Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2013_07_02OFFICIAL MINUTES Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota July 2, 2013 Chairperson Donna Dekraai called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on Tuesday, July 2, 2013, at 5:30PM in the Chambers Room on the third floor of the City & County Government Center. Members present were Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg , Al Heuton, John Sydow, Wayne Avery, Mike Cameron, and DeKraai. Hal Bailey and Kristi Tornquist were absent. Also present were Gary Penney, Karla Carpenter, Meghan Thoreau, Les Roland , Meredith Redlin, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, Community Development Director Mike Struck, and others. Item #1 -(Avery/Gregg) Motion to approve the minutes from the June 4, 2013 meeting . All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #2 -(Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted aye . MOTION CARRIED. Item #3 -The following plats were submitted for action: a . Blocks 1 and 2, Gladwill Addition, NW 114 , Section 23 -T110N-R50W b . Lots 2A, 2B , 3A, 3B , 4A, 4B, SA , and 5B, Block 1, Windermere Pointe Addition c . Lot 16, Block 1, Sarah Renee Addition d . Lots 1-5 , Block 3, Windermere Pointe Addition e . Lot 1, Block 5, Moriarty Heights Addition (Heuton/Cameron) Motion to approve the plats subject to required utility, drainage, and no access easements where applicable. All present voted aye . MOTION CARRIED. Item #4-AAA Cabs, LLC has submitted an application for a Conditional Use on the north Y2 of Lot 10, and all of Lot 11, Block 1, Folsom Addition . The request is to es tablish a taxi cab service in the Residence R-3A District. (Cameron/Fargen) Motion to appro ve the Conditional Use. (Cameron/Heuton) Amendment to the motion to add the following conditions : 1. The conditional use is granted only to Gary Penney as the owner of AAA Cabs , LLC . 2. Any increase in the size of the cab fleet is an amendment requiring reapplication . All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED. S :\Commun ity Develo pment\P ian nin g Commissio n\Mi nutes\20 13\Ju ly 2 20 13 PC M in ut es .Docx l The motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned. D~son; Secretary Donna Dekraai, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator S:\Community Deve1opment\P1anning Commission\Minutes\2013\Ju1y 2 2013 PC Minutes .Docx 2 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota July 2, 2013 Chairperson Donna Dekraai called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on Tuesday, July 2, 2013, at 5:30PM in the Chambers Room on the third floor of the City & County Government Center. Members present were Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, Al Heuton, John Sydow, Wayne Avery, Mike Cameron, and DeKraai. Hal Bailey and Kristi Tornquist were absent. Also present were Gary Penney, Karla Carpenter, Meghan Thoreau, Les Roland, Meredith Redlin, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, Community Development Director Mike Struck, and others. Item #4 -Gary Penney, owner of AAA Cabs LLC, stated he owned 6 taxis and 1 limo that he stored inside the buildings at his residence. Heuton asked what hours the taxis operated. Penney stated the hours were 4PM to 2AM Monday through Thursday, 4PM to 3AM Friday and Saturday, and until 6PM on Sunday. Heuton asked if the taxis came and went from the residence during the day. Penney answered that the taxis were out around town during operating hours. Heuton inquired if this was a new location for the business. Penney responded yes. Cameron inquired whether Penney had spoken with his neighbors regarding the taxi service. Penney stated he had spoken with them and they were supportive of the business. Penney added that he kept his equipment in clean, running condition and his taxis were parked in the garage when not in use. Penney said he had asked his drivers to be respectful of the neighbors and there had not been any Issues. Gregg felt that if the vehicles used the alley entrance to the property, any disturbances would be limited. He thought it was a unique location for this type of use. Dekraai inquired what time the vehicles returned back to the garages. Penney stated after closing, which was 3AM, or later, 6 days per week. Dekraai asked if the headlights would disturb the neighbors. Penney replied that his drivers back the vehicles into the garages so the headlights shine into the city lot across the alley. Fargen asked if the taxis would be parked in the alley. Penney replied no. Cameron asked if Penney would be adding any vehicles to the current fleet in the future. Penney said he had no current plans to do so. Item #5 -Hanson stated that the City Council had requested that the Planning Commission review the on-premise parking regulations for apartment uses. Hanson provided the commission with the