Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2009_01_06 1 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota January 6, 2009 OFFICIAL MINUTES Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on January 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were Al Heuton, Al Gregg, Larry Fjeldos, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, John Gustafson, Wayne Avery, and Fargen. Stacey Howlett was absent. Also present were Brian Gatzke, Shane Carlson, Gary Schumacher, Jack and Caryl Schmidt, Nita Sachen, Floyd Wiesner, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #1 – (Gregg/Gustafson) Motion to approve the minutes from the December 2, 2008 meeting and the Joint City/County Planning Commission meeting. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #2 – (Kurtz/Cameron) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #3 – The following [plats were submitted for action: a. Lots 7A and 8A, Block 2, Moriarty Second Addition (Heuton/Gregg) Motion to approve subject to required Brookings Municipal Utilities utility easements. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. b. Lots 2 – 8 and 30 – 37 Block 1, Lots 1 – 8, Block 2 and Lots 3 – 6, Block 5, Moriarty Heights Addition (Gregg/Gustafson) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #4 – Gatzke Family Enterprises, LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the east 60 feet of Lot G, Beale Addition from a Residence R-2 District to a Planned Development District. (Fjeldos/Kurtz) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #5 – Gatzke Family Enterprises LLC has submitted a petition for a change in land use within a Planned Development District on Lot G, Beale Addition. The major 2 amendment proposes a change from Residence R-1B District uses to Residence R-3 District and Business B-2 District uses and approval of an initial development plan. (Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve the major amendment and initial development plan. (Heuton/Gregg) Amendment to the motion to approve the initial development plan with the following modifications: ♦ Additional landscaping shall be established along the north and west lot lines of the property ♦ Detailed information on the various types of uses shall be submitted for comparison to the minimum parking standards ♦ A “Drinking Establishment” use shall not be permitted in the Planned Development District. All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED. The motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #6- Gatzke Family Enterprises LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the north 115 feet of the east 50.1 feet of Lot G, Block 3, First Addition from a Business B-2A District to a Business B-2 District. (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #7 – Jack and Caryl Schmidt have submitted an application for a Conditional Use to establish a two-family dwelling in the Residence R-1B District on the south ½ of Outlot 11 in the SW ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W. (Kurtz/Cameron) Motion to approve the Conditional Use. All present voted no. MOTION FAILED. Item #8 – Al Heuton, representing the nominating committee, submitted Dave Kurtz for Chairperson and Larry Fjeldos for Vice-chairperson for 2009. No others were nominated. Fargen declared the nominations close. (Gustafson/Gregg) Motion to approve the nominees. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned. _______________________ _________________________ Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator 3 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota January 6, 2009 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on January 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were Al Heuton, Al Gregg, Larry Fjeldos, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, John Gustafson, Wayne Avery, and Fargen. Stacey Howlett was absent. Also present were Brian Gatzke, Shane Carlson, Gary Schumacher, Jack and Caryl Schmidt, Nita Sachen, Floyd Wiesner, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #3b – Kurtz asked if the drainage plan had been approved. Lanning replied yes. Item #4- Hanson summarized the history of the lot and noted the current zoning surrounding the lot. A single-family dwelling was the only permitted use that could be constructed on the site under the current zoning. The proposed Planned Development District designation would match a PDD parcel that adjoined the lot to the west. A larger district could offer greater flexibility in the redevelopment of the property. Fjeldos asked for the zoning across the street from this lot. Hanson replied that is was a Business B-2 District and contained a floral shop. Fargen felt the lot, with its current zoning, limited how it could be reused. He supported the rezoning. Item #5 – Hanson provided background information on how the corner parcel became a PDD. The major amendment involved creating a mixed use development with office, retail, and residential uses. The layout that was submitted for approval was an initial development plan. This plan would be followed by a final development plan. Cameron was concerned about the standard landscape buffer required between a business district and residential district and what was proposed on the plan. Hanson remarked that the landscape width required by ordinance for B-2 uses was 40 feet from a residential district. He added that the petitioner owned an abutting parcel south of the corner property. Kurtz asked what was envisioned to go into the various spaces. Gatzke responded that he planned for businesses that would fit into the neighborhood. He would not allow high traffic uses. Fargen asked if any drive-up services were planned. Gatzke replied no. Gustafson remarked that projects such as these could be an asset to a residential neighborhood if planned appropriately. 4 Fjeldos inquired if a 75% office and 25% retail mix would be acceptable to the owner. Gatzke preferred a 60% office, 40% retail mix. Heuton had concerns about some B-2 District uses. In particular, a “drinking establishment” could be incompatible in the neighborhood. He was also concerned about a lack of landscaping next to the streets. Gatzke noted that his landscape plan included green needle evergreen trees in the landscape areas. Gustafson felt that meeting the standard parking requirements was necessary. It would be a self-limiting factor as to what types of uses would be established. Gatzke stated he was looking at apparel type uses but not drinking establishments. He also could design larger landscape areas. Fargen supported compliance to the minimum parking standards. Kurtz commented that expanding landscape areas could impact the design of the project in other areas so that had to be considered. Gregg considered the buffer along 6th Street to be adequate. Heuton wasn’t opposed to the proposed design but felt more trees should be established in the landscape area to improve the image of the project. Fjeldos remarked that green space would be important for tenants too, and adequate on-site parking was important since parking was restricted on the adjacent rights-of-way. Item #6 – Hanson stated that the lot was very small and contained a residence. The block had multiple zoning districts, and many different uses had been established in the block. Several uses were legal nonconforming and legal non-standard uses. A rezoning to a B-2 District would match the zoning that was in place on the west and south sides of the parcel. Shane Carlson, adjacent property owner to the east, supported the rezoning. He had seen a conceptual plan for redeveloping the lot and felt it would improve the area. Fargen noted that a single zoning district for two (2) lots under common ownership seemed appropriate. Item #7 – Gary Schumacher, attorney for Jack and Caryl Schmidt, stated that the request for a two-family dwelling in the R-1B District met the lot width, lot area, and parking requirements. He stated the property had a two-car garage with parking on the driveway for at least six (6) cars. Heuton asked for the current occupancy of the house. Schumacher replied that three (3) tenants lived in the house. He added that the Schmidts were only proposing a total of four (4) people. Their daughter would live in one unit, and three (3) others would live in the second unit. Fjeldos asked if the owners would accept a limit of four (4) persons. Schumacher replied yes. 5 Nita Sachen, a neighbor, noted that the Commission had previously denied a similar request for a two-family dwelling in an R-1B District in November 2008. She recalled that precedence, additional traffic, and availability of lots in the R-2 District in other areas of town for this use were arguments against granting the application. She felt the same issues were relevant with this request. She submitted a petition signed by seven neighbors who opposed the request. Kurtz stated that there were other lots in the community available for this use. Gregg felt the single-family make-up of the neighborhood should be maintained. Fargen remarked that the impact of this proposal on the neighborhood had to be considered. Schumacher stated that the petitioners were sensitive to the neighborhood issues. If conditions were placed on the application, the property could be controlled. He did not feel a precedence would be set if the Commission allowed a limited use of the property. He added that the petitioners were simply looking for housing for their children who would be attending SDSU. Kurtz noted that the property could still be used by the petitioner’s children without a conversion. Heuton remarked that the need for such a use in a particular area was criteria for granting a conditional use, and he did not feel the application met the criteria. The meeting was adjourned. _______________________ _________________________ Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator