HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2011_10_04C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 1
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 4, 2011
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Al Heuton called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on October 4, 2011, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at
City Hall. Members present were Wayne Avery, Hal Bailey, Donna DeKraai,
Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, John Sydow, and Heuton. Mike Cameron and John
Gustafson were absent. Others present were Dan Bielfeldt, Robert Brandwein,
Richard Smith, Marjorie Streier, Jim Welch, Jason Hunter, Jim Bailey, John Mills,
Chris Jeppesen, Community Development Director Mike Struck, City Engineer
Jackie Lanning, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #1 – (Gregg/Avery) Motion to approve the minutes from the September 6,
2011, meeting. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #2 – (DeKraai/Fargen) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted
aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #3 – The following plats were submitted for action:
a. Lots A and B, Pleasant Hill Addition
(Sydow/DeKraai) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
b. Lots 65A and FF1, Block 5, Hyland Addition
(Gregg/Fargen) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
c. Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C, Block 2, Telkamp Addition
(Sydow/DeKraai) Motion to approve the plat subject to drainage and
utility easements and a final drainage plan. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
d. Lots 1 – 3, Block 3, and Lots 11 – 14, Block 4, Moriarty Heights Addition
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 2
(Gregg/Sydow) Motion to approve the plat subject to utility and
drainage easements. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
e. Lots 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A, Block 2, University First Addition
(DeKraai/Avery) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
Item #4 – Anthony Harris has submitted a petition to rezone the east 140 feet of
Outlot 2, excluding the north 40 feet thereof, in the NE¼ of Section 1-T109N-
R50W from a class Agricultural A District to a class Residence R-3 District.
(Bailey/Fargen) Motion to approve the rezoning.
(DeKraai/Bailey) Motion to table. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #5 – Petitions have been submitted to rezone the west 57.2 feet of Lot 1,
the east 55 feet of Lot 4, all of Lots 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 18, and the east
8.8’ of Lot 19, in Block 2; and Lots 5 – 10 and the west 14 feet of Lot 11 in Block 3,
all in Legeros Addition from a Residence R-2 District to a Residence R-1C District.
(Avery/Fargen) Motion to approve the rezoning.
(DeKraai/Avery) Motion to table. All present voted aye except Gregg
voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #6 – Den-Wil Investments, Inc. has submitted a petition to rezone Lot 2,
Block 2, Telkamp Addition from a Residence R-3 District to a Planned
Development District.
(Bailey/DeKraai) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
Item #7 – Den-Wil Investments, Inc. has submitted an Initial Development Plan
for Lot 2, Block 2, Telkamp Addition
(Bailey/Fargen) Motion to approve the Initial Development Plan. All
present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 3
Item #8 – Jason Hunter has submitted an application for a Conditional Use
Permit to establish a major home occupation (chiropractic office) on Lot 20,
Block 12, East Medary Addition
(Sydow/Bailey) Motion to approve the Conditional Use. All present voted
no except Fargen abstained. MOTION FAILED.
Item #9 – 6th Street Partners, A SD Ltd Partnership, has submitted a petition for
minor changes to a Final Development Plan within a Planned Development
District on Lot 5, Village Square Addition
(Gregg/Bailey) Motion to approve the minor amendment. All present
voted aye except Sydow abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #10 – GHP Systems, Inc. has submitted an application for approval of an I -
1R Site Plan on Lot 1, Block 1, Foster Addition.
(Bailey/DeKraai) Motion to approve the I -1R Site Plan. All present voted
aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #11 – The Planning Commission reviewed the South Campus
Neighborhood for future land use changes.
(Heuton/Gregg) Motion to evaluate the area from 6th Street to 8th Street
and from 13th Avenue to the alley east of 14th Avenue to be designated as a
mixed business/residential use on the Future Land Use Plan with accompanying
descriptive matter included in the Comprehensive Plan.
The meeting was adjourned.
