Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. We will get started here. I'll call for roll call, Ryan.

Roll as noted with Jameson absent.

The board of adjustments is a seven member board with 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. In accordance with Robert rules of order, we require a motion to approve a request before the request can be debated. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. The board under specific powers granted it by the state shall authorize variances from 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 is approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Approval of last meetings minutes. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes.

First excuse me, I have to read the open forum policy. 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. The comments and views expressed by the public are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the city of brookings or the city planning commission. Is there anyone like to add anything? Seeing none, we will now convene as a board of adjustment. First First item, 5A. Brian, would you like to introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item is a variance on Lot 10 Of Block 12 in Prairie Hills edition. The variance request is for a second access drive. The applicant for the variance is David and Lori Schafer, owners of the lot.

The lot is located in a residence R1B single family district. The request specifically is to have a second access drive onto Sweetgrass Drive, and this would be a variance from section ninety four three forty three B1, which states that no more than one access drive shall be permitted onto any street, which the lot or block abuts. The staff recommendation for the variances denial and the board of adjustment action tonight would be to approve or deny. Lot 10 is located as shown here on the location map. The site plan shown here is the proposed site plan for a new construction, a new home on that lot, showing the two access drives.

And it was noted on the application, this lot was preliminary platted as two lots and then final platted as one lot. So the preliminary plat approved with the initial Prairie Hills development on this block had this as preliminary platted out as two lots, our final platted as one. And that would be then the ordinance that we apply as no more than one access drive per platted lot. So, the site plan shows two twenty five foot wide access drives in a U shape orientation leading to a three stall garage. And that ends the staff report.

And we'll stand for any questions.

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

So moved. Solem. Second. Thank

you. Now open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the variance?

Thank you. My name is Kyle Rausch with Dakota Land Design. Ryan, do you have the couple other pages of the application packet that I'd sent in there with that?

Not on the PowerPoint here. These are the only two slides that I have on the PowerPoint.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So those are what I'm speaking about there. Dave and Lori Schafer who I'm working with as a contractor, they've been working with Mills development on lot planning along this area of Sweetgrass Drive since the early stages of development for these parcels.

The Schaefer's had asked for two lots to be combined into one larger lot. And so originally these were more segmented lots. Would say the average lot in Prairie Hills is about 85 feet wide. This lot ended up being a 174 feet of road frontage on this lot. The the Schafer's had our company work on several driveway designs over the last few years With the with the garage being angled on the home, Dave and Lori had challenges finding a traditional driveway design that they felt like was safe for ingress and egress and also just something that flowed with the architecture of the home.

The u shaped driveway plan will be narrower than standard at each approach. You know, it is allowed 36 foot for a standard driveway. On our two curb cuts, we're asking for two, but they are only 25 foot of width. And they just feel like it's going to be safer. It's going to complement the beautiful architecture of the home in that angled driveway.

The Schafer's also purchased the lot across the street, which is in your guys' packet. And so the lot across the street, it borders the wetlands easement area and they wanted to make sure that that that it would be a nice landscape buffer. They've got a lot of beautiful things planned for that area. They've got a a really cool Dale Lampfier sculpture that's going in this area. And that has a similar road frontage to their lot across the street.

And so essentially what what mister and missus Schaefer are asking for is two driveway approaches in an area that essentially, would be the width of four city lots between the east and the west side of the home. Mister Schaefer has reached out to several nearby neighbors. The three homes, to the north have been constructed from this lot. All three neighbors have given us letters of approval which we can, submit upon request. And also the developer has approved this, u shaped driveway as well, the the John And Jacob Mills. So if you have any questions, otherwise Mr. Schafer will come up and speak a

little bit about it also.

All right. Thank you.

Thanks, Kyle.

Well, good late afternoon and thanks for the opportunity to get a chance to talk to you about our proposed variance. Kyle hit on almost all the key elements, But as he mentioned, we worked with Mills development early on in the process to try to have a larger than normal lot and this is the largest lot across the frontage. And as he mentioned it was two lots, but it was recommended to put them both together at the time just in terms of getting the plat right the first time so to speak. And so that was all done. And as was mentioned, we also purchased across the parcel and that parcel we've spent quite a bit of time laying out the design plan for the landscaping and our intent would be to irrigate that as well so it doesn't dry out and get pretty messy over time.

