Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. We'll call the meeting to order. I'd like to welcome all those in attendance tonight. The City Planning Commission is a nine-member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the City Council regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters. The commission makes a recommendation based upon the adopted Adapted adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area as a matter of policy All motions are made in the positive After a motion is moved and seconded is open for debate Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons After everyone has been given a chance to be heard the Commission shall review the testimony and information presented Make findings of fact and forward their recommendation to the City Council Ryan, can you call the roll?

Roll is noted. We have Commissioner Schmeichel and Commissioner Letty absent.

Thank you. At this time, we'll approve the agenda. Can I get a motion and a second? Mr. Chair, I'm here on the phone.

Correction then. We have Commissioner Letty absent, Commissioner Schmeichel via phone.

Thank you. I think we had a motion. Do we have a second? second all in favor approval agenda say aye aye all opposed thank you now move on to approval of the May 5th meeting minutes can I get a motion in a second so moved second thank you all in favor approval the minutes say aye all opposed All right, at this time, we'll move to open forum. 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. All right, then we will move on to disclosure of conflicts of interest, relationships to the applicant ex parte communication. Thank you. We'll now convene as the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustment is a seven member board which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions. The concurring vote of two-thirds of the full membership is necessary for any approval of action by the board. A seven-member board requires five votes, a six-member board requires five votes, and a five-member board requires five votes. In accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, we require a motion to approve a request. Before the request can be debated, as a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. The board under specific powers granted it by the state shall authorize variances from the zoning requirements where special conditions existing on the land will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Financial disadvantages to the property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship. Move to item 6A, a variance request. KH Contracting LLC has made a request for a variance on the east half of lot 11 in the west 12 1⁄2 feet of lot 12 of block 5 Skinner's 2nd Edition, also known as 911 3rd Street. The request is to rebuild a front entry 15 feet from the front lot line per section 94-125F, the rear yard setback in a residence R2 two-family district is 25 feet. Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first item is a variance for property at 911 3rd Street requesting a front yard, a reduced front yard setback. The applicant is Cody Harming from KH Contracting, applying for the variance on behalf of the owner of the property, Danny Dean. The property is zoned in the residence R2, two-family district, which requires a 25-foot front yard setback. The request is for the reconstruction of a front porch That would have a 15-foot front yard setback. The current porch on the home has approximately, well, the home itself has approximately a 20-foot setback currently, which makes us a non-standard home. They would like to remove the porch and rebuild it with a 15-foot setback. The staff recommendation is approval, and the Board of Adjustments action would be to approve, amend, or deny. For variances, section 6615 outlines the criteria and conditions for hearing and deciding on variances. The conditions include due to special conditions and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and the variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter. As mentioned, The current front yard setback is 25 feet and the existing is a 20-foot front yard setback, which makes this a non-standard use. For non-standard uses, they may be continued, although such uses do not conform to the provisions of this chapter. Non-standard structures and buildings may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or altered if such changes comply with the yard height and parking requirements for the district in which they are located. In this case, it would not comply with the yard, the front yard setback, therefore the variance is required. Property at 911 3rd Street is shown here in the yellow outline box located on 3rd Street between 9th Avenue and Maderi. The home was built in roughly 1908 prior to our zoning districts and the zoning setbacks. Attached is a site plan showing the existing setback and the proposed five foot addition of the porch to the 15 foot front yard setback line. Here's a picture of the existing porch that would be demolished and replaced with a slightly larger porch extending five feet further into that front yard. And with that, staff would end our report and stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan. At this time, we'll entertain a motion and second for approval. So moved. Second, Aiken. Thank you. We'll open this to public testimony. If the applicant would like to say anything about this request.

I understand then there's motion on the floor for approval.

Yes, sir Okay, thank you very much. Yep. We'll call you back up if we have any questions Anyone else wish to speak in favor of the motion? Anyone wish to speak in opposition At this time close public testimony open it up to the board for questions and comments I

Mr. Chair, just a comment, or excuse me, a question or two for the applicant. Will the structure be, or the porch be enclosed as it was before? Yes. Is that for the full length extending five foot out as well? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Anything else, Commissioner Reagan? Anyone else have any questions, comments?

Mr. Chair, I have a question for city staff. What was the regulations at the time that this was built or even ones adjacent to it? Because I see that one of the homes next to it is even farther forward.

Yes, these homes were all constructed prior to our zoning ordinance for the city of Brookings being established. So at the time of construction, I really don't know what regulations would have applied to setbacks. As I mentioned, it was built in 1908. I'm guessing a majority of those houses on that block were maybe except for the houses on the far east side. But majority of these houses would have been built prior to our zoning ordinance and the current setbacks required. So we did take into account the fact that there are multiple houses on that block with less front yard setback than required 25. So it does kind of fall in line with the average setback in that block. And so staff felt comfortable knowing that it was built prior to zoning and that it kind of falls in line with the existing average setback.

Yeah, I'm more just thinking in terms of whether or not the setbacks should be revisited since this type of community is not really even able to be built were it be, or were it a new place. So that's why I was wondering what the previous regulations would have been. Thank you.