_______________________ ______________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Al Heuton, Chairperson
Planning & Zoning Administrator
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 4
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 4, 2011
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Chairperson Al Heuton called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on October 4, 2011, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at
City Hall. Members present were Wayne Avery, Hal Bailey, Donna DeKraai,
Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, John Sydow, and Heuton. Mike Cameron and John
Gustafson were absent. Others present were Dan Bielfeldt, Robert Brandwein,
Richard Smith, Marjorie Streier, Jim Welch, Jason Hunter, Jim Bailey, John Mills,
Chris Jeppesen, Community Development Director Mike Struck, City Engineer
Jackie Lanning, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #3c – Dan Bielfeldt, representing Den-Wil Investments, Inc. stated that the
plat was required prior to developing the property.
Item #4 – The petitioner was not present at the meeting. Fargen noted that the
property was developed. Hanson remarked that the single-family dwelling on
the lot was a legal non-standard use.
Heuton felt the area needed to be examined as a whole to determine
an appropriate zone and review future street locations. DeKraai also wanted to
speak to the applicant prior to making a decision.
Item #5 – Hanson summarized the request by stating that 18 property owners in
this neighborhood had petitioned to rezone their property. The property
locations of the petitioners were scattered within a 2½ block area. The request
would create a more restrictive residential district in regards to uses and units
per acre density when compared to the existing R-2 District.
Robert Brandwein, 1510 3rd Street, supported the request. He felt it would
prevent additional traffic in his alley if there were fewer dwelling units that
accessed it.
Richard Smith, 1416 3rd Street, stated that he felt the R-1C District was a
zone looking for a home, and his neighborhood or home was looking for a
zone. He noted that the character of his neighborhood had remained mostly
single-family residential since the 1950s. He said that a conversion from single-
family to two-family doubles the occupancy of a home and could devalue
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 5
adjacent homes. He also supported the increased lot area and frontage width
requirements of the R-1C District. He added that the conditional use process for
a conversion to two-family would allow for review and comment at a public
hearing. He favored rezoning the focus area that was indicated on the map.
Marjorie Streier, 217 14th Avenue, supported the rezoning. She noted that
recent changes jin property ownership had increased the density in her
neighborhood.
Several other neighbors in and near the focus area supported the
rezoning because they felt it would reduce or improve traffic problems that
existed now.
Jim Welch, 1412 2nd Street, opposed the rezoning. He understood the
density issues and conversions from owner-occupied dwellings to rentals. He
presented a map that had current rental property and properties that could be
converted into two-family dwellings. He noted that only seven of the 28
properties in the focus area could be converted into duplexes under current
zoning. He considered converting his house to a duplex, and he felt a duplex
would be more valuable which would raise taxes. He remarked that a rezoning
would not prevent a house from becoming a rental and piecemeal zoning
should not be based on rental problems.
DeKraai supported the idea of looking at a larger area for a potential
rezoning. Heuton commented that the R-1C District was created to address
density and on-premise parking availability and not necessarily rentals. He
added that the Planning Commission can look at any size area for a rezoning.
Fargen asked for the use differences between the R-2 and R-1C District.
Hanson replied that the primary differences are that a two-family dwelling is
permitted by right in the R-2 District versus by Conditional Use in the R-1C
District. The other difference is that lot area and frontage width requirements
were increased in the R-1C District for a two-family dwelling.
Several commissioners favored reviewing a larger area in the
neighborhood for possible rezoning. Fargen felt that all the land in the blocks
where petitioners had requested the rezoning be consolidated as one area.
Gregg thought that rezoning the petitioners’ lands was appropriate now.
Heuton felt the Planning Commission could start with the focus area as shown
on the map as a starting point.
Items 6 and 7 – Dan Bielfeldt stated that the Planned Development District
(PDD) zoning would provide an R-3 zoning designation for the first two (2)
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 6
phases of the project. A third phase would have an apartment component
and a business component. He added that the Innovation Village Apartments
were a success, and the proposed plan would be similar in design.
Fargen stated that the plan appeared to be appropriate for the area.
Heuton asked if the PDD plan requirements were all met. Hanson replied yes,
but that two (2) elements of the plan, building height and units per acre, were
granted variances by the Board of Adjustment.
