Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone again. We will now call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome those in attendance at tonight's meeting. The City Planning Commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plots, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance, amendments, and other matters. The commission makes their recommendation based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. After a motion is moved and seconded, 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 finding effects, and forward their recommendations to the city commission. Mike would you call the roll?

Yeah roll is noted with commissioner Heinrichs absent all others present.

Thank you. Is there approval of tonight's agenda? So moved. Solemn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Agenda is approved as presented. Is there a motion to approve last meeting's October 7 meeting minutes. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. Meeting minutes are approved. Open forum.

At this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation or request a 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 city planning. Is there anyone that would like to be added to the agenda? Seeing none, we will move forward. We will now convene as a board of adjustment. The board of adjustment is a seven member board which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions.

The concurring vote of two thirds of the full board membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board. In accordance with Robert Rules of Order, we require a motion to approve request before 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 or 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 5A. Notice is hereby given that Andrew Ostreim has made a request for two variances on the West 330 of the South half of Outlaw 4 in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23 Township 110 Range 50, also known as 1214 Western Avenue. The first request is to extend an accessory building beyond the allowable square footage. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a lot used for residential purposes in the R 1 A District shall not exceed 25% of the rear yard area or 1,000 square feet of all floors combined, whichever is less. The second request is to build an accessory building three and a half feet from the rear lot line.

Per section ninety four three ninety four a, an accessory building located upon a residential lot shall not be within five feet of any side or rear lot line. Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you. The variance before you tonight is at 1214 Western Avenue. The applicant is Andrew Ostreim. This property is located in our residence R Dash 1 a single family district. The request is to expand an accessory building beyond the allowable square footage.

In this particular case, the section of the ordinance is referenced where it's limited to 25% of the rear yard or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Currently, there is a detached accessory building on the property comprising approximately 2,800 square feet. The second variance request is for a rear lot line setback. Detached accessory buildings can be built five feet from the property line. They're proposing to build this particular one three and a half feet from the rear property line.

The staff recommendation on this is denial with all variances. The Board of Adjustment has ability to approve or deny. With that, the property here is shown, outlined in yellow at 1214 Western Avenue. As you zoom in, the red outlined areas where they're proposing the addition. You can see just to the north of there, there are the detached accessory buildings currently on-site. With that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike. Is there a motion to approve the variances?

Yes, motion to approve both variances.

Thank you. Second. Thank

you.

We will now open public hearing and ask for any testimony. Is there anyone in favor that would like to come forward and speak regarding this matter?

I'm I'm Andrew Rothstrom. Guess I live at 1214 Western Avenue where I've lived for twenty two years or something like that. Raised a family, four kids. Definitely a staple in the neighborhood. Over the years, I've acquired a fairly large car collection and I've ran out of room.

I'm here tonight to ask for the variance which Mike and Scott have just described to you. Couple of notes I'd like to point out, I guess. My proposed addition would still be 30 feet from my south lot line and about but only about a foot and a half like they say or three and a half feet from the rear lot line. This isn't exactly your average residential property. It's 330 feet long by 99 feet wide.

It's 32,000 square feet. That exterior accessory building as you describe it would be still less than 9% of the prop of the total property. Neighborhood cons currently consists of one residence to the south of me, which has what I believe is a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard. So it's it's definitely industrial there. They got a 2,500 square foot building that's a foot off my property line and 4,000 some square foot building further back to the east and north of me is industrial zone contractor.

If anything doesn't belong in this neighborhood, it's my house, frankly. It's the neighborhood in in itself is not your average residential neighborhood. There's no sidewalks. There's no curb and gutter. I have a four foot road ditch, kind of what similar to what you'd see out in the country, not residential city neighborhood.

Anyway, I'd like to just say, you know, that I think this is a perfect example of the reason that this board and this process exist. So because not all properties are exactly the same and this is a place where it makes sense to have a bigger building, bigger garage. Anyway, any questions?

None at this time. Thanks, Andrew. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against the variance?

Doug Ostreim, owner majority owner of the property just to the north of this at 1222 and the property that will be right next to the proposed addition. I am speaking as the owner of the property and not necessarily because I'm a relative of party involved. I've been involved with that property out there for almost thirty years. We, it's been a very mixed use neighborhood. The property to the south was at one time a plumbing business.

It's now a masonry business. Even though it has a house there, it's also a business. Our property to the north was first construction business, Mills Construction. And then we, after we bought it, became the location Rostrom Landscaping. Some years back, we bought the back part of what was 1214 Western Avenue and added it to ours.

But and just to the north, there's one house, and then you skip over that. There's another contractor, which had been several different contractors have been on that property since I've been involved. And then, of course, beyond that, it's ready mix plant. So across the road is the Legion Hall. A very mixed use neighborhood. Has been since in the fifties, I believe. Definitely not typical. All of those properties originally had a quarter mile depth. 1214 had a quarter mile depth until we bought the back part of it. As I was looking over the thing today, nobody is gonna be able to see this addition.

Not even Rander's house will you really see it because of the fences. In our property, the only way we'll see it is if we walk back along South Line, bottom line, and purposely turn around and look back towards the buildings. Typical day to day operation, I doubt if I'd ever even notice it there. So now there's usually vehicles parked there, so I think this building actually be more attractive. I certainly urge you to consider approving this motion.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak regarding this matter? Seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Anyone?

Mr. Chair, Mike what is the reasoning behind staff's recommendation to deny?

Just being consistent with the ordinance with residential properties, there's the limitations at 25% or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. That's the basis really for the recommendation.

Mr. Chair, a couple of questions for staff, if if I may. Mike, do we know was there another variance for the existing structure that's back? Or is this just a preexisting?

I think it's kind of preexisting. At one point in time, with accessory structures, you could be within three feet of a side or rear property line. We moved it to five feet five, six years ago to align with the building code issues. So some of those buildings have been there for quite some time. And so they're nonconforming uses.

I don't recall seeing any variances for these previous structures. They were probably built some time ago or they complied with the ordinance at the time. And then as the ordinance has changed, it's put them into a nonconforming status or even with the splitting off and selling of the back half of the lot. Sure. Then the second question is, do we know what the total percentage of the rear yard is that they're taking up by adding this?

Or roughly, does it exceed 25%, I guess is the base of my question?

I don't believe we've calculated that because you look at 25% or 1,000 square feet, and they're at about 2,800 square feet. And so it's the lesser of the two and since they're already over that 1,000 square feet, it's just kind of what we went with.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Mike, do you know if any of the buildings like around it are required any variances? Like I'm looking at a lot of these. This whole area has, I mean I can just look one, two, three, four. I mean there's five buildings just in the view of this that are still going to be larger than this one that even with his addition. So were any of these recent?

I do recall a variance in a nearby property. I believe it maybe had something to do more with the flood plain. I think it varies depending on the zoning districts. This is unique because it's a residential zone property. I think some of the properties adjacent or in the vicinity are a combination of maybe a B3 or an I1 type zoning. And so regulations change a little bit differently on the sizes. However, if it's an industrial building, there still would be a setback area. Yeah, there is a lot of nonconforming structures out in this area.

If the addition were to connect the two buildings, it would stop technically being an accessory building, wouldn't it?

It would be in

order to not be classified as an accessory structure, they would have to be attached to the house. And so, yes, if you did an addition onto the house and eventually connected to all the buildings, it would technically be part of the primary structure. What generally happens though with that is now you get into building code issues where they have to do footings, foundations, fire rating, and such. When it starts to become when it's attached or within a certain proximity distance to the primary structure, the building code requirements trigger additional items that they would have to consider.

Any other questions or comments?

I do have one more. The zoning of the parcels to the north, east, and south, they're all some flavor of industrials. Is that correct?

I'm pulling that up on my computer right now. There is some R 1 A to the South, I 1 to the East and North, B 3 More Industrial to the North, to the Northwest is, I 1, R3A directly across the street to the West, R1A as you move to the Southwest.

Thank you. Any others? Seeing none we will call vote mike.

Schmeichel? Yes.

Jamieson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Letty?

Oh sorry. Correct. Nope. So it passes Seven-zero. When you're ready to proceed just please get a building permit from the building services division down in Suite 140.

Thanks Mike. Moving on to the next agenda item five b notice is hereby given that Kevin Grunwald has made a request for a variance for Lot 4 Block 3 Of Oils Addition and Lot 13, Block 2 Of Henry's Addition, also known as 208 8th Street. The request is for a two family dwelling on a 64 foot lot. The required lot width for a two family dwelling in the Residence R 22 Family District is 65 feet. Mike would you introduce the topic.

Thank you chair. The applicant is Kevin Grunwald. He's requesting a variance at 208 8th Street. This is located within the R 22 Family District. The request is for a variance to the lot with requirements for a two family dwelling.

The current lot dimensions are 64 feet wide. With a two family dwelling in the R 2 District, the minimum lot width is 65 feet. You can see the parcel here located on A Street outlined in yellow. It's a little difficult to see on the overhead, but there is an alley. They can meet the off street parking requirements off the alley, and then they're proposing a parking pad off of a street as well.

So the request is simply, at this time he is one foot shy of meeting the minimum lot with requirements. The staff does recommend approval of the variance request as always with the board of adjustment you have the ability to approve or deny such request.

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

Good evening. I'm Kevin Grunwald. I've been taking on distressed properties all over town and remodeling since 2000. And this one was a condemned house that was here. I I have since put it on a new foundation.

The intention is to have an entrance off the front and the back. There's more enough adequate parking and a three stall garage. We have, as it's laid out, eight stalls outside, three more additional in the garage space. The neighborhood around there is multiple duplexes, One directly to the south, directly to the north, apartment buildings, two lots down, commercial just down the alleyway, two more duplexes just to the east of there. So there is a lot of rentals.