And so that's really the intention with quite a bit of foliage as well. He also mentioned the Dale Lampere part. Dale as you know is a famous South Dakota sculptor and and a friend. And so we worked with him to make a grouping of different sculptures and there'd be a large one there on the way it's proposed on the west side and then a kind of a series around the house on the east side. So we're excited about that and he is as well and it'd be nice if that would work out.

In terms of the V design of the home, with with the V shape to it regardless of how we do the driveway it's gonna end up with a curve type approach. And so when you look at the geometry and the setbacks and the overall lot spacing, what what happens is you start to get some, you know, curves and stuff that are a little bit of a cumbersome I suppose is the right word to use. But with the arc design or the horseshoe version it just makes it so much easier to move about in any fashion around to enter the garage and to get back in and out. We also were came up about other hardships and so one thing we wanted to mention is is my wife was hit in a car accident back in 1990 and she had whiplash, it was rear ended. But anyway, you know, physical therapy over time.

She still has some limited movement to her right side and as she gets older that becomes an issue. I just wanted to mention it because it was discussed just in terms of are there any other hardships associated with it and to a degree you know if you have limited movement it's a lot easier to drive forward than than back up. But all in all, one other thing I would ask you to consider in this is this is a pretty distinctive design of the home and the character of it and the positioning on the lot and what's also across the street. And you know in eighty years from now this will be a Brookings historical District, right? And I think it's always good to have some distinction in in historical areas and this will become one someday.

And and I think the way it's laid out including the driveway is is part of that distinction. And so with that I'd open up, would you have any questions or or comments? Those are just some thoughts. But as Kyle said, we had approval you know from all the neighbors. One thing I want to read from Jacob Mills' memo that he sent when when he offered his support quote unquote, as for the driveway layout I think that you are proposing what you're proposing is perfectly fine as you have submitted on the attached site plan since you have such a large front yard and wide lot frontage and we appreciate you keeping the wings of the driveway 30 feet or more away from the neighbors property lines.

So we wanted to make sure that there was plenty of room in regards to not encroaching on the homes beside it. So anything I can provide further clarity on or any questions?

Mr. Chair, I have one. So you said you have the lot across the street, your own as well? Yes. And that's where you're doing landscaping and some is there a driveway on that property? No,

it's a good question. Thanks for asking that. That is a non buildable parcel. On one end it's 20 some feet and on the other it's like 80. So it's a trapezoid basically if you look at the way that's laid out.

But when we originally worked with Mills development, our concern was as you know we'd look out the front window and with that being kind of a wetland it could kind of get messy over time and they said well if you're interested, if you're willing to commit to you know basically landscaping it and then managing it or maintaining it over time. So we included in the process. Our intent is to irrigate that just like our lawn and take care of it as if it's just part of our lawn. Any other questions?

I just have a question for staff. So the recommendation on this is not to approve so can you explain further why that is?

The recommendation would be to deny, I think, on this being a vacant lot with the orientation as proposed, would create a self created hardship, essentially. A variance should be the minimum required to alleviate a hardship. It should be the avenue of last resort. We're self creating a hardship here. That would be the basis for the recommendation for denial.

I guess I don' understand that how could that be creating a hardship for them?

So based on the explanation of the V shaped pattern of the home it was stated that because of that orientation of the home the driveway requires this horseshoe kind of U shaped orientation. But right now, we're working with a clean slate. There's nothing on this lot. It's a brand new construction. So all options are on the table for how you design and construct your house. It could be designed and constructed in a way that doesn't require a U shaped horseshoe driveway that requires two access drives. Coming from the design, it's self created by the design of the house.

Okay. I drove out there today and got to see not only the property that you're looking at, but also the property across the street. Great location. And then drove through the neighborhood as well to see if there were any other houses that do have two access drives. And there are.

There are at least two that are very close to you. One I noticed at the corner of Sweet Grass And Wood Duck Trail 2820, which has two access on the corner, which to me would mean a more hardship for people coming and going on a corner lot. And then there was also one at the corner of Goldenrod And Sweet Grass where there's a second garage creating two access points as well. So I guess I'm not quite sure how this would create a hardship for you.

Yeah, guess I appreciate you bringing that up because I'm very familiar with those properties. And yes, there are two within just a few blocks. One is just two blocks or pretty much on the same block and the other one's to the south a couple of blocks. In regards to the house design, you know, we when we picked the house design initially and worked with architect to kind of personalize it and actually expanded it substantially. That V design you know once you kind of go that far down the road with it you know it is what it is. We would essentially need to start over I think if we if we're unable to to figure out how to come up with an approach that works effectively with that V design.

Yes. Along those lines, I have a side of

I good the

What are the setbacks right there? Question.

The setbacks are drawn on here with the red dashed line. Those would be the front side and rear yard setbacks. In this case, it's sidewalk would be required on this portion of Prairie Hills. So they would have, I believe it would be a 20 foot front yard setback in this location. But your question was how would the driveway

in other words if we eliminated the driveway or the access point that comes off of the garage, what would that look like?

If you were to remove this access drive here.

And leave as much concrete as possible. So

essentially that would be, you'd be looking at a separate, different variance for that type of situation where we'd be creating basically front yard parking to get to that garage. An access drive should be it's a driveway that would lead directly to a rear side yard with access to a garage. So really, driveway on the north side would be the approved driveway by ordinance. I think only the south one, and that would potentially be a separate variance for front yard parking essentially to get to that driving through the front yard to get to the garage. But I think if the north access drive were allowed and it was denied to have two driveways, you could essentially run the driveway from the side of the garage at that angle, you know, to roughly a point here, kind of at the top of that curve there, I think would be probably the approved driveway area without any variances needed.

And that could potentially then allow an area to back up, turn and drive out. Going forward, it would be an option, I think, to alleviate any potential hardships for units to turn around in your driveway.

Mr. Chair, before we move on and he moves off, I do have one more question for the applicant. Is this safety concerns, is that your wife's condition with not being able to turn? Like I'm just asking if

It's that's you know, it's a factor. Let me put it that way.

Right.

The our recent properties have either been on cul de sacs or like horseshoes they generally call them those small loops off a main road or maybe you got like two or three houses on them. So it's it's been less of an issue. I mean it's a concern you know everybody can be the judge of how big a concern that is. The other part like we said with the V design, we fiddled around and and with Kyle as well as ourselves and looked at the geometry and so on and and it's hard to come up with one where you can back around without feeling like you're backing in front of your house and you kind of get this chunk of concrete in front of the front door which feels a little odd if it doesn't kind of tie to something. But anyway just when we've looked at different options so we've done our best to look at them and felt like this was the best alternative and with the width of the lot and the support of Mills development and so on we felt it was worthy to come forth and have a conversation.

Thank you very much.

Excuse me. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against the variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board comment. Comments?

I'm looking at this and I'm thinking this was originally two lots if I'm not mistaken in the way it was originally planted. So given that, had you developed both of those lots independently, there would have been two curb cuts. And and so so that property line disappeared between the two, and so now we're gonna say you can only have one curb cut. I I think this is a very well laid out plan, and I like the design of the V shaped home. It's something you don't see a lot.

But if all we're deciding on is whether we allow one curb cut or two, well, like I said before, there would have been two curb cuts there anyway had those two lots not been combined. I'm in favor of approving this provision.

Mr. Chair. Actually I find Roger's points compelling. I think the thing I'm struggling with is to see a hardship here given what we have on the table. But I think that is a fairly compelling point for me.

I guess I'm going have to think about it some more now. Thanks.

Commissioner Aiken, did you have something? I thought you were motioning earlier.

Yeah. I mean, mostly I think it was covered with Bill Jo's comments and the others here. Appreciate it. But yeah, I think they're answered. Mr.

Chair, I used Commissioner Limmer's pen to roughly measure. So this is not but I was looking to see the only way I could think to where the concrete would look less odd if you had one would be you'd almost have to rotate the home clockwise so the garage was facing straight. But you're also creating closer you're creating the house would be closer to both setbacks then. I'm just going ask this, wide could if these were two lots, how wide can is it 36 feet, is that the max width of each?

Are you asking for a driveway?

Yes, if this was platted as two lots like it was supposed to be and somebody put two garages, if there's two garages, how wide can those curb cuts be? 36 feet, right, or the width of max width of this garage?

The curb cut can be up to 24 feet in width. It can be expanded to 36 feet to match the width of the garage. So if there were two homes on two lots and both had 36 foot wide, you know, three stall garages, then both could have 36 foot wide curb cuts. Okay.

I get some clarification? I'm just curious in general. What is the city's concerns with having to curb cuts on this? Is it snow removal? Is it safety ingress onto the road? Like what is the concern?

I think when you get into areas with smaller lots, a concentration of driveways, have reduced on street parking. You would have more ingress and egress in a smaller area. Obviously, this is a larger lot in a development with other larger lots, so it would be less of a concern in terms of on street parking. And the point is valid, noting that there would be two here if it were two lots, so all valid points. But I think the original intent was in smaller lots, you eliminate a lot of opportunities for on street parking.

Any other comments? Ryan calling the roll. Schmeichel?

Yes. Limmer? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solem?

Yes. Bacon? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda 5B variance for 31006 Street sign size. Ryan would you introduce the topic?

Thank you mister chair. The next variance on the agenda is at 3106th Street. The variance is for a larger than allowed sign. The applicant is Stein, sign display on behalf of the property owner John Mills. The property is located in a business B3 Heavy district.

Request is for a $2.68 square foot sign according to section ninety four thousand four and seventy three table three, the maximum size for a sign, an individual sign in the B3 Heavy District is 160 square feet. The staff recommendation would be to approve a variance up to two forty square feet and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve or deny. The lot in question 3106th Street is shown here outlined in blue, it's just southeast of the intersection of 6th Street and LaFever Drive. And the sign would be located approximately in the red box area. Here's a site plan presented by the applicant showing where that sign would be located on the lot.

It would meet the required setbacks for a sign. And sign diagram here showing to be a 14 by roughly 19 foot sign. And here is a sign rendering from going eastbound on 6th Street showing where that sign would be located on the lot. And that ends the staff's report, and we'll stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve variance?

I'll make the motion with the two sixty eight square foot allowed.

Second.

Thank you. We'll now open public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variance?

Good evening board. I'm Jason Crow. I represent SteinSign Display. Thank you for the opportunity today. We at SteinSign Display are requesting a variance for a digital billboard measuring 268 square feet with a setback of 140 feet from the roadway.

The current code limits boards up to a 160 square feet. Our request is based on three things, safety, consistency, and community enhancement. First safety, the United States Sign Council has studied sign legibility extensively at normal arterial speeds of 35 miles an hour. Drivers need need letters in the range of nine to eight 18 inches in height to read a message safely in a single glance. On a 160 square foot sign, that size of the copy is very constrained especially when you add multiple lanes, logos and spacing.

The 268 square foot face provides about 30% more usable copy area, which gives drivers a safer, clearer message meaning their eyes are on the road longer and not strained to read smaller copy. Second is consistency. Brookings already has a digital billboard that's 171 square feet with only an 85 foot setback. Our request is at a 140 feet is proportional, in fact slightly more conservative when you compare square foot per foot of setback. The current Qdoba billboard is 2.01 square foot per foot of setback.

Our proposed location would be only 1.91 square feet per foot of setback. Our third point is community enhancement. The city ordinance requires spacing, landscape planning, and architectural treatment for freestanding signs. We would like to meet those requirements. We'll install landscape planning bed with four native species of shrubs and grasses and we will wrap the pole in decorative cover that complements existing building and a lot.

This ensures the sign not only serves its purpose but also contributes to the corridors aesthetics and character. So in summary, the variance is not about making the sign bigger for its own sake, it's about aligning with national safety standards, ensuring fairness with existing approvals and adding value to the property through thoughtful design. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

I do have a question. What will be on the display?

It'll be off premise advertising for any advertisers that we can advertise on our billboards. And so far our markets include, Yankton, Madison, Vermillion, Aberdeen, Watertown, that's kind of like the East Eastern regional platform.

Any others? Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry.

Looking at the dimensions of that close-up, fourteen'four, eighteen'nine, is there some physical reason that you've come up with those dimensions? I'm thinking about LED modules. I mean, it

Absolutely.

That's what I'm wondering as far as putting this sign together. You know, you you stack your LED blocks and that's what you end up with this fourteen four. And so then what would be the next step down from that?

So the reason why we come up with these dimensions is it's a standard of what we currently carry in our portfolio. So just for ease of use of graphics and spending time on graphics, if you get an advertiser, you give us one graphic, we don't have to sit and and kind of parse it for each dimension of billboard that we do have. And the step down, I'm not sure what that would be. I'd have to go through our Daktronics representative and kind of look at the various options.

So is this a Daktronics sign?

It is. Yep. Okay. We primarily source their products.

I have another question. The display itself, will it be static or will it be changing and if it's changing at what rate is it changing?

Yep. It'll be a digital, so it'll flip every six to eight seconds based on, but most commonly they're six seconds long.

So the stats that you presented with respect to safety, are they for static display or for one that is changing at that same frequency?

They they mentioned that distance, it's it's mostly for digital billboards. The assigned council kind of uses that as a research topic.

What product is this in Daktronics? What is it their digital billboard?

Yes, their digital billboard, it's their BD line.

Okay. So just so you know, the next size down would be thirteen foot two inches and eighteen foot seven or seventeen foot seven inches, but that could not be a that might not be a standard product either. So sorry. I'm aware of the sign like stuff, so I I just wanted I have these same mods on our video product, so I know the sizes of them. But I don't know that that's a standard product for Daktronics, so custom stuff like that typically can potentially not even be made or it costs a lot to make because it's a weird cabinet. They they have standard cabinet sizes that they go with too. So I just want to let you next size down.

And can add something? As far as the setback distance, 140 feet, Of all of our billboards, that's probably their most furthest setback sign and it's just like a I guess, pretty much like a TV if, you know, you got such a small TV versus your 96 inch, you know, if you had something that's a 40 inch or less, would just take longer to kind of read that copy and it's just for driver safety purposes, that's our intention.

Any others? Sorry, one more. And this is like I know it's digital. It is a static image, correct? Like that's I think the highways require static images and then

Absolutely no movement, it

can't be

flashy, no motion whatsoever.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I have questions for staff.

Give me one sec.

No worries.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against the variance? We will now close public hearing and open for comment.

Thank you chair.

Yeah, thank you.

Ryan, when I drove out there today and while I appreciate the comments about the setback it looks like that would be the ideal location based upon the parking lot and the property of and it just happens to be a great setback as well. My concern is is that that part of town of course is getting developed and what is the city's stance on signage? Like when do we get saturated with signage when does it become too much and I understand now that we' not in that place and that we' already approved some signage for marketplace and so looking down 6th Street what' the city' stance on saturation of signage?

Well the city most recently looked at our signed ordinance likely two, probably three years ago I think it was. The Planning Commission looked at some changes to our sign ordinance. And it wasn't related necessarily to the number of signs, but it was related to the amount of digital signage within the current and future signs that would be approved. Right now, signs are approved on a per lot basis, so it's depending on the zoning district, you're allowed a certain number of signs, depending on the size of your lot. And, that wasn't brought up as a concern or changed the most recent time that we looked at our sign ordinance, it was more so controlling the amount of digital square footage, I guess, along our streets and proximity to residential and historic districts.

So I don't think there's been a concern about the number of signs in general at this point, just digital in certain areas.

Thanks for that. The reason I bring that up is because some of our citizens have shared with me that there are neighboring towns and locations that have a plethora of signs and has just been eroded over the years. And so we want to be mindful about how that shows up within Brookings as we continue to grow.

Mr. Chair if I may comment. You know, I think staff's recommendation on why 240 square feet because that is the largest sign that we allow in the city, and that's kind of where staff's recommendation fell. They're asking for more than what would be allowed in any zoning district. I think when we looked at the marketplace property across the street, much, much bigger area, 26 acres, and we looked at the signage, we limited their freestanding signs to 240 square feet as well.

And so that's kind of where staff recommendation came from is trying to look at the size. Is it reasonable? Is it proportionate to the lot area as well? There is an existing freestanding sign on this site further to the west. They are allowed because of their frontage an additional sign, but why the two forty square feet recommendation is because that's the largest that we allow in the city and that's what we treated the marketplace as well.

Mr. Chair. Not to sound like a broken record, I'm struggling to see the hardship here. Yeah, I agree with the points that you made, but I don't find them meeting the threshold of hardship, especially considering it's not advertising the on premise business. So it's not really necessary, something that you would like to do, of course.

And I think hopefully an appropriate question for the applicant. We currently have on the table a motion to approve at two sixty eight square feet, which is a request. Would it be worthwhile doing an amendment for a two forty square foot sign?

Other comments? Questions? Thanks, Mike. Kind of wondering how you landed on that two forty. I'm seeing no other Mr. I Chair, go

just want to clarify the original motion is including up to two forty or to allow the two It was sixty two sixty eight.

So yes, that would be the motion that we'll call the roll for right, go ahead for the two sixty eight.

Lemmer? No.

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

No. Schmeichel? Yes. Bacon? Yes. Motion fails.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda 5C variance for 1016

Oakwood Circle Shed location. Ryan would you introduce the topic. Thank you mister chair the next item is a variance for a shed proposed at 1016 Oakwood Circle The applicant is the property owner John Spring. The property is located in a residence R3 apartment district. Request is to look at a shed within a front yard setback area on a double frontage lot.

