City Planning Commission. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to Item 5, Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Relationships to the Applicant or Ex Parte Communication. Thank you. Seeing none, we'll move on to item six and now convene as the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustment is a seven-member board, which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions. The 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 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 to the property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. First item on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment is a front yard setback variance. Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item is a variance on lots two and three in block five of Branch Creek addition. The applicant is Banner Associates Inc. The lots are located in a residence R3 apartment district. The request is for a 19-foot front yard setback. Section 94.127F requires a 20-foot front yard setback in the R3 district. The staff recommendation is approval, and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny. For variances, section 6615 applies, hearing and deciding petitions for variances conditions. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and the variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance, and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is potentially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district. Variants 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 lots in question are in the red outlined box, kind of in the central portion of the Branch Creek addition on the corner of Oak Branch Drive and Spring Street. Specifically, Lots 2 and 3, which are the two middle units of a four-plex townhome built on Block 5. This is coming in as an after-the-fact variance. This is part of the Branch Creek addition, which includes... A mix of single-family, two-family, and in this case, some townhomes mixed in with the development. And the process for developing townhomes in the city usually involves the platting of the parent lot, in this case Block 5, establishing the foundations for the units, resurveying to find the common wall between lots 4 and 3, 3 and 2, and 2 and 1, and then replatting with the location of those common walls. This variance was caught at the final plat stage for lots one through four, where the final plat showed a setback of 19 feet rather than required 20 feet. That would end staff's report, and we would stand for any questions.

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

So moved, Solon. Second, Aiken.

Hearing that, we'll now open to public testimony if the applicant is present and would like to address us.

Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing our request for variance. I'm James Drew with Car True Construction. I'm the general contractor at Branch Creek. Just a little background on the reason for the request. Branch Creek is a master planned HOA affordable housing developments. The homes are designed to maximize the land use and reduce overall cost for homeowners. Because the land surrounding each home is owned and managed by the HOA, there are no traditional lot property pins to reference when laying out house foundations, as there would be on a conventional lot. Instead, foundations are positioned using electronic civil files loaded into excavation and concrete equipment. Foundations are dug, concrete is poured, floors are poured, buildings are continuing to be built based on these files. Lots are final platted, as Ryan indicated, after the foundations are installed and a surveying crew comes out and shoots those corners using electronic surveying equipment. In this particular case, the file that was used was off by one foot. error was not discovered until the survey crews came out and shot the foundations several weeks later. The one-foot bump out on the front of the garage is in the middle two units and does not adversely affect the neighbors on either side within the development, nor does it affect the neighbors to the rear as that setback remains as planned. Consistent with the project's focus on affordability, the garage depth in these two particular garages is designed for a smaller car, so there would be no opportunity for a large vehicle to be parked in the garage, which would hinder overhanging the common sidewalk out front. Although technology is a powerful tool that it helps us to work efficiently, efficiently reduce home costs and maintain affordability. In this development, using technology rather than a traditional home layout is essential because there's no property pins to lay it out traditionally. Even though technology is great, however, there still is error. a chance for human error. This one foot error was minor enough that it went unnoticed until much later. To prevent similar issues in the future, the civil engineer, architect, and general contractor, myself, will be more diligent in verifying file accuracy prior to construction. It is worth noting that the specific unit for this variance is only being built once in the development and will not be duplicated in the future, further reducing risk of error. So with that, thank you for your consideration. We do have the civil engineer architect and myself here to stand for any questions.

Thank you. I know we may have some questions. Is there anyone else in the public from the public that would like to speak in favor of this right now? Anyone that would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll close public testimony, open it up to board questions and comments. I guess I have a quick question. What would be the alternative if the variance was not granted here?

Well, the the mission of the entire overall development is to provide affordable housing so to make the correction at this point move it back would defeat the ability to sell that home to a homeowner at a price that would be acceptable to the owner Any other questions or comments

Mr.

Chair, I have a question. So do I understand correctly that the problem is the entire four lot, four building area is shifted over one foot too far?

It's just the front two middle units are bumped in over the setback one foot. So the two outside units are at the 20 foot requirement.

So is it that the design... didn't fit the lot. That's what I'm trying to understand. Is it just that the buildings are shifted over?

Angie Boersma, I'm the architect. We had an original file type that was originally showing this building further north, where there's more depth on the lot. And it ended up being moved to the south. We did not catch it early enough, so we had to make a second version of the file. And that second version of the file did not translate into the surveyor's equipment. So we ended up with a file conflict issue, because this building was originally further north, where there was more depth.

Yeah, that helps me. Thank you.

And it's roughly 24 feet across the front that is encroaching, is the limitation of that section.

Commissioner Schmeichel.

Yeah, the city's recommended approval. Can you explain what the definition of the hardship would be on this? Just for clarification.

I mean, in this case, we have four, essentially four foundations have been installed, and a portion of that was installed with one foot air. into the setback. This is not a case where they are seeking a variance to get additional density or to get around parking regulations. It was simply an error in this case that caused a one-foot encroachment into the setback area. Is it a hardship in a standard sense where there's kind of a unique factor on the property? No, but in this case it was an error that occurred. that is impacting two other lots. They share the same foundation. It will create a hardship, just not in the typical sense we typically see variances come to the Board of Adjustment.