And obviously as there's a lot of construction going on here in Brookings, you know we need to look at parameters like how do we adapt some of these properties we have that we can't fully use because of the standards we've set up for ourselves. Which is not horrible because some neighborhoods, you know, they're just family orientated. You know, we should just have families live in those. And some we need to adapt to make them a little bit nicer. And sometimes the only way we can do that is if we spend a little money in remodeling them. But the only way you can spend that money is if you have a little bit money coming in to make these neighborhoods a little bit nicer. If you can, you know. So with this particular one, like I said, it was a condemned house. The family could not live there anymore. So I've moved forward to start remodeling it now.

So now I'm just asking to make it duplex status. It's kind of about it. Do you guys have any questions?

None at this Thank

you Is

there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or opposed to this variance?

I'm Christy Tornquist. I own the property at 314 A Street and I just had a question about the parking pad, how that would lay out in the front of the house.

So there's not currently a parking pad there at this time. They would need to get a driveway permit. Driveway can be allowed to be in the front yard as long as it's leading to a garage or the side or rear yard. They'll

have

to look at that driveway to what extent it can extend in front of the house. So, you know, once they have, you know, the house is measured on-site, that'll dictate really how large that parking area could be. It's essentially considered a driveway. So, you're allowed access off the street through the front yard to a side or rear yard for a driveway.

Mike, could you clarify, is the garage on the 8th Street side or the alley side?

The alley side. The alley side. Yep.

Mr. Chair, just one clarification, if I could. When we're approving this, we're not approving the site plan. We're just approving the use as a two family residence, correct?

What you are approving is the variance to the minimum lot width requirements of 65 feet.

Great. Thank you. Any

others? Seeing none, Mike, would you call the vote?

Limer? Yes. Jamison? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Braun? Yes.

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

Motion is approved variance is approved please get a billing permit for any work that is needed.

Thanks Mike. Next item on the agenda 5C. Notice is hereby given that Sterling Fenning has made a request for a variance on Lot 60 Of River Ridge also known as 236 Heather Lane West. The request is to expand the existing driveway to 41 feet. 1st Section 94343 B 4 A, the width of the driveway may be expanded proportionally to match a garage that has a width of 24 to 36 feet. Mike would you introduce the topic.

Thank you chair. The applicant is Sterling Fening at 236 Heather Lane West. This is located in the joint jurisdiction area in the, River Ridge addition. It is currently zoned, residents r one b single family district. In the, residential districts, driveways are limited, to the width of the garage, and then they have the ability to be expanded an additional 12 feet within that front yard setback area.

This is a location that is shown outlined in yellow. What they are proposing is expand the driveway five additional feet to 41 feet in total width within that front yard setback area. And so essentially creating a slight parking pad off to the side. Staff does recommend approval, and then the Board of Adjustment has the ability to approve or deny such requests. And I'd stand for any questions you may have.

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

My name is Sterling Fetting. If you look at the drawing that's on the screen right now, the proposed driveway is to access a garage that we're attempting to get permanent as well. That was we were told that would get permanent. So it's a it's a driveway to access the garage. It's hard to read, but that says future garage in that white area. So that I was told by the city that that would be approved. It met it met the lot lines requirements for that space.

Thanks Sterling. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this variance? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board comment. Anyone? Mr. Chair,

Mike with the parking pad or with the parking extension, is there any way to do this where it's pending approval of the garage versus I guess for the variance it's not extending just a parking pad past the current garage rate like it's just for the front.

Commissioner Schmeichel, if I understand where you're going with this is you're concerned about approving this, but then the garage never gets built and not just have a large parking. The variance is approved, it's approved for that driveway within the front yard setback regardless of whether or not the structure is actually approved. They do have the maximum of three years from the date of approval to complete the improvements. And then the variance would if not done, then the variance is voided, and they'd have to come back and ask for approval again.

Correct. But the the approval, does this also include, like, could they pour concrete where the garage expansion is? Is this approving all of that or just the front yard stuff?

It's just the front yard. Once they get beyond that front yard setback, as long as they meet the zoning and building code requirements, they can get the necessary permits and proceed forward. They could technically build the garage addition as is now, but they would have a smaller

well, they

really wouldn't have a paved access to it. They'd have to drive over grass to it.

Any others seeing none we will call the vote mike Jamieson yes.

Speer yes.

Braun yes.

Solem yes. Aiken yes. Schmeichel yes. Limmer

yes. Motion is approved.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda 5D notice is hereby given that Mary E. And Thomas M. Fishback have made a request for a variance on Lot 3 C Of Block 2 in the Americana edition, also known as 2101 Freedom Street. The request is to install a six foot high ornamental iron fence in the front yard setback. The maximum height allowed in between the front lot line and principal building is four feet in a residential district. Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Yeah, thank you, chair. The applicant for this proposed variance is Mary and Thomas Fishback at 2101 Freedom Street. The property is zoned residence R1B single family district. The request is to install that six foot high ornamental iron fence in the front yard setback. We have particular zoning regulations in place for fencing.

In particular, with this particular property, it's technically has two front yards because it's a corner lot. And as you look at the site plan, the fence is proposed to extend eastward and then north. And so it's really this part here to the east that is under consideration tonight. The rest of the fencing is all appropriate. There is no issues with sight lines here.