According to Section 94.39 eight (two) well, this is incorrect. Sheds cannot be located in the front yard essentially, which on a double frontage light, you'd have two front yard setbacks, and they're requesting to locate it within six feet of the front yard area adjacent to Madari Avenue. The staff recommendation is approval and the Board of Directors action be to approve or deny. 1016 Oakwood Circle is shown in the blue outlined box on this map. As mentioned, it's a double frontage.

They have the primary frontage on Oakwood Circle and a secondary frontage to the west on Madari Avenue. They are proposing to place a 10x16 shed in that northwest corner of the property. It would be six feet, at least six feet setback from the property line on Madari Avenue within that required 20 foot front yard setback. There is a fence, an existing fence that is located roughly five feet setback from the property line along Modere Avenue and would screen and shield that shed from the road and sidewalk. And that ends staff's report and we'll stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the variance? So moved. Second, taken. Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variance?

I am John Sprang. I am the applicant. Thank you for taking the time. I this is my first thing that I've ever applied a variance for, so I really didn't have anything planned to come up and say other than looking to do what my neighbors have done along the backside there rather than placing a shed in the middle of my yard, guess, having two front yards here essentially. And I really just wanted to make myself available for questions if you had any.

John. Questions for the applicant?

Yeah. Just a quick question. Have you had any conversations with your neighbors?

Yeah. I've talked to I've talked to the benders, hoagies and yeah. The benders and hoagies on both sides of me and they said they have no concerns with with this. To be fair though, not across the street. Have not.

And I have a quick question.

There's a fence that separates it from the street?

Correct.

And the fence is taller than the shed?

The fence is six feet tall and I think

the The

shed is 10?

What's that?

The shed is 10?

That's the 10 by 16 width. The height of the shed is not 10 feet tall. So think the walls of the shed are around six or seven feet. So the fence should cover, but then you have the sloped roof above it.

Okay. Thank you.

Any others? Thanks, John.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against the variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Questions, comments?

Mr. Chair, just a comment. I think there's a pretty good definition of hardship here, having two front yards. There's not a lot of options for placing a shed. I think what the applicant has proposed here is very reasonable and I would vote in favor of

it. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I concur with that. I drove by today and you know, beautiful neighborhood and where the cul de sac is at, the front yards are pretty tight. And then when you go down Madari and really look where he's putting the shed, to your point, may be able to see it, but I doubt it because there are very mature trees that are back there and even the neighbors I don't think will be able to see it either.

Thank you. Others, Nick did you have? Oh, sorry. Seeing no other comments, we will call the vote. Ryan?

Speer?

Yes.

Henrich? Yes. Braun?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Hagen? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. We will now reconvene as planning commission. The city planning commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plots, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters. The commission makes their recommendation based upon the adapt 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 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 the information presented, make finding effects, and forward their recommendation to the city commission. The first item on the agenda, 6A, rezone of West Half of the Northwest Quarter, excluding platted area and Section 20 Township 110 range 49 from ag a district to Industrial I 1 district.

Ryan would you like to introduce the topic please.

Thank you Mr. Chair the first planning commission item is a rezone from agriculture a district to industrial I 1 Light District. The applicant is the property owner Annie Hansen LLC. Current zoning ag requested zoning as Industrial I 1 Light District. The area is located in a general industrial future land use in the comprehensive plan.

The staff recommendation for the rezone is to approve, and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny. That action would be a recommendation made to the City Council. The property area shown in the red yellow box here is located on the corner of 34th Avenue and U. S. Highway 14 Bypass on that southeast corner.

The current zoning map shows the entire area currently zoned. It has been annexed now, so it's not joint jurisdiction ag. It is now simply ag district. Adjacent zoning districts include the Business B3 Heavy District and Industrial I-one Light District to the West, with an additional I-one Light district to the South on the other side of the future water treatment plant. As mentioned, the future land use map shows this area as general industrial.

That was changed within the last year. Previously, it was urban medium intensity future land use, and it was amended going through the Planning Commission and City Council to amend that to a general industrial category. And that ends staff's presentation. We'll stand for any questions.

Thanks Ryan. We will now open the public hearing. Oh, me. Thanks Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the rezone? So moved. Second. Solemn. Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone present that would like to speak, in favor of the rezone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission members. My name is Justin Booker with Banner Associates. We're the engineer for the project. I think Ryan pretty much hit on everything that we wanted to express. The Industrial I1 Zone really does kind of complement the area. Most of the surrounding properties are industrial in nature. So we feel like this is a reasonable request.

