HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2012_01_03C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 1
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
January 3, 2012
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Wayne Avery called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on January 3, 2012, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at
City Hall. Members present were Mike Cameron, Donna DeKraai, Greg Fargen,
Alan Gregg, Al Heuton, John Sydow, and Avery. Hal Bailey and John Gustafson
were absent. Also present were Richard Halstead, Mark York, City Engineer Jackie
Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck, City Manager Jeff
Weldon, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson and others.
Item #1 – (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the minutes from the December 6,
2011, meeting as corrected. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #2 – (Fargen/DeKraai) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted
aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #3a – George Holborn, authorized representative of Wadsworth, Inc. a SD
Corporation, has submitted a final plat of Blocks 3A, 6A, and 6B, and Lots 1 and 2,
Block 9, Freeland Addition.
(Heuton/Cameron) Motion to approve subject to required utility and
drainage easements. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 3b – Dakota Homes, LLC has submitted a final plat of Lot 1, Block 12, Moriarty
Fourth Addition.
(Heuton/Fargen) Motion to approve subject to required utility and drainage
easements. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #4 – The City of Brookings has submitted amendments to Chapter 94, Zoning,
pertaining to banner and temporary signs.
(DeKraai/Cameron) Motion to approve the amendments. All present voted
aye. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting was adjourned.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 2
______________________ __________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Wayne Avery, Chairperson
Planning & Zoning Administrator
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 3
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
January 3, 2012
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Chairperson Wayne Avery called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on January 3, 2012, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at
City Hall. Members present were Mike Cameron, Donna DeKraai, Greg Fargen,
Alan Gregg, Al Heuton, John Sydow, and Avery. Hal Bailey and John Gustafson
were absent. Also present were Richard Halstead, Mark York, City Engineer Jackie
Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck, City Manager Jeff
Weldon, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson and others.
Item #3a – Hanson noted that the replatting involved two (2) developed blocks
and one (1) vacant block. Heuton inquired about access to some of the parcels.
Hanson replied that access easements would be required since improvements to
33rd Avenue would likely not occur until adjacent land was planned for
development.
Item 3b – Hanson stated the primary purpose for the plat was simply to transfer
ownership.
Item #4 – The amendments included two (2) definitions, new regulations for
temporary signs, and a limit to the size of a banner sign. Recent case law
indicated that certain non-commercial speech such as political signs or “for
cause” signs should be regulated to a lesser degree than other non-commercial
speech and certainly commercial speech. The amendments allow for the
placement of additional temporary signs on private property only during a special
event or election.
Heuton asked if a garage or yard sale sign could be a special event.
Hanson replied that the special event definition pertained more to a city wide
type event and not a local residence. Fargen asked for clarification on the
remove and replace language in the ordinance. Hanson remarked that this
provision was added to allow real estate signs, in particular, to be replaced on a
lot after the 180 day term was up. Fargen asked about restrictions on the location
of temporary signs. Hanson responded that no signs are allowed in the public
right-of-way.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 4
Item #5 – Hanson summarized the issues surrounding the Husen Addition land
along the Highway 14 diagonal. The owner was looking for guidance on
developing land in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The land had fill placed on it
toward the diagonal side in order to elevate it above the base flood elevation.
Adjacent land uses included mobile home parks and a single-family residence.
The current zoning was Residence R-1A.
Richard Halstead, owner of the land, stated he had owned the property for
about 30 years. He began adding fill to the land five (5) years ago and had a 300
foot strip in the front filled to about one foot (1‟) above Highway 14. A road had
been proposed parallel to the Highway 14 diagonal that would access several
blocks that were planned to be platted.
Heuton noted that some of the fill material may not be suitable for road
construction. Hanson stated that the city engineer would have to weigh-in on this
issue if the road would be public. Lanning felt data on the stability of the fill would
be needed.
Halstead felt other roads had been built on similar material in the area, and
no settling had occurred. He added that on option would be to develop it as a
private road. Gregg asked how much fill would be over the concrete rubble.
Halstead answered that he planned to add another one and one-half feet (1½„)
of fill.
Heuton noted the primary issue for the Planning Commission was
determining an appropriate land use. He noted that a portion of the land was
recommended for I-1 zoning in 2009. Hanson remarked that the R-1A zoning had
slowly disappeared in this area over the last 25 years. The most common land use
changes were to high-density residential, heavy business, and industrial. Gregg
supported an industrial zoning for the area. Fargen suggested an I-1R District since
Highway 14 was a major entrance into the city. Heuton concurred with Fargen.
Hanson pointed out that the I -1R District required additional building setbacks and
perimeter landscaping as well as other aesthetic based regulations. Gregg asked
Halstead if he had room for landscaping along the diagonal. Halstead replied
yes.
Item #6 – The Planning Commission Subcommittee met on December 28, 2011, to
propose a plan for any future redevelopment of the South Campus
Neighborhood. The neighborhood blocks were designated by number, and
each block was referenced in the plan proposal.
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 5
The subcommittee proposed several options for creating a plan for the
future redevelopment of portions of the SCN. The options were based on the
following aspects of the neighborhood:
the current land holdings and future plans by the university administration
in parts of the SCN
the impact of 6th Street on adjacent properties
the existing zoning in the neighborhood
the residential stability within some parts of the SCN
the design characteristics of residential properties
the design characteristics of university buildings
the existing street system
The following proposals were presented for further discussion by the Planning
Commission. The accompanying map with numbered blocks is to be used as a
reference guide:
Block 1 (R-3 District) – This block has been developed predominantly with old and
new apartments. The remaining structures are old housing stock.