That's one of our biggest concerns when we look at fencing in the front yard, in particular with corner lots. It doesn't present any sight line visibility issues. It's also an iron rod type fencing, so it's 75% transparency through. So there are no concerns from staff on this particular variance request recommendation is for approval and as the board of adjustment you have the ability to approve or deny and with that I' stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks mike Is there a motion to approve the variance? So moved. Solemn. Second Aiken. Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variance? Anyone that would like to speak in favor or against the variance? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for public comment or excuse me, board comment, question. Anyone?

Mr. Chair, Mike did the application say I couldn't see anything in it. Was there anything on a hardship on this?

It's just it's a very large lot. I think these are actually a couple lots that were platted into one. It's a corner lot with the two front yards. We had similar requests for similar type fencing that have been approved in this neighborhood in the Americana addition. The applicant is proposing the type of decorative fencing for security safety issues with his children.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, I have one. So this is roughly 70% transparent system, but the variance they're requesting is talks about a privacy fence over 48 inches, but this is not a privacy fence?

It's not a privacy fence. It's for security to keep, you know, it's the rod iron fencing, vertical bars. But what it with fencing in the front yards, they're restricted to four feet in height. They're requesting a six foot kinda decorative rod iron fencing around the perimeter of the property. It's more for safety of keeping occupants in the yard and not extending out towards the street.

Are there other areas in town where we've denied something like this and said, no, you have to build the 48 inches versus the six feet or five feet or whatever? Usually, they are solid fences.

And typically, where we get concerns is when there's the intersection safety zone, the site triangle. But with, you know, we, I believe it's on the corner of, I think it's Constitution Boulevard and 22nd Avenue that we have some similar requests.

I've got a question Mike. For this to not need a variance this entire fence on the east side would need to be four feet, is that correct?

Four feet or it would need to be moved back to the northeast corner of the house and then run north. Because the front yard is essentially the plane of the house or the setback for the zoning district, whichever is greater. So if you were to look at the east side of the house, if you look at that northeast corner, if they came off of that corner of the house, I don't know if you can see my cursor here. If you were to come off that corner and run directly north and then over, they wouldn't need the variance.

Mr. Chair, just want one more question or clarification from staff. Mike, if this property wasn't a corner lot, if this is just a standard lot, there would be no variance required, correct, to do the exact same thing?

Correct. If it was like an interior lot, they could essentially put the fence up to the property line. And even when we have double frontage lots, which we have some of those, especially on 20th Street South, they can have a fence, but as long as it's got to be at least four feet off the property line. And they can have a solid privacy fence, as long as it doesn't create doesn't violate the intersection safety zone ordinance. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Mike? Speer?

Yes. Solem?

Yes. Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel? No. Lemmer? Yes. Jameson?

Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks Mike. Next item on the agenda 5e notices hereby given the city of brookings has made a request for variances on Lots 11 A, 2, And 3 in Block 4 of the original plat addition, also known as 203 Front Street. The first request is for a reduced front yard setback to 2nd Avenue. The second request is for a reduced front yard setback in Front Street. The minimum required front yard setback in the Business B 2 District is 25 feet.

The third request is for a 100 foot driveway. The maximum allowable width for a driveway is 40 feet. The fourth request is for a fence located within a required landscape area. In all business districts, fences up to eight feet in height should not be erected between a lot line in any areas required to be landscaped. Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you, chair. The applicant for the variance at 203 Front Street is the city of Brookings in regards to, proposed construction of a new fire station. This is located in the Business B 2 District. As mentioned, there are four setbacks associated with this. Two of them are related to the front yard setback. This is a corner lot issue, so there's a front yard to the south and to the west. The other is a variance for the driveway width. They're proposing a 100 foot wide driveway. Maximum allowed by ordinance is 40 feet. And then the fourth request is to locate a fence within the required landscape area.

This is the site. It is west of the current, public center. There's actually a fire station right here. It's planned to be relocated and a new structure built on the highlighted lot. So I'll go through each of the setbacks. The first setback would be to the south, to the Front Street. That's a a front yard setback. It's very difficult to see on here, but you can see this 25 foot mark here from the property line. It runs parallel. There's a slight portion of the building that gets within that.

It's less it's a couple of inches, but it's a technicality, and we hold everyone to the same standard. So they don't meet the 25 feet. I think they're looking at for, like, a four or five inch variance to the south. To the west, to 2nd Avenue, they are proposing a setback of eight feet, eight inches, where in the zoning district, would be a required 25 foot setback. It does not violate any of the intersection safety zone aspects at that intersection where we would come back 25 feet in each direction and draw the triangle, and no portion of the building falls within that side triangle.

The third request is for a 100 foot wide driveway. The proposed new fire station has five bays that, fire apparatus are parked within. The proposal is is that each bay has direct unobstructed access to the public right of way to respond in the event of emergencies. The fourth request is for the privacy fence to the north. This is subject to the buffer yard requirements through a combination of fencing and landscaping.