Thanks, Justin. Are there any questions for him at this time? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding this matter? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for board discussion.

Any comments? I think this has been in front of us here a couple of times now. Seeing no discussion, we'll call the vote. Ryan?

Schweigel? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solem?

Yes. Aiken? Yes. Leddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. Next item on the agenda, 6B preliminary plat of Lots 1 Through 7 in Block 1 of Northeast Hansen Addition. Ryan, would

you introduce the topic? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next item is the preliminary plat for the same area we just discussed. We received a preliminary plat proposal for Lots 1 Through 7 in Block 1 of N. E. Hansen Addition. The applicant is the property owner of N. E. Hansen LLC.

Zoning would be industrial I-one light district as just proposed. The site is roughly 54 acres, and the preliminary plat would lay out seven lots varying from 4.7 acres on the small end to an 18.1 acre lot at the largest size. Within the preliminary plat, there would be one proposed street, which would be a cul de sac. One unique note here on this preliminary plat is this would open up section 5,184 of our ordinance, which would require Planning Commission to essentially approve a variance for this being that a block length, there's a block length of greater than 1,000 feet within the preliminary plat, so we'll take a look at that in our site plan. The staff recommendation is to approve as presented, and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny, and that recommendation is to the City Council.

And, again, by making a recommendation to approve, that would be essentially building in Planning Commission's action on a variance per Section 5,184 in our subdivision ordinance. The project location, same area here, area in the yellow box. And here is the proposed preliminary plat. So, as mentioned, Lots 1 through seven in Block 1. Lot 1, starting on the north, be an 18.1 acre lot, corner lot located on the corner of the bypass and 34th Avenue.

Then, to the south, there is a proposed street, Ron Reed Circle, which would be a cul de sac, serving access to Lots 2 Through 7. Lots 2 And 3 would be corner lots with limited access to one onto 34th Avenue. The remainder would have access to Ron Reed's Circle. And that ends staff's report, and we would stand for any questions.

Thanks, Ryan. Is there a motion to approve the preliminary plat?

So moved. Moved.

Second. Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the preliminary plat?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Justin Booker with Banner Associates again. I guess I really don't have much to add at this point. I'm just be available for questions.

I have one. Go ahead.

How wide is that street on the cul de sac?

The right of way width I believe is 70 feet wide with a 41 foot wide street and then the bulb is a little bit wider to account for some truck turning.

Okay. That's I was just wondering about semi traffic.

I believe it's it should be the same dimensions as Century Circle on 32nd Avenue.

And this may have been already brought up, what are the access points for Lot 1?

Access off the highway is going be pretty restricted depending on DOT permitting. My engineering judgment would guess it's pretty unlikely that they would grant an access with it being on the curve there and close to the intersection. So it's likely that any access would be to the west off of 34th Avenue.

Other questions for Justin? Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against the plat, preliminary plat, excuse me? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Questions or comments, anyone?

Mr. Chair, just a quick question for staff. I do see that the preliminary drainage plan is accepted by the city, but it looks like maybe the final drainage plan will require additional annexation. Is that pretty typical? Will require additional property be annexed. Am I reading that correct?

Yes, we have received an annexation petition for additional land to the east of this area. That will be coming to the October Planning Commission meeting. And that came about from discussion at our DRT revolving the drainage plan. It was a request of the engineering department that the drainage plan, wherever the drainage would be taken care of from this development would be within city limits. So, they did request that additional annexation take place to account for the drainage area.

So that will be forthcoming, and with that being the case, staff is comfortable approving recommending approval of that, given that they are making the efforts to provide that drainage area through a future annexation. Annexation.

Yeah, I'd just never seen that before so I was curious what the circumstances were. Thank you for the explanation.

Mr. Chair, I also have a question, follow-up question on that. So with the potential of annexation and then where it shows plotted for what I' reading as a detention pond that would be for this for the drainage that would overlay on to the flood plain. Is that correct?

Will take a look at the annexation area at our next meeting.

The drainage plan for this project shows that that is where the pond would go.

And so if engineering is comfortable with the drainage location area working through the flood plain regulations and our drainage ordinances engineering will work out any issues that that would present. At the moment we're comfortable proceeding, engineering is comfortable proceeding with the drainage plans as approved just with the requirement that additional annexation takes place.

Great. And then on, I think it's the aerial view, is that a residence that is north?

There is one, I'm not sure if it's an existing residence, but there is an access drive from the bypass to, I think it was a former university lot there, that would be outside of this preliminary plat area, just to the east.

Okay. Then I'll keep my questions about potential drainage issues for that house for next month. Yes. All right. Thank you.

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

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Hakon? Yes. Schmeichel? Yes. Lemmer? Yes. Leddy? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Ryan. I believe you mentioned you had a couple more items at the end of, we're at the end of our agenda here.

Yes, so next meetings, we do have a joint board of adjustment meeting tonight for those of you that are part of the joint jurisdiction board of adjustment. We'll be meeting at eight p. M. For one conditional use permit in the joint area. Otherwise, everybody else, the next meeting would be Tuesday, October 7 at 05:30 p.

M. Before we go, we wanted to bring up a couple of things for future conversation. Looks like in 2026, the June and November meetings will have conflicts with elections on those dates. So, we'll be looking to potentially move the June and November meetings next year. So, we want to keep that on our radar for I think the county was planning to move theirs to the first Thursday in lieu of the election conflict.

Those are potentially dates that we'll look at doing the first Thursday for June and November. And then, one other thing we wanted to run by everybody was an idea for some potential trainings, potential planning commission training involving maybe taking a tour around town as a planning commission and taking a look at some developments in the community. We potentially get a bus or a large vehicle we could all ride in together and kind of do an on site field trip through the area. Mike's got some more to add to that.

As long as Mike's not driving.

No. What we typically do is if there's interest, we'd line something up with beta so we could all get in one vehicle, see if we can get one of their buses. Question is if, one, is there interest? We'd kind of take you and show you some of the projects that you've had to come before you in the last year or two. If there's interest, two is we'd want to try and schedule something rather quickly probably in September because and it's probably going be a special meeting, but because we're going to lose some daylight?

Or do you wanna wait until the spring or I hate to do it in the summertime and a nice evening, but is it something you wanna try and do in September yet? And if so, we'd try and see if we couldn't put something together and throw some dates out to you to see if your availability and we'll try and take advantage of the light situation. I think if we can't do it in September, it's probably best to wait until next year just because you can't see a whole lot in the dark at some of these project sites. So it seems like by the head nods, want to try and pull something together. We'll see what we can do.

We just have to provide forty eight hours notice of quorum. I did confirm with the city clerk today that it's not a requirement to be published in the newspaper. We

have

to post it on our website and on our agenda board. If we can get it to the paper, they will publish it if they have space. However, we've had some publishing issues recently. So technically, we're publishing in the Volga Tribune, is a weekly publication that only comes out on Thursdays. And then we're trying to also publish in the register as well.

And so the good news is is, you know, we can probably pull something together rather quickly. We will try and get some dates out to you. Unfortunately, if you're hoping for a Tuesday, that is doable. But you'll have Ryan and Bailey be your tour guides, and I'll be tied up with city council meetings. And is there we'd like to avoid Wednesdays, but is Wednesdays a concern for anybody if we look at those dates?

Or do you just want us to throw some dates out and see what works for everybody or a majority of you? Throw some dates out. Okay. Alright. The other thing, I appreciate your discussion tonight on the hardships. That was great conversation. We haven't always not necessarily this group but other Board of Adjustments haven't always really looked at the hardship and discussed it. And I like how you guys are trying to in our world, we call it findings of fact. But I like how you're trying to really point out what hardships may or may not be in these types of situations as they come before you. So, I appreciate that.

One other note on training type things. At the October regular meeting, we will be having Bonnie Foster, our city clerk, join us to do a small education on open meeting laws. So, we'll have that on the October agenda.

So, that is something new with state law is it is a requirement that boards at least once annually review the open meeting laws. And so that went into effect July 1. We have to do it yet this year, and then we will do it again in 2026. So that's something that will be done annually. The other thing is is we created on the Microsoft Teams educational, information.

Let us know if there's something you're interested in finding out more about, and we'll see if we can find some information to put on there for you. It's just training opportunities to look at, review at your leisure if you can't sleep or on a long road trip or whatever else may be. So, thank you.

Thanks Mike, thanks Ryan. No other items, I'll call for adjournment.

So moved.

Second. In favor? Aye.

Meeting is adjourned, thanks everyone.

Tax relief today for a free consultation. Call 804106744. 804-1067.