HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2008_04_01Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
April 1, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on April 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City
Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Curt Ness, Al Gregg, John Gustafson,
Larry Fjeldos, Mike Cameron, and Fargen. Stacey Howlett and Al Heuton were
absent. Also present were Dick Fergen, John Moriarty, Robb Rasmussen, Doris
Roden, Calista Crooks, Doug O’Neill, Mike McClemans, City Engineer Jackie
Lanning, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #1 – Gregg/Fjeldos) Motion to approve the Planning Commission and Joint
City/County Planning Commission minutes from the March 4, 2008 meeting. All
present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #2 – Items 3 and 4b were removed for the agenda. Item #8, Discussion on
access drives, was added to the agenda.
(Kurtz/Ness) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
Item #4 – The following plats were submitted for action:
a. Tract E of Lot 3, Southbrook Addition
(Cameron/Ness) Motion to approve. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
c. Lots 1 and 2, Mercury Addition
(Gustafson/Kurtz) Motion to approve. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
d. Lots 17 – 22, Block 4 and Lots 1 – 5, Block 5, Moriarty-Edgebrook Addition
(Gustafson/Gregg) Motion to approve subject to approval of final
drainage plan. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
e. Lots 1 – 17, Block 8, Moriarty Fourth Addition
(Ness/Kurtz) Motion to approve subject to approval of final drainage plan.
All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
f. Lots 11 – 19, Block 10 and Lots 1 – 10, Block 11, Moriarty Fourth Addition
(Gustafson/Gregg) Motion to approve subject to approval of a final
drainage plan and required easements. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
1
g. Lots 1 – 26, Block 1 and Lots 1 – 7, Block 2, Sieler Addition
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve subject to approval of a final
drainage plan and required easements. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
h. Torrey Pines Drive, Sawgrass Drive, and Doral Drive rights-of-way in Moriarty
Fourth Addition
(Gustafson/Kurtz) Motion to approve. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #5 – Dick Fergen has submitted an application for a conditional use to
establish a drive-in food service in the Business B-1 District on Lots 12, 13, and 14,
Block 6, Original Plat
(Ness/Kurtz) Motion to approve the conditional use. Kurtz, Gustafson, and
Ness voted aye. Gregg, Fjeldos, Cameron, and Fargen voted no. MOTION
FAILED.
Item #6 – Douglas and Mary O’Neill have submitted an application for a
conditional use to add four (4) dwelling units in an apartment on a portion of Lot
18 and Lot 19, except the W85’ of Lot 19, College Addition
(Cameron/Mess) Motion to approve the conditional use. Gregg, Fjeldos,
Cameron, Kurtz, Ness, and Fargen noted aye. Gustafson voted no. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #7- The City of Brookings has submitted amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to electronic message display signs.
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to take the question from the table. All
present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
(Kurtz/Ness) Amendment to the motion to delete subsection (c) of Table 5.
Kurtz and Ness voted aye. Gregg, Fjeldos, Cameron, Gustafson, and Fargen
voted no. MOTION FAILED.
The motion was voted on. Gregg, Fjeldos, Cameron, Gustafson, and Fargen
voted aye. Kurtz and Ness voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting was adjourned.
_______________________ _________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson
Brookings City Planner
2
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
April 1, 2008
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on April 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City
Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Curt Ness, Al Gregg, John Gustafson,
Larry Fjeldos, Mike Cameron, and Fargen. Stacey Howlett and Al Heuton were
absent. Also present were Dick Fergen, John Moriarty, Robb Rasmussen, Doris
Roden, Calista Crooks, Doug O’Neill, Mike McClemans, City Engineer Jackie
Lanning, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #4e – Cameron questioned what the 10 foot drainage easement was for
on Lot 1. Lanning responded that the adjacent lot would be used for detention
and a large underground pipe was in the easement.
Item #5 – Dick Fergen stated he was proposing a drive-up food service. He
understood safety was a major concern and felt he had addressed all the major
issues. The plan had a speed bump in the private lot. A low wall at the end of
the drive-up lane would prevent vehicles from reaching the sidewalk. The exit
would have a stop sign with lights attached that would alert pedestrians that a
vehicle was approaching. A "right turn only" sign would be in the boulevard
area. The driveway through the downtown sidewalk would have pavement
markings and ramps from the driveway leading to the sidewalk on both sides.
Ness asked Fergen what differences there were between the streetscape
plan and his plan. Fergen responded that two trees in the sidewalk area could
not be planted due to the driveway location. Ness asked how many on-street
parking spaces would be eliminated. Hanson replied four (4). Fergen remarked
that 13 parking spaces would be lost near each intersection with the new
streetscape plan.
Fargen inquired about the lane dividers. Fergen stated one was raised,
and one was level. Kurtz felt the lanes could be reduced in width to gain a wider
sidewalk along the north wall of the neighboring building.
Cameron noted that curbing was proposed through the sidewalk area.
Lanning stated that, except for industrial uses, sidewalks are required to be
continuous through driveways. Fergen’s plan had ramps with truncated domes
leading to an asphalt surface. Cameron felt the plan favored motorists and
3
would be detrimental to pedestrian traffic. Kurtz commented that the city could
regulate the actual design in the right-of-way.
John Moriarty and Robb Rasmussen, neighboring property owners,
supported the application. Doris Roden, Downtown Business, Inc. Director,
referred to a letter from the DBI Design Committee that opposed the
application. Reasons included sight angles reduced due to zero (0) foot setback
of adjacent buildings, cars entering the street at mid-block, and stacked cars in
drive-up could create stacking into alley and 5th Street. She felt that historic
district preservation could be jeopardized and several cities she researched had
prohibited drive-in food services in their downtown. She added that downtown
street closures occurred from time to time. She did not believe that the
streetscape plan eliminated as many parking spaces as previously mentioned.
Roden felt the best alternative was to build a new building or leave it as
green space. The commercial area was compact, and the proposal was
incompatible with other businesses.
Calista Crooks of Bloomin’ Villa opposed the request because the
streetscape plan was geared toward pedestrian traffic. The mid-block driveway
was adverse to the plan and potential congestion in the alley was a major
concern. The alley was one-way north to south and deliveries could be difficult.
Kurtz felt the proposal met the standards. He thought traffic would be
moving slowly through the sidewalk area. He compared this request to
driveways that were common along Main Avenue years ago when auto dealers
and implement dealers had businesses downtown. He did not recall any issues
between pedestrians and cars.
Cameron pointed out that the Traffic Safety Committee’s
recommendation was that the application not be approved. Therefore, not all
standards had been met.
Fjeldos said the important issue to consider was if this were a proper land
use. He had to also consider the public’s health, safety, and welfare. He added
that the stacking of cars over a sidewalk was a concern. He felt the Traffic
Safety Committee’s recommendation should be considered. He noted that the
replacement of stop lights with stop signs will reduce the gap in traffic, and
exiting motorists could get impatient. He pointed out that the third lane would
allow someone to drive through the lot onto Main Avenue.
Kurtz did not feel blocking the alley was of great concern since it was
blocked now whenever a vehicle stopped.
4
Item #6 – O’Neill was present to answer any questions. Cameron asked if
modifications to the plan were considered. Hanson responded that one parallel
parking space should be eliminated to improve the spacing in the rear. He also
noted that the proposed parking spaces along the front lot line would not be
permitted by right.
Gustafson asked about changes to the legal description. O’Neill
responded that the property would be replatted. Gregg inquired about
adequate parking. Hanson replied that the minimum parking requirements were
met according to the site plan. Fargen asked what the maximum density
allowance was for this lot. Hanson answered 15 units.
Item #7 – Hanson explained that the revised ordinance focused on changes to
Table 5 of the ordinance versus creating a design review district. The changes
prohibited EMD signs in the historic part of downtown, the central, and university
residential historic districts and within 150 feet of these districts or any individually
listed historic place.
Doris Roden stated that the DBI supported the ordinance.
Cameron and Ness supported leaving the “EMD” term in the ordinance
and not replacing it with “animated”. Kurtz opposed the ordinance and did not
see that a problem existed. He felt EMD signs should not be banned downtown.
Roden remarked that her survey did show that a majority of business owners
favored eliminating the signs.
Fjeldos agreed with the conceptual idea of the amendments but felt the
issues were complicated, and the amendments may not be the best solution.
He felt that technology will advance to where the sign ordinance would have to
be reviewed again in a few years. Fargen remarked that the amendments may
not create a perfect ordinance, but progress was made. He felt input from other
citizens was critical.
Item #8 – Mike McClemans stated that he was planning to develop the
unplatted portion of a block in McClemans Addition. His plan would require one
private access onto 20th Street South between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue. The
distance between the avenues was about 750 feet. Hanson remarked that a lot
with double frontage adjacent to an arterial street usually is restricted from
accessing the street with a higher classification. The Planning Commission would
have discretion in approving an access at the final platting stage.
The meeting was adjourned.
5
6
_______________________ _________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson
Brookings City Planner