There is what is being proposed to be a buffer to the neighboring property to the north. Typically, when we get into buffer yard situations, the requirement is for tree plantings and shrubs to try and break up a little bit of that skyline view that the neighboring properties would have to see. They're proposing a combination of trees and fencing to accommodate that request. When the fire station was looking at this particular location, one of the things they were trying to do was maintain the same service level in the community. And so they're somewhat limited on the potential sites to make sure that they still had sufficient coverage for the northwest portion of the community.

They looked at other options going on the south side of the railroad tracks, But they were leery about compromising coverage, moving a station further away. Plus, also the potential, if you ever have a train coming through the community at the time that response is needed. They like to have stations on both sides of the track. And this particular station is proposed to house one of the ladder trucks where the other station on the south side of the tracks along 22nd also houses a ladder truck. There isn't additional room at the 6th Street station for a ladder truck at this time, and the expansion opportunities are a little bit more limited there.

So, this is one of the preferred sites that they're looking at because it meets the requirements and provides the coverage area that they feel is appropriate for the community. With that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

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

Good evening, everybody. Jeremy Scott with the Brookings Fire Department, currently serving as the deputy chief. Mike did a very good job of explaining our situation. Essentially, we're replacing the station that's existing with the old city hall. That structure has many issues and that's why we're, you know, PD is also looking to replace their side of it.

You know, our our biggest concern is covering that, making sure we have the coverage area of the Northeast or Northwest quarter of the city. It's quite a large number of calls in that area, excuse me, including the downtown. And as like Mike said, it does house our ladder truck and our rescue truck and then a couple of engines along with some other vehicles. Essentially, we're taking the same amount of bays as what we have now and then just moving it over to the new site. The addition off to the side is basically allowing us for decon for our equipment for our bunker gear.

It also includes showers. Basically, so that when we get back from a call or our people get back from a call, they'll have the ability to go in there and completely shed their gear, shed their clothes, shower, clean up, and go home clean. Our biggest concern with the decon is that the risk of cancer with firefighting is significantly higher than to a normal person and we certainly don't want to be bringing that back to our families. And so that's what some of the additional space is on there. Also included in that area is we call it like a decompression room.

It's a room where we can after a bad call, everybody can gather and kinda talk it out and, you know, helps with the mental stress. I believe the upstairs is going to be an open shell at the moment. And it's kind of deceiving on here because it doesn't the upstairs isn't the entire building. The roofline will be the same half a sense

20.

Gatherings. Do you guys have any questions for me?

None at this time. Thank you.

You bet.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this variance or the variances?

Hi. I'm Stuart Appland. I live at 313 2nd Avenue which is right west of everything there. I'm just trying to figure out the variance on the back of it for like your fence and everything like that. There actually is it's what's considered a gutter system you have back there.

I'm just trying to figure out if that's actually gonna be affected by this for the fact of for drainage from both sides of everything around that because and for the fact of the dwellings being behind there, you know, because there is families that live right behind there. I'm just trying to hope it's not gonna be affecting any of their buildings per se and things. And for me, I live right west and for me it's it's I kinda like the idea of being there but for parking wise I see you guys got parking spaces which I talked to a couple of the firefighters that they might say something to people about parking across the street if there's any calls. If they have to stay there longer longer which I'm just that's for me because I live right there and I my wife parks on the street so it's just nothing. That's just the concerns I've had you know but I like the idea of actually doing it because it's needs to stay on the West Side of town.

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

Mr. Chair, was is there anything on this that would be similar to what we did for the can't think of what it's called now, the mental health facility that was just put up. This looks very similar in terms of like the trash enclosure and stuff like that that's why I was curious.

Yes, Commissioner Schmeichel just north of here there is the Ivy Center. We did something very similar with the fencing around the Ivy Center on the North side, a combination of fencing and then also some landscaping materials to kind of as that buffer yard between the Ivy Center and the residential properties. There is also some things with the trash enclosure as well. One point of clarification, the parking on the west side of the proposed fire station is not subject to zoning approval. That that's not part of any of the consideration tonight.

That is a separate request that needs to be made for boulevard parking.

So I'm just looking at it, it looks like the on the drawing, the existing drainage is remaining the same, correct? Is what's there to address his concerns?

I'm seeing a nodding of approval from the public works director. I think safe to say this structure is actually moving further south than what is currently there right now with there's the city has some garage space there. And so that structure will be removed and the station will actually move further south so it'll create more buffer between the structure and the neighboring property. But they are proposing the vegetation and fencing as a screening buffering mechanism. The other thing I also wanted to point out is there are four variances here tonight.

Forgot to mention if you wanted to take them individually or if you wanted to take them all because they're all interrelated. That's up to you if you want to decide if you want to break them down on each individual variance or if you want to take them all as one approval process.

Sorry, I would say altogether that's what my intent was.

Other questions or comments?

Mister chair, I do have a question.

Yes.

The high degree of the decon cleaning, if I'm reading this right, that's at the back of the fire station. So that would be facing towards the residence?