A question for the applicant. I think I probably know the answer to this given the condition of the current porch, but have you had any conversations with the neighbors?

I have not. Have you, Danny? The west and the one to the east I think the setback there is about 11 foot Yeah, so I don't see there being an issue there Yeah, thank you anything else Like well, thank you.

We'll close public or close a board comment and call vote please

Just a note with Commissioner Letty absent. Commissioner Schmeichel, you would be voting on this variance. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solom? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Motion passes.

Thanks. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate your time.

I will now convene as a planning commission. Reconvene as a planning commission, technically. Move on to item 7A, a rezone and planned development district. Northern Plains Professional Properties LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings and Brookings County, South Dakota. Block two of Northern Plains Addition, City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. The request is to rezone the above described real estate from a business B2A office district to a planned development district with a business B2A underlying district. Ryan, could you introduce the topic, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This next item is a petition to rezone block two of Northern Plains addition. Currently zoned business B2A request to rezone to a planned development district. The applicant is Northern Plains Professional Properties LLC, the owner of the property. As mentioned, currently zoned B2A proposing a planned development district with keeping the B2A underlying zoning district. The proposal is to add retail as an allowable use in the B2A district, which currently does not allow retail. It would be restricted to retail between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and it does include prohibited uses of businesses that serve alcohol or cannabis or cannabis-derived products, tobacco, vape, or nicotine sales, convenience stores, and drive-thrus. Staff recommendation is approval, and the Planning Commission's action would be to approve or deny or amend, and that recommendation would be made to the City Council. Block two of Northern Plains Addition is the blue outlined area. We've discussed this area previously as a planning commission. This was rezoned a couple of times. Ultimately, we did approve a conditional use for the town homes on the eastern portion of the area. and there is a dental office on the southern end of the property. So block two is kind of the remainder of the development, and they're looking at the next phases, and a prospective user would require that retail use to be allowed, which is currently not in the B2A. Here's the current zoning of the area. So R2 is the townhome zoning to the east. R3, R1B are zoned in proximity to the west and south. But the property along fronting Main Avenue is zoned B2A. And this would retain that B2A underlying, just adding a layer on top of that with the planned development district, which kind of allows them some flexibility in adding or subtracting uses THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THIS AS URBAN LOW INTENSITY, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE BUSINESS B2A DISTRICT, AND IT WOULD ALSO SUPPORT A BUSINESS B2 DISTRICT, WHICH IS KIND OF WHERE THE RETAIL USES WOULD START TO APPLY. SO FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES SUPPORT THIS USE AND ZONING DISTRICT. ALONG WITH THE REZONE, THIS WOULD BE APPROVING THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS SUBMITTED ALONGSIDE A PETITION TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. So on here we see a site plan showing block two with three potential structures with access to Mayfield Drive and Cloverfield Place, which would then provide access out to Main Avenue. This plan does not include any direct access to Main Avenue. This plan does propose a few variances. One for a reduced minimum parking requirement if shared parking is utilized. There would be sufficient parking for the three proposed uses as a whole. However, if this is split up into three lots, potentially one of the three may not meet the particular parking on their specific lot. But overall, the parking would be sufficient for the proposed use. The prohibited uses, I guess, to allow retail as long as said businesses keep regular hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And then, as mentioned, the prohibited uses are businesses that serve alcohol, cannabis, or cannabis-derived products, tobacco, vapor, nicotine sales, convenience stores, and drive-throughs. The proposed maximum height, 60 feet, that does match the allowable height in the B2A. And with that, staff will end its report and stand for any questions.

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

Motion to approve.

So moved, so long. I need a second, please.

Second.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open this to public testimony if the applicant would love to explain this to us. Appreciate it.

Thank you. My name is Kyle Roush with Dakota Land Design and I'm working with both the developer on this project as well as a prospective purchaser of the south lot on this parcel here. The developer is looking to make this area a little bit less restrictive and add a couple more allowable uses in this area by adding this retail. Also, you know, by adding this PDD, essentially it'll add a few more restrictions because this is an initial development plan and they'll have to, whoever decides to build here will have to come back and do a final development plan that will allow a little bit more public input uh just like ryan said uh we're looking at businesses that'll keep normal business hours and the developer here also is planning on they'll retain architectural approval for anybody that's planning on moving into this development so that'll just be another another layer of protection here This was this was initially brought up by Derek and Samantha Tupper of Winx jewelry and they were looking at this parcel and It was not currently zoned for their use Jewelry stores as you know, they're pretty low impact. They're low traffic. They're normal business hours I know the the Tupper's they're thinking about what they're thinking is If they they're just currently seeking out opportunities for growth right now. They're not exactly They're they're not sure what they're going to do But they think this would be a good spot for an opportunity in the future for them And they're they're planning on building a beautiful business here if they're planning on it So that's all I have the tuppers would like to come up and speak on their intentions on the property if that's alright And I'll stand for any questions. That'd be great.