Thank you. The reason I ask is I just had a curiosity for future stuff. I mean, I'd hope that future plans would get the same amount of grace on this type of project then as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Smichel. Any other questions or comments?

The only other comment I would have that build off of Nick's is what you said, Mr. Drew, is, you know, in the future, this is not going to be a problem because of the accuracy that you're going to be able to instill. So it'll be fine.

All right. Thank you. We'll now close board comments. And Ryan, can you call the vote? Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Enrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Luddy? Yes. Solon? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Motion passes.

Moving on to item seven, we will now reconvene as the planning commission, and the first item within that is a conditional use permit request for an office. Brian, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This first item for the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit request at 1103 3rd Street. The applicant is the 95 Group LLC and Ukrit Counseling. The property at 1103 3rd Street is zoned in a residential R2 two-family district, and the proposed use is an office for counseling offices. The office use would be allowable only via conditional use permit in the R2 two-family district. The staff recommendation is approval with a limit of two office suites. The Planning Commission's action would be to approve, amend, or deny, and any action is a recommendation made to the City Council. Section 94.290, Offices, establishes the standards of approval for a conditional use for offices in the residential district. The following standards apply. Such uses shall be located on a collector or arterial street. In this case, 3rd Street is a collector street. Special attention shall be given to the architectural compatibility with the surrounding residential properties. The proposal is actually to use an existing residential dwelling and convert it into the offices for the counseling office. The third is consideration shall be given to the traffic generated by such use. Consideration shall be given to the type of sign used by such use. Consideration shall be given to the hours of operation and the character of the use. and parking shall be screened from any adjacent residential area. 1103 3rd Street is shown here in the yellow box located at the corner of 3rd Street and 11th Avenue. As mentioned, there's an existing dwelling on the site as shown here. They intend to continue using the existing building and parking areas. There is an existing driveway on the northwest corner onto 11th Avenue and an existing driveway on the southeast corner out to 3rd Street. They will use those and also add an ADA accessible ramp on the rear side from the northern parking area. With that, staff would end its report and stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan. At this time, I'll entertain a motion and a second for approval. Please specify if you are including the staff recommendations in your motion.

Mr..

Chair I'll move to approve and I will choose to include staffs recommendations in my motion Thank you Hearing that now open for Public comment if the applicant would like to speak now be the time That's perfectly fine we may ask some questions in a minute here Before that is anyone else in the in the public wish to speak in favor of this motion Anyone here wish to speak in opposition? Seeing none we will close public testimony and open to board questions and comments Yes, I Have a question This is used for counseling.

How many counselors will you have working out of this facility? Just two and I'm thinking in terms of parking around that

Yep, so I would be primarily there, kind of just general business hours, Monday through Thursday, about 8 to 5-ish. And then the other counselor she's there more part-time actually so In the school time she's in the school system a little bit more, so she's even less than that So so essentially only two employees and then Then clients who would come seeking your services correct, okay?

Thank you

Any other questions or comments?

Mr. Chair.

Oh, excuse me. Go ahead.

Commissioner Jameson.

Yeah, I have a question for the applicant as well. So everything is existing except the ramp would be an addition?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep. The only other change is the current gravel parking area off of 3rd Street is only currently it's one stall, but the ramp off of 3rd Street, like the access is the width for two cars. So we would just extend for the width of two cars there.

Sure. Yeah, the ADA ramp, just a heads up, it's not compliant as drawn. It has to be five foot by five foot, but that was the only question is whether or not it was an existing ramp or not. Good to know.

Commissioner Aiken. Yeah, just a quick question for the applicant. Is the staff recommended limit of the two office suites, is that OK with you?

It's sufficient, yeah. We were only going to have two of us anyway, I guess.

Great. Thank you.

A question for staff. Could we have accomplished the same outcome with a rezone? And is there a reason why we wouldn't want to do that?

It's potential that the applicant could have requested a rezone of this particular lot. I don't have the zoning map here, but it's really in the middle of the R2 two-family district. They would have likely been required to do a future land use map amendment if it didn't meet the future land use map, which is probably medium density residential in this area. If they got through the future land use map amendment with a small minor change for commercial use and then went for a rezone, like I said, it would be an island in the middle of the R2, potentially a spot zoning type issue. This seems like the more appropriate There also could have been a case where it was done as a home occupation where it remained residential. The occupant moved in and ran the business out of their home, but that's not the case here, so this seemed like the best fit. We did have a recent case like this on North Main Avenue also last year that went through for a similar use. It seems appropriate given the residential dwelling being kept and just repurposed.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board? I think we're done. Thank you. We'll close board comment, and Ryan, can you call the vote?

Mr. Michael? Jameson? Yes. Speer? Yes. Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Letty? Yes. Solom? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Limmer? Yes. The motion passes.