I believe the area they're talking about is actually the West addition. That's where, the interior space is for the firefighters. When they return, they can remove their gear. I think it's to the West and a little bit to the north is where they store their gear. They clean their gear, and then they can also go in and shower and put on clean clothes.

And that's what I'm a little concerned about. Is there is the drainage possibly going to contaminate any of the drainages already back there?

No. So this is all inside of the building. It's washing their clothes in washing machines and hanging them to dry. There's also, know, the gear they scrub down and clean, but that's all contained on-site inside

the Drainage is not within, is not gonna like?

No, no. There would be floor drains inside the building that would be able to capture any of that?

What, yes.

None of it would be flowing, none of it from inside of the facility would be flowing out

through Okay, it's not going to be going into any of the drainage that's behind?

No, no. Okay. That's simply pass through drainage coming from the alley flowing to the west.

Okay. Thank you.

Any others? Seeing none we'll call the vote Mike. Braun.

Yes.

Solem.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Motion carries. Thanks Mike. We will now reconvene as a planning commission. First item on the agenda is six a notice is hereby given that t h companies l c has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings and Brookings County South Dakota the Northeast one quarter of the Northwest one quarter excluding Outlot A in section three one zero nine fifty the request is to rezone the above described real estate from the residential r three apartment district to a residential r one a single family district. Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you, chair. The proposal tonight before you is application from T. H. Companies LLC for rezoning on property also known as 1115 West 20th Street South. The proposal is

to rezone this from a residential r three apartment district to a residential r dash one a single family district. The proposal is consistent with our comprehensive plan as this identifies an area as medium density residential. You may recall this rezoning occurring back in January 2025 when the rezoning was approved for the R3, but it also came along with a large scale residential development. At that particular time, I believe they were proposing 58 lots for two family dwellings, so a total of 116 dwelling units down in this area. It is a 30.46 acre parcel.

The development team has revisited this and taken another look at it and felt that it's probably more appropriate to look at going back to more of small acreages down in this area, due to the location, some of the, neighbors' concerns. And so, in conversations with them, they would like to do the acreage. The challenge being is on 30.46 acres, once you deduct out for right of way and drainage improvements, the R1 district has a minimum lot area requirement of three acres. So they drop them below the 30 acres total. So then they would only be looking at nine total lots.

They do want some flexibility. So with the R1A, the minimum lot area requirement is 15,000 square feet. And so that gives them the fluctuation to have some potentially three acre lots, but maybe a two or one acre lot and still try and achieve somewhere around 15 or so, 10 to 15 residential lots down in this area. Staff does recommend approval. The development review team supports the rezoning request, and the planning commission has the ability to approve or deny. Any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation to the city Council. With that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

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

Hello. Travis Harzema, owner of the land and partner in the development. Mike hit it perfect. He said everything that I would have said. So that's what we're wanting to do and that's why we're changing what we were doing before.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or opposed to the rezone? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion or comment. Anyone?

Mr. Chair, I'd just make a comment. I I will vote in favor of this, and I'm I'm glad to see that TH companies decided on a lower density out here. I think it's much more fitting. I know there was a lot of public opinion on that and some opinion from our Board as well on maybe dropping that. Glad to see it.

Thank you. Any others? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Mike?

Solem?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Braun? Yes. And Letty?

Yes motion carries. Thanks Mike. Next item on the agenda six b notices hereby given that the city of Brookings has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings and Brookings County South Dakota Lot 3 Of Block 2 Of Del Camp Industrial Edition the request is to rezone the above described real estate from the Industrial I 1 R restricted district to an Industrial I 1 Light district. Mike, would you introduce the topic, please?

Thank you, chair. This is an application, requested by the city of brookings. The city owns this particular parcel over in the Toe Camp Industrial Park. It's currently zoned Industrial I Dash 1 R, which is a restricted industrial district. The I 1 R comes with additional, landscaping, requirements as well as it has a maximum lot coverage that is allowed.

Reviewing the request, it's this pie shaped parcel located on Prince Drive. It's over eight eighty feet from the arterial street, which in this particular case is considered Interstate 29. It is located on local streets within the Telcamp Industrial Park. Similar properties to the north of here have went through this process of rezoning from the I1R to an I1. It's just a little bit less restrictive district.

It allows more of a lot to be developed, and it doesn't come with the same landscaping requirements that you might properties that are adjacent to the interstate. It's consistent with our comprehensive plan for an industrial area, and the development review team supports the request. Staff recommends approval, and the Planning Commission has the ability to approve or deny such requests and any action is a recommendation made to the city council with that I would stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks Mike. Is there a motion to approve the rezone? 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 rezone? Seeing none, are there any others that would like to speak regarding this matter? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion. Anyone? Seeing none, think it's fairly straightforward. Mike will call the vote please. Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel? Yes. Limmer? Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Spear?

Yes. Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. And Letty? Yes.

Motion is approved. Thanks Mike. Next item on the agenda six c notice is hereby given that Chad and Kelsey Borchert have submitted an application for a conditional use permit on the following described real estate in the city of Brookings, Lot 6 in Blocks 2, Block 2 Of Henry's edition, also known as 709 Main Avenue. The request is for an office use in, residents R 22 Family District. Mike, would you please introduce the topic? Thank you, chair.

The applicant is Chad and Kelsey Burkert. They have acquired property at 709 Main Avenue. This is located within the residence R 22 family district. They are proposing an office use in this particular structure in the R 2 District, and office use is by conditional use. What they are hoping to establish is a counseling services office.

They have requested up to three office suites because there's different components of the counseling services and that more for their internal purposes is they like to have the potential to separate out the different counseling services that are provided. It's a typical office type hours of looking at eight, nine in the morning until approximately five p. M. Or so. With conditional use for an office in the residential district, there are certain standards that are necessary.

One of them is which it needs to be located on a Collector Arterial Street, and Main Avenue does satisfy that requirement. The architecture shall be compatible with the surrounding residential properties. This is a residential structure. They are not proposing any exterior alterations. They want to maintain the existing residential feel and character of the neighborhood. Consideration shall be given to the traffic generated by such use, the type of sign, the hours of operation, and the character of the use. So, with this, this is Main Avenue. There is diagonal parking along Main Avenue. It's an extra wide street. It is one of the thoroughfares within the community.

It's a counseling service. The additional traffic generated by it is pretty minimal. They are looking at three offices within the structure that would house essentially one counselor apiece. So, there's not a lot of additional that is generated by that. And then parking shall be screened from any adjacent residential areas.

I guess I should show you where the property is. It's outlined in the yellow there. This is their proposal. So, there is off street parking off the alley that they're proposing. They're also proposing to provide off-site or off street ADA parking ramp in case any of the potential clients coming to the counseling services need accessible parking or access into the structure.

As mentioned, they're not proposing any alterations to the structure. And what they are looking at for the types with their three office suites, a licensed professional counselor, a licensed clinical social worker, and a licensed marriage family counselor. The recommendation from the development review team and staff is a recommendation of approval with the condition that the conditional use is limited to the three office suites, and the conditional use is non transferable. The planning commission has the ability to approve or deny any action is a recommendation made to the city council. With that I'd stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks Mike. Is there a motion to approve the matter permit, please state whether or not you will be including the conditions.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve, this proposal including the, two conditions conditions as as listed. Listed.

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

Good evening. Chad Borchard here appearing tonight. My wife Kelsey and co applicant on this agenda item could not could not be here. She wanted to. She is the lead therapist in the group practice that Mike referenced. It is called the Growth Collective LLC. I I handle business matters and and things of that nature. So I am here tonight to introduce this to you. Mike did a really good job of of his overview. We recently acquired the property at 709 Main Avenue.

And as you know and as Mike alluded to, this neighborhood does allow for the conditional use of a structure to be an office and that is what we are requesting with this agenda item. Working with city staff, it's my understanding that our site plan does meet the standards and criteria as lined out in city code. But beyond that, I just wanted to briefly add some context as to what our practice entails and the type of use and traffic flow that that it it may entail. And I I add that for the for this board and also for the community members that might be in in attendance tonight. Currently, are three professional clinicians in the group.

They serve about 25 to 30 clients a week. Around half of those sessions are occur virtually through Zoom or additionally, they could occur in an off-site setting. For example, one of the larger populations that the clinicians serve are students like children under the age of 18. So many times our therapist will meet with them at their school and, you know, just be able to facilitate a session where that client doesn't have to leave their school to go see their mental health provider. So I bring that up only to kind of set the parameters for what we would see for sessions in office at this particular location.

Currently, we serve between twenty five and thirty clients. Around half of those occur off-site or virtually. That really only leaves 12 to 15 sessions per week or two to four clients per day that would be utilizing this particular address for their therapy session. Fairly low use, I guess it's my personal position that the usage of this building is probably less. What we are proposing would create less traffic than what a single family or rental dwelling would create.

So

that that's kind of an overview there. The three the element that Mike alluded to having three individual suites within the building, that that really comes down to more more bookkeeping for credentialing with insurers and having a separate mailing address for the various providers that work within the group. So that's not we're not proposing a massive remodel where we would have three distinct businesses operating out of this structure. It's really more for credentialing with insurers and stuff of that nature. So one last thing I do want to add is that my wife Kelsey started this practice.

She did so with the aim to connect clients who need care with the professionals that are able to provide that care. Many times we found that there are professionals that may have the education and the licenses and everything you need to provide mental health therapy, but maybe you're practicing professionally elsewhere or maybe you're a, you know, a mother who wouldn't otherwise not be in in practice. So that's why she started this as a group to bring on professionals that might not be practicing kind of on the sidelines, but offering them a way to maybe see three or four clients a week in addition to their other obligations in their life, both professionally and personally. So it's a group practice. We do see a number of clients, but it's not a practice where we're really aspiring to be a, you know, hit a lot of volume or whatnot.

It's really more about providing quality care the best we can. So, with that, I appreciate the opportunity.

Thanks Chad. Bye. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter please come forward? Seeing none, I'm sorry. I apologize.

Fast getting my hands off

my phone.