Thank you

Hi, I'm Samantha Tupper. My husband and I own Winx and so yeah, we just are looking at what does the future of Winx look like and opportunities for growth within our business. And so we looking at this opportunity for where Winx could go. Our hours are really consistent. We're not actually open Sundays or Mondays. We close at 530 other than a few. kind of special occasion events that we have and a week in Christmas for holiday. On average, we see maybe four customers an hour, sometimes more, sometimes less. So it kind of just varies, but pretty low impact business.

Yeah, thank you very much. We'll call you back up if we have any other questions. Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this motion? Anyone wish to speak in opposition? All right, this time we'll close public testimony, open it up to the board questions, comments.

Mr. Chair. Yes. I have a question for Ms. Tupper. Being in the retail business, as I have on Main Street and Brookings, there are a number of opportunities for stores to be open until 9. The way this is worded, does that cause you a problem being 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.?

No, we, I'm trying to think. Even during the holidays, we only usually are open until 7 p.m. We host a ladies' night once a year. Last year was our first year of doing it in 15 years. We were open until 7.30. So we're not usually open past 7, hardly ever.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions while the applicant's up here? Probably not. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chair, just a question for staff. Main Street South, if I'm thinking of this right, not mistaken, this would be underneath the design development corridor overlay district?

Yes, this would be located within the commercial corridor design review district. And so... This would require design review at the time of the final development plan, commercial corridor, site plan review. It would need to meet all the standards for the commercial corridor.

Okay. And does the PDD offer some departures from that?

Previously, there was an exemption for PDD, but with the implementation of the administrative review for commercial corridors that meet the four requirements, there's no longer exemptions for the PDD, so they would need to meet the full commercial corridor standards. Very good. Thank you.

Anything else? All right. I think we will close testimony and call a vote. Ryan?

Jameson? Yes. Speer?

Yes.

Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solom? Yes. Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes. Limmer? Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you, move on to item 7B, amendments to sections 51 through 61, 51 through 62, 51, 60, excuse me, 51, 61, 51, 62, 51, 63, 51, 64, 51, 65, 51, 66, and 51, 67 subdivision regulations. Ryan, can you introduce the topic please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item is amendments to our subdivision ordinances, which have been discussed a few times throughout Planning Commission. This was originally introduced as an ordinance amendment at the April meeting. At the time, the Planning Commission did discuss and ultimately recommend denial of the ordinance. rather than that ordinance going to the planning commission or the city council with recommendation of denial we did have our public works and engineering division discuss some changes to the ordinance at the may meeting based off of that discussion it seemed like there was more comfort in bringing the ordinance back to the planning commission again for your review and recommendation to city council. With that, I will introduce Charlie here, our city engineer, to just kind of go over just a very small change, I guess, that was made. It's just the green, right, Charlie? Is it just the green changes? That is correct.

So there was some concern the way it was written last time with the timing of the requirement for constructing and constructing utilities and then paving the street. It kind of read like it was required to be installed during the winter time. Our intent is to have the utilities constructed the construction season prior to construction of the street and the curb and gutter. So I think this cleans that up and makes it very clear.

Anything else, Ryan?

There were no other changes beyond that. So if the Planning Commission has any more questions regarding any other text or any questions specific to these changes, I can certainly discuss them again here. The plan would be to take this on to the City Council unless there are any other changes or discussion items or discussion points.

All right. Well, in that case, we'll entertain a motion and second for approval.

So moved.

Second soul. Thank you open to public testimony and any other comments. I don't probably not Close public testimony any questions or comments from the board? Mr.

Chair, yes commissioner Just as This is going to City Council soon I guess just a comment that I have that I want to reiterate from our first discussion that we had on this and I think it's It's valid to at least bring up and be discussed again. With the changes, I'm glad there was a kind of a meet in the middle with this, and I appreciate that. I do, however, want to reiterate as well that with every change like this, this is going to cost the end user of any type of developed lot more money. And we continue, that's all I hear from city council when they're running for reelection. I hear it with city across, we need to work on affordable housing. We need to work on affordability. This is going to cause things to be less affordable. And I don't, I'm in favor in terms of the meat in the middle. I just think it shouldn't be, I think it should be discussed of affordability, so.

Thank you commissioners Michael. Any other questions or comments.

Are we voting on whether or not we're sending this whole thing on today to go to city council that's correct. Mr. Chair, I've got a quick comment.

Just briefly, I do agree with a lot of what Commissioner Schmeichel said about this costing more. I do think the city's stuck in a bad spot right now. You have roads that are failing, and the residents of Brookings are paying for those too. So I think in the end, maybe this comes out cheaper. My only hesitation is still the three-year surety, but you guys have talked with the developers. We haven't had anybody come and say this is going to ruin a good thing, and so I'll set that hesitation aside. I do support this. Thank you, Commissioner Aiken.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll close testimony. Ryan, can you call the vote?

Speier? Heinrich? Yes. Braun? Yes. Solom? Yes. Aiken? Yes. Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson? Yes. Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, thank you. At this point, I will entertain a motion and second for adjournment. I move to adjourn.

Solom? Second.

All right. We're adjourned.