history of on-premise parking regulations for the last 55 years. Ordinance 8-94, adopted in 1994, was the focus of the discussion. The on-premise parking regulations were increased substantially at that time by linking parking to the number of units and bedrooms. The result was that there were usually extra spaces for guests. The extra spaces were justified for smaller apartments such as 8- plexes but produced unused parking spaces at some of the larger, multi-building complexes. Hanson provided the commission with the on-premise parking options that were presented to the commission back in 1994. There were 10 options that regulated parking based on units, occupants, bedrooms, or a combination thereof. S :\Community Development\Planning Commission\Minutes\2013Vuly 2 2013 PC Minutes .Docx 3 Hanson remarked that one option that could slightly reduce the required parking for larger complexes would be to create a "sliding scale" to allow fewer per unit spaces as the number of total units increased. This allowance could be worded so that fewer parking spaces could be converted to more green space. Avery felt landscaping was part of the issue too. From his understanding, the public was concerned with a "sea of concrete" which indicated the aesthetics of large parking lots was an issue too, not just the number of parking spaces. Cameron stated if required parking spaces were decreased and green space requirements increased, then it would help the city's drainage issues. Heuton stated that aesthetics of parking lots were the issue rather than parking spaces. Heuton agreed with creating a sliding scale as mentioned but felt the location of landscaping was important too. He also felt design standards could be higher and feels the commission should review design guidelines. Heuton noted that some required landscape areas were added to lots but were done in a way that did not benefit the aesthetics of the city because you couldn't see the landscaping from the street. Hanson agreed the commission can broaden the topic to include landscaping issues. He also noted that some developers create the green space on the back side of their lots in order to allow for quicker cleaning of parking lots in the winter. Hanson felt the commission needed to balance city requirements with the needs and functions of the lots and lot owners. Dekraai stated that parking on the street was a problem in some areas and asked for more time to research if parking spaces were excessive in some circumstances. Dekraai recommended that the issue be held off until the university was back in session so parking lots could be monitored when all the units were occupied. Item #6 -Hanson stated that the Planning Commission was one of two commissions who were asked by the City Council to review the issue of allowing urban chicken coops on residential property. He explained that fowl were regulated under Chapter 14, Animals, by their location from a neighboring residence . Raising poultry was also part of the agriculture definition in Chapter 94 , Zoning. Therefore, raising chickens in the city would require compliance with both chapters. He estimated that approximately 300 communities nationwide permitted urban chicken coops in some manner but the vast majority did not. Hanson said chickens were becoming popular in some cities based on sustainability arguments. The primary task ofthe commission was to determine if Chapter 94, Zoning, was the appropriate chapter in which to regulate the use . Hanson said there were 4 primary areas that were considered when communities allowed urban chicken coops; number of chickens allowed, prohibiting roosters, permits, and coop standards. Hanson noted that regulations varied from vague to strict. Residents had also voiced their concerns to him regarding rodents, predators, sanitation, and aesthetics regarding chicken wire and coop design. The nature of chickens is to scratch the ground and take dust baths in dirt which are necessary to control lice and mites. Generally, these habits would create aesthetic issues that would be substandard for many residential lots. Hanson said that while cities do not enforce covenants covering residential neighborhoods, the raising of poultry has been prohibited by almost all covenants written since the 1960s. Hanson felt if the city allowed urban chickens, the city would be putting the burden of enforcement on neighbors to not allow them based on covenants . S :\Community Deve1opment\P1anning Commission\Minutes\2013\Ju1y 2 2013 PC Minutes .Docx 4 Hanson reiterated that the function of the commission was to determine if urban chicken coops were considered a zoning and land use issue . He interpreted the current zoning ordinance as allowing poultry only in a zoning district that allowed agriculture as a permitted use. A very noted there were only a few residents who were asking to raise chickens at their