Recommendation: Any future high density development should incorporate brick
facades that are similar in nature to university buildings or other brick apartments
in the area.
Block 2 (R-3 District) – Old housing stock dominates this block. The only new
construction has been a Mosque in the northwest corner.
Recommendation: Any future high density development should incorporate brick
facades that are similar in nature to university buildings or other brick apartments
in the area.
Block 3 (R-3 District) – Block has been developed into SDSU parking lot with the
exception of one privately owned apartment building.
Recommendation: None
Block 4 (R-3 District) – This block has a combination of apartments, land acquired
by SDSU affiliates, residences, and a fraternity. Properties that contain apartment
buildings are stable and well maintained.
Recommendation: Recent land purchases by SDSU affiliates and future of
fraternity create too many unknowns for proposing guidelines for future, unified
redevelopment.
Block 5 (R-3 District) – Fifty percent of this half-block is occupied by a religious
institution. Three of the remaining properties are owned by SDSU affiliates.
Recommendation: None
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 6
Block 6 (R-2/B-2 Districts) – This half-block has several small, older houses and an
elevated water reservoir.
Recommendation: Any future commercial redevelopment should incorporate
design elements that are compatible with adjacent residential housing. These
would include height and bulk restrictions, exterior residential design elements,
parking lot location and screening and specific landscape requirements. Large
scale developments would be encouraged that would include streetscape
alterations such as right-of-way width changes, wider sidewalks, landscape zones
and enhanced lighting.
Block 7 (R-2/B-2 Districts) – This block contains old housing stock except for a retail
business in the southeast corner. All the residential property is used for rental
purposes.
Recommendation: Any future commercial redevelopment should incorporate
design elements that are compatible with adjacent residential housing. These
would include height and bulk restrictions, exterior residential design elements,
parking lot location and screening and specific landscape requirements. Large
scale developments would be encouraged that would include streetscape
alterations such as right-of-way width changes, wider sidewalks, landscape zones
and enhanced lighting. The 6th Street corridor would have generous building
setbacks, extensive landscape requirements and restricted access. Primary
access to all parking areas would be from a side street.
Blocks 8 and 9 (R-2 District) – These two blocks contain 30 older homes of which 21
are owner-occupied. An older apartment building is located in the southwest
corner of block 9.
Recommendation: This two block area is the most stable portion of the SCN and
over 50% of the homes are considered in good to very good condition. Therefore,
the residential character of the area should be preserved and the current zoning
should be maintained at this time.
Block 10 (R-2/R-3/B-2 Districts) – This block has three commercial properties, five
residences and a fraternity.
Recommendation: Enhanced 6th Street corridor landscape and access
requirements could improve commercial redevelopment but these would require
a change of use to implement. Residential properties along Medary Avenue and
11th Avenue are adequately maintained. Therefore, the current mixed zoning
within this block should be preserved at this time.
Hanson stated the main focus was on the southeast portion of the South
Campus Neighborhood with minor proposals north of 7th Street. DeKraai inquired
as to why more commercial areas were not proposed. Heuton answered that the
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 7
committee considered who the changes would serve. Would it be the community
or the students. He was reluctant to recommend zoning changes for a larger area
because there were empty lots and empty commercial space on 6th Street now,
some of which had been undeveloped for quite awhile. He added that there
were no guarantees that land would be developed simply because it was
rezoned. He felt requiring a comprehensive change over a smaller area was
better than allowing a random change on a lot by lot basis. The change had to
be beneficial for the neighborhood.
Mark York, of the SDSU Student‟s Association, stated that students were
interested in a campus town. He noted that 3,600 students would eventually be
living in the southeast campus area. He had a PowerPoint presentation that
addressed current challenges and desired outcomes from a student perspective.
The challenges were:
Students don‟t walk downtown
There was a lack of activities for 18 – 20 year olds
Nearby commercial uses were not set up for pedestrian traffic
The desired outcomes were:
Develop a stronger campus-community connection
Retain student retail revenues
Improve the campus environment
The proposed four goals were:
Create retail in close proximity to residence halls
Create pedestrian friendly atmosphere
Attract businesses that target students
Establish a retail/housing mix
York felt that the 14th Avenue area would be a great location for a campus
town.
The subcommittee recommendations would be incorporated into the South
Campus Neighborhood District Plan and submitted as a draft document at the
February meeting.
Item #7 – The Planning Commission discussed any possible changes to future
meetings at the new city/county building. Currently, the city and county planning
commissions meet on the same day and time each month. The Brookings
Planning Commission generally supported meeting on the first Tuesday of each
month. Heuton and DeKraai could support an earlier start such as 5:30 PM.
Hanson remarked that the agenda could be arranged so that action items were
C:\Documents and Settings\lcarruthers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\5ZLTOVMI\01.docx 8
heard immediately at the start of the meeting, and plats and discussion items
could be heard later if the commission needed to change rooms for a county
planning Commission that had a large audience.
The meeting was adjourned.
_______________________ __________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Wayne Avery, Chairperson
Planning & Zoning Administrator