Item #8 – Jason Hunter stated that the home had two (2) front entrances. One
entrance led directly into the lower level where the home occupation was
located. He noted that the apartment in the house would be leased for the
next few months. He felt the location was good because the street was busy,
visibility was good, and the church parking lot could be available for parking.
He added that he would try to reserve three (3) parking spaces in his driveway
for clients.
Heuton asked if other employees would be hired. Hunter replied that it
would be just him to start with, but he could add an intern later. He would
schedule patients every hour.
Jim Bailey, an adjacent property owner, stated that the area had 12
duplexes and some 4-plexes. This resulted in 30 dwelling units in a two (2) block
area. He remarked that the area had too much traffic and was a safety issue
for children in the neighborhood. He felt a less congested area would be more
appropriate for a home occupation. Heuton read a letter submitted by Roger
French, an adjacent property owner, opposing the request. French felt that
allowing a business in the area would set a precedent for more businesses. He
noted that parking was very limited in the neighborhood. He also felt it would
devalue his property.
Avery was concerned that the chiropractic office may not remain
secondary to the residential use. DeKraai and Gregg were both concerned
about the lack of required parking on the premises. Heuton concurred and felt
encroachment into this area by this type of business use was not appropriate.
Item #9 – John Mills, representing 6th Street Partners, referred to the proposed
location of the building addition and stated that internal traffic and parking
had been addressed. He added that a landscape plan would benefit the area
since the current location did not have any greenspace now. Gregg supported
the amendment since the project could be accommodated very easily.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 7
Item #10 – Chris Jeppesen, representing GHP Systems, Inc., stated that the
company had outgrown its current site and needed more room. The proposed
site plan included a manufacturing facility, office, cold storage, and
maintenance building. A future expansion of the manufacturing facility was
also shown on the plan. Two (2) driveways provided access to a hardsurfaced
parking area and storage yard. A landscape plan was also depicted on the
site.
Heuton inquired about the loading docks. Jeppesen replied the
maintenance shop would have a dock on the north side. Heuton asked about
the landscape plan. Jeppesen responded that in addition to the existing
shelterbelt along the south side, perimeter tree plantings would occur on the
west and north sides of the lot.
Item #11 – Heuton summarized the research that the Planning Commission had
reviewed over the last year. The neighborhood data, city wide commercial
growth, SDSUs plans for expansion, and the walking tour all provided good
information for the Planning Commission. Based on the data that was
compiled, Heuton asked the commissioners for their recommendations.
DeKraai noted that the walking tour was important because It revealed
that some parts of the neighborhood are still family oriented. Any rezoning
would have to be considered carefully. She did not feel that a B-2 zoning was
appropriate for the entire area. Bailey also stated that rezoning of the entire
area was not prudent or fair to neighbors. He favored a more limited area.
Fargen agreed but did feel a PDD concept with mixed uses in certain areas
could be explored. Heuton stated that there was little interest by the Planning
Commission to rezone the entire area. The campus-town concept that had
been reviewed earlier in the year could be an option. However, he also noted
that prime land along 6th Street that was currently zoned PDD remained
vacant.
Heuton posed another question to the Planning Commission regarding
who a rezoning would serve in this area. He was reluctant to expand
commercial zoning along 6th Street, and rezoning land toward the interior of the
south campus neighborhood would not be beneficial for neighbors. Therefore,
could a commercial zoning focus on SDSU? Bailey recalled that 14th Avenue
was an area they had considered for redevelopment. DeKraai supported
commercial zoning closer to SDSU than 6th Street. Fargen inquired if a
commercial corridor could be designed from 6th Street to 8th Street on each
side of 14th Avenue.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\10.docx 8
Heuton asked if the entire area should be master planned or only a
portion. Sydow supported a redevelopment concept near 14th Avenue. Fargen
concurred but favored a continuous link between 6th Street and the SDSU
campus along 14th Avenue. The Planning Commission agreed that
amendments to the Future Land Use Map and the Comprehensive Plan would
be appropriate steps to guide future redevelopment in the neighborhood.
The meeting was adjourned.
_______________________ ______________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Al Heuton, Chairperson
Planning & Zoning Administrator