I'm Chrissy Torquist. I live at 727 Main, so just north of this. You may remember me from a few meetings ago when another office building was approved. I have similar questions. One is about the signage if what the plans might be for signage.

I understand that there's rules and I assume they would be complying with that. And then also the I'm wondering if they're expecting most of the clients to be parking in the front or in the back is more maybe the provider parking? I understand the ADA would be for potential clients too but wondered if they really thought more people would be entering in the front. And then finally, the conditional use again, Mike, is for the whole building. So this is that same question as last time.

Can they choose to use the building for other purposes? Again, living there, renting out, say, a top floor or something like that? Or is it now conditional use for office only?

They're applying for conditional use for the office only. So that would entail the entire structure. I am looking up the signage question.

I think the proposal is for no more than eight square feet. Is right? It's really a question for you like what you're thinking the sign might look like.

Right now nothing of note. With the the question being what our plans were for for signage, everything would of course be contingent upon, this board and the, approval of city council. If if we're fortunate enough to get that approval, we'll we will conform to the standards as they are written and would not ask for any additional accept you know, exceptions for signage. Very minimal signage as you would expect in a in this district.

Hey. Before you go. Could oh. Yeah. Could you also address the front and back?

Thank you. Right. So as like on on Main Avenue, north of downtown, of course, this street does have the on street parking. We don't necessarily want to stipulate where clients or clinicians would park, I think the natural idea is that the Much like I think the downtown district, think the expectation downtown is that the owners of the businesses would park in the rear, utilize the rear parking. Of course, we do have the ADA component back there for clients that would need it.

The wheelchair ramp would be back there as well. So we try to we're trying to conform to or will conform to ADA with the rear parking. On street parking, of course, know, there that's there. I would expect that clients would use it as needed. But, you know, with the numbers that we talked about, rarely do we have all three providers practicing at the same time.

So there would be rear parking available for clients to use. The on street parking would of course be available if it were needed. But I don't But cumulatively for both on street and off street, I don't there won't be more than certainly not more than six or seven individuals in the building at one time. So that would be how I would answer that question.

Thank you. In regard one quick question. The building would the building

support more than three office suites?

I think the square footage would. It's not our aim to do that. Just, you know, counseling, there's a an element of privacy and discretion that that goes into that. So it really doesn't behoove us to try to put more offices in there.

Okay. So you're perfectly happy with three?

Perfectly. We won't be back asking for more. Great.

In response to the signage question, so maximum square footage of signage in a residential lot is 16 total square feet. However, no one individual freestanding sign can exceed eight square feet. Maximum height is five feet. There's certain setbacks three feet off the property line. As far as a sign on the actual structure itself, you're limited to two square feet. So basically, if you wanted a freestanding sign, eight square feet. And if it's on the structure, it's two square feet.

And we would conform to that and likely simply have a sign on the structure, two square feet or less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any others? We'll now close public hearing and open for board. Excuse me. Board discussion. Me.

Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Mike? Schmeichel?

Yes. Limmer? Yes. Jamieson? Yes. Speer? Yes.

Braun? Yes.

Solem? Yes. Aiken? Yes. And Letty? Yes.

Motion carries.

Thanks Mike. Next agenda item 60 is nominating committee. Mike would you take this? Yes.

So, we're looking for a couple of volunteers that'd be willing to serve on the nominating committee. Each year in November, we put together a nominating committee to propose potential candidates for the positions of chair and vice chair to serve for the upcoming year. What we ask of the nominating committee is to get together and talk amongst yourselves of who you think would be a good representative to be the chair and vice chair, and then to seek out and talk to those individuals to make sure that they're comfortable, serving in those positions. Obviously, the chair chairs the meeting. The vice chair, in the absence of the chair, would take over and and chair the meetings.

In addition, outside requirements, outside of these meetings for the chair and vice chairs, they occasionally get invited to, present at a city council, retreat. Usually, was it ten minutes, fifteen minutes? Sometimes you get invited to specific holiday parties, but I think all the volunteer boards do. So, I mean, the other thing is is when we have new members, they invite you to attend the orientation with the new board members, and we typically do them virtually via Teams or Zoom now. So, with that, I guess the question we'd be asking is, is there, two or three members that would like to serve on a nominating committee, for to come up with potential candidates for to serve in the position of Chair and Vice Chair for 2026?

I would volunteer.

Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Billie Jo Heinrichs was not able to be here today, but she did message us and let us know if she'd be interested in serving as well on that nominating committee. So, we got Kyle.

Do

you need a type? Like do we need more than two? What do we have last year?

Can have two or three. I would say three probably at the max. So if we're comfortable with two or three, we're fine. You really just need to get together and think about, who's and which is interesting because we do have three members that their terms expire at the end of the year. We should know by the November if they're being reappointed or who's being reappointed hopefully, if not early December.

So Kyle. So, I have Kyle, Billy Joe, and Emily. You three okay? Is we good with that for a nominating committee?

Perfect. Anything else Mike? We did pretty well tonight. Nice job. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned. Thanks everyone.