Moving on to the next item under 7 is a preliminary plat. Apologies, I did not read the noso hearing on the last item. Notice is hereby given that Legacy Storage Condos LLC has submitted a preliminary plot on the following real estate situated in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota, to wit a portion of Lot 1 of Clark Second Edition to be preliminary plotted as Lots 3 through 5 in Block 2 and Lots 1 through 5 in Block 4 and Block 5 of Legacy Edition. Ryan, can you introduce the topic, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next item is the preliminary plot of lots three through five in block two, lots one through five in block four, and block five of legacy addition. The applicant is Legacy Storage Condos, LLC. This is located in an industrial I-1 light district. The future land use map has this as a business park. Staff recommendation on the preliminary plot is approval, and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve, amend, or deny. And that action would be a recommendation made to the city council. The preliminary plat is in the area shown in the yellow outlined area. This would be a portion of that area. The area immediately adjacent to 34th Avenue or 32nd Avenue actually was approved for a preliminary plat for Block 3. There were five lots immediately off of 32nd Avenue that were already preliminary plotted as you can see here lots 1 2 3 4 That's in block 3 but the remainder of that area will now be preliminary plotted here with with block 2 block 4 and block 5 It's a total of 10 lots This area was annexed in and rezoned into that I-1 industrial district last year The preliminary plat does come with a preliminary drainage plan, utility plan. Drainage would be flowing into lot one on the southeast corner. It's the lower left corner, lot one. drainage flow to that area. Final drainage plan does require some off-site retention, compensatory storage, so any final plots would be held up until that is completed. And access for the proposed 36th Avenue shown here to US 14 that would also require approval from SD dot so the access to us 14 and some drainage issues may hold up final plotting but at this time the preliminary plot does meet our subdivision requirements there is a lot of kind of in the center east side of the Plurian Platte, Lot 3A. It's a smaller lot. It does meet the standards for a lot, but it would likely be a potential future right-of-way or a connection point to the east. There is also a connection to the Mission Street on the north end, which runs out to 34th Avenue. And additionally, Lot 5... In the south, kind of southwest corner, there is an access easement that runs through block one, allowing for additional connectivity into the development. That sums up the request and the preliminary plat, and staff would stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan. At this point, entertain a motion and a second for approval. So moved, Solon.

Second, Jameson.

Thank you. Hearing that will open public testimony applicant would like to address the Commission Thank You mr.

Chair and Justin Booker with banner associates representing the developer I Think Ryan pretty much covered a lot of it. So if there's any questions Feel free to ask.

Thank you. I Think at this point we can close public testimony and and open to board questions and comments.

Ryan, this question is for you. So is the totality of this, am I calculating or reading correctly, that's about 50 plus acres?

Yeah, it's about 53 acres. Okay.

So my question is then, if this is approved today, is there anything that commits the city to any kind of infrastructure or transportation improvements that we have to think about that we can understand more today? Okay.

The preliminary plat does come with a utility plan that shows connection points for utilities, sewer, water, electricity. The developer would be responsible for installing that through the plan. It does tie in with the existing preliminary plat and utilities that were approved for the Mission Street lots to the west. Streets again would be Constructed by the developer so the only commitment that it does would be obviously maintenance for those that have miss structure maintenance of the streets maintenance of the future public sewer water Services those be the commandments commitments of the city The rest of the construction would be developer covered great.

Thank you Mr..

Chair I've got a question for staff I So the location of 36th Avenue, is that, and I assume DRT has looked at all this, but is that intended to go all the way down and then eventually in a future street plan carry on south as it's able to across the highway?

At this time, there is no real plan for that to continue further to the south. It could. That would be a natural location for it to continue to the south if that tract were ever to develop. I think the location of that road was more intended to. It is going to also tie in with the church to the southwest. The church will now get an access onto this 36th Avenue. The church is located here in these two outlots. So it allows that lot to be connected to 36th Avenue. It does kind of also kind of split the difference in the land to allow kind of the depth of lots needed for Block 4 and Block 2. So it kind of splits the difference there. It was really more just planned for this development, not necessarily future to the south, but that's probably a great location for future connection north-south of the highway.

It appears to be in a good spot. I just wanted to ask the question. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, thank you. Closed public testimony, or excuse me, board comment. Brian, can you call the vote?

Speer? Yes. Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Luddy? Yes. Solom? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

All right. Item 8, we will now adjourn. Can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Mr. Chair, before we adjourn. Yes. Question. Can we add to next month's agenda the subcommittee for the onboarding and training is ready to be able to present proposal?

Yes. Staff will add that to the next agenda.

Perfect. Thank you.

Any other loose ends? Ready to adjourn? Can I get a motion to adjourn, please? Nobody wants to?

I'll make the motion, James.

You want to stay here? All in favor?

Aye. So the next meeting will be Tuesday, September 1st. We will add that subcommittee item onto the agenda for discussion. We do have a few action items that we'll have at that meeting. And additionally, there will be a joint board of adjustment. That's just chair and co-chair would need to know that. There will be an 8 PM joint board of adjustment for a renewal of a stable conditional use permit in the joint area.