residence , but he felt there were far more residents that would not want them next door . Avery felt it was too soon to make a recommendation, but if one was necessary he felt no changes should be made to the current regulations. Heuton felt urban chickens are a zoning issue and the Planning Commission should continue to monitor it. Heuton asked if a chicken coop could be visited so the commission could see what it looked like in practice . Heuton stated some issues he felt needed to be identified and addressed were odors and predators . Heuton could appreciate why some residents would want to raise chickens, but he did not know how the regulations would be enforced and what the burden would be for the city. He stated he personally would not want chickens being raised next door to where he lived and also stated that most subdivisions would not allow them regardless of city ordinance . Heuton was open to more investigation regarding urban chicken coops . Karla Carpenter, a resident in the Timberline Addition, spoke against urban chicken coops. She stated if she were looking to buy property in Brookings, she would not purchase a home next door to an urban chicken coop. Carpenter stated that chickens smell bad, which prohibits neighbors from opening their windows. She also stated that, if allowed, the ordinance could allow for more chickens than dogs or cats. Carpenter had many other concerns, including the amount of space chickens needed to live , scratching that made lawns unattractive, and the appearance of chicken coops . Carpenter pointed out that chickens could carry 140 different diseases and viruses . Carpenter was also concerned about chickens attracting rodents and felt the city should not create an environment that was appealing to rats and mice. Carpenter asked if the city allowed chickens but the covenants did not, who would enforce the covenants? She felt neighbors were not well equipped to enforce such a rule and it would only create uncomfortable situations between the residents of the city. Meghan Thoreau, 1432 Second Street, stated she had done research regarding urban chickens and outlined some points in a letter to the city. She currently owned 6 chickens which she raised out of town . She felt urban chickens would benefit the community by practicing sustainability. She pointed out that city ordinance allowed for chickens in some zoning districts and requested that 6 chickens be allowed to any resident who wanted to raise them. She felt requirements could be adopted from other cities that currently allowed them. She stated that Sioux Falls allowed urban chicken coop . Thoreau disagreed that chickens smelled or had diseases and viruses, and asked the commission to bring in an expert on urban chickens before a decision was made. Thoreau supported requiring permits for chickens which would give the city knowledge and control over the chickens. She felt the chicken owners should be responsible for cleanliness and noise. She also felt the city should perform annual inspections as well as handle complaints and enforcement. Thoreau stated the permit fees could cover the enforcement costs the city would accrue . If a person lived in a subdivision with covenants, that was their personal choice and the subdivisions have associations that enforce the covenants so the city should not be concerned with that issue. She also stated if a predator killed a chicken, it was the owner's problem rather than the city's. S :\Commun ity Devel o pmen t\Pianning Commis sion\Minutes\20 13V ul y 2 201 3 PC Minutes .Docx 5 Thoreau discussed several aspects of raising chickens. She felt a chicken coop was identical to a dog kennel, but more stylized. Thoreau said she fed her chickens bird feed, which did not attract rodents. Thoreau stated that she had not used pesticides in her lawn since 2005. Thoreau stated she had a dog that dug holes in the ground but the city did not create regulations to prohibit dogs from digging holes. She felt that chickens pecking in the ground would not hurt property values or resident's rights. Thoreau felt urban chicken coops could be educational and owners could provide workshops and tours for the community. Heuton asked Thoreau how many eggs chickens lay. Thoreau responded her 6 chickens could provide 6-12 eggs per week, which she stated fulfilled the needs ofher family. Hanson stated some breeds can lay up to 275 eggs per year. Meredith Redlin, 1223 51h St., stated she did not want chickens, but was not opposed to her neighbors having them. She also stated she chose to live in an area that does not have covenants. She also stated there were many other sources in Brookings that created aesthetic challenges and that should not be a reason to ban chickens. Redlin felt chickens were a non-invasive use of personal property. The noise and smell of dogs was not regulated so the noise and smell of chickens shouldn't be either. Cameron asked if Sioux Falls might be able to educate the commission on their issues. Hanson noted that urban chickens were allowed in Sioux Falls and the recent changes they made to their ordinance actually made the regulations stricter. Dekraai stated she felt the issue should be retained within the zoning regulations. She also felt more time was needed by the commission to research and educate themselves before a decision was made regarding the allowance of urban chicken coops. Item #7 -Hanson stated that developers had inquired about building temporary storage facilities in the Business B-2 District. One reason was that senior or specialized neighborhoods did not have a lot of built-in storage capacity in their dwelling units and many did not allow accessory buildings. Another reason was that several lots in the B-2 District were not conducive to retail space due to their location. Hanson had three examples of temporary storage facilities that showed different design elements. Design standards could insure an upscale type storage facility that would be more compatible with adjacent residences Fargen asked ifthere was a demand for this type of facility. Hanson responded yes. He added that developers were interested in retaining the B-2 District instead of rezoning to the B-3 which could allow other, heavier uses. Heuton stated he could understand the need for an accessory building in a residential area but had concerns about allowing temporary storage facilities too. Cameron noted that there was currently a storage facility in the Western Estates Mobile Home Park for the residents and it seemed to fit in. Cameron felt that the commission should consider this. Heuton noted that the facility at Western Estates was part of a development and he could not support a free standing facility. Dekraai inquired whether or not the storage facilities could be rented out to residents who did not live in the development, and if so, would that increase traffic for residents living there? Hanson replied that the city could not control who rented the units so that would have to be controlled by S :\Community Development\Pianning Commission\Minutes\2013\July 2 2013 PC Minutes.Docx 6 the owner. He indicated these types of areas are typically self-policing. Hanson noted he had seen plans for temporary storage facilities that were part of a large mixed use development. The facilities had similar design elements which made them blend into their environment. Item #8 -Hanson stated the current parking regulations for multiple uses on one lot allowed for the sharing of parking spaces only if two or more businesses were not open at the same time . A common example would be an office and a movie theatre . He had received a proposal from an existing multi-use business enterprise to expand their site by adding another business use. Larger cities sometimes develop a matrix that determines the peak parking demand of each separate business during the course of the day. Minimum parking requirements are then determined by comparing the highest total average for one particular hour of all the businesses combined. Hanson remarked that if there was interest in a matrix system, more research could be done. The other option would be to simply require the minimum parking requirements for each separate use . Les Roland, Design Arc, Inc., stated he was working with a client who had a mixed use business . The businesses would have cross-over customers thereby requiring less parking than what was required under the current ordinance. Roland noted that the current uses included a restaurant, convention center and a motel. The fourth component would be an indoor water park attached to the motel. Cameron remarked that typically a motel pool/water park was restricted to the guests of the motel. Hanson concurred, but stated that Roland had indicated that the water park would be open to the public for a fee . This made the situation unique and Hanson could not find many examples from other cities as to how they calculated parking requirements. Water parks that operated in this manner were usually stand-alone enterprises. Sydow inquired whether the applicant would be better served requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment for his situation rather than changing parking regulations through the Planning Commission. Roland stated his client would be open to other options and they were simply looking for guidance. Fargen agreed that a variance would be a better option . He also felt a matrix system could work . However, this type of issue could also be decided on a case-by-case basis. Tuting was adjourned. V Y ' 9+f-?1..J-t ------.. Dan Hanson, Secretary Donna Dekraai , Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator S :\Commun ity Develo pme nt\P iann ing Commission\Mi nutes\2013\Jul y 2 20 13 PC Mi nu tes .Docx 7