Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_02_26 CC PKTFebruary 26, 2008 City Council Packet 1 Brookings City Council Tuesday, February 26, 2008 City Hall Council Chambers 311 Third Avenue 3:00 p.m. ~~ Training on Televised Meeting System 5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session 6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting Mission Statement The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management. 3:00 P.M. TRAINING ON TELEVISED MEETING SYSTEM 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION ** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics. 1. Updates from Matt Astleford, Senator Johnson’s Office. 2. Code Enforcement. 3. Creation of a Complete Count Committee. 4. Update on joint collaboration efforts with County. 5. Sioux Falls tour invite by Mayor Munson. 6. Legislative updates. 7. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. 8. City Clerk Reports: A. Upcoming Council Meetings B. Council Invites & Obligations 9. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required. 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. City Clerk records council attendance. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 2 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Agenda. B. Action to appoint Pam Merchant to the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call * Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation. Presentations/Reports/Special Requests: 5. Open Forum. 6. SDSU Report. Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 7. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th Street South). Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 8. Ordinance No. 07-08 -An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane) Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 9. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 10. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 ** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced. Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings: 11. Ordinance No. 08-08 - An Ordinance Establishing State Law Requirements For Campaign Finance Disclosures For Municipal Ballot Questions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call 12. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 20-08, Levying Assessment for 2007- 01SWR, Sidewalk Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 3 13. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 21-08, Levying Assessment for 2007- 07STA, Alley Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call Other Business. 14. Action on funding to transportation providers - Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) and Safe Ride Program. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on a contract for Engineering Services with HDR to do a Traffic Modeling Study for 34th Avenue / 20th Street Overpass Improvement Project. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 16. Action on a Request for Building Upon the Public Right-of-Way from Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD, at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota. Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 17. Adjourn. The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org If you require assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at 692-6281 at least 3 working days prior to the meeting. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 4 3:00 P.M. Council Members training on Televised Meetings The City Council members and staff will receive training on the new televised meeting system and AV equipment. No action will be taken during this time. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 5 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 1. Updates from Matt Astleford, Senator Johnson’s Office. Senator Johnson’s Office has requested a few minutes on the Council’s agenda to provide the Council and Brookings community with updates on local issues. Matt Astleford, a staff member from the Senator’s Sioux Falls Office, will provide a brief report. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 6 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 2. Code Enforcement. Proposal for modified code enforcement procedures The Brookings City Council has directed staff to develop a modification to the rental inspection and property maintenance enforcement program with the ultimate goal of abating and mitigating properties that fall into a condition that constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise unsafe for occupancy pursuant to City Code. This applies to all property whether it is residential or commercial property; rental or owner-occupied in use. The directive is aimed at more aggressive enforcement of violations. Scope of Inspections-rental residential licensing: (Ch. 22, Article VI) Current policy is to license all rental units with scheduled inspections approximately 2-4 years covering the following items: 1) Life-safety issues of smoke detectors and size of egress windows 2) Number of tenants occupying rental units 3) Zoning including parking regulations More frequent inspections are done in response to complaints or requests for such inspections. The Code Enforcement Officer in the Engineering Dept. is responsible for smaller residential buildings of seven units or less. The Fire Marshal is responsible for larger rental complexes over seven units in size. Scope of Inspections-all properties: (Ch. 22, Article V and Ch. 62, Article III) All properties are subject to property maintenance ordinances for nuisance abatement regardless of use. Current practice/status of enforcement: City staff is current on license renewal of small rental units and their inspections. City staff is behind on license renewal of large rental units and their inspections. Most property nuisance inspections are conducted on a complaint basis or when witnessed by staff as being clearly visible as a nuisance from the public right-of-way. The process of mitigation is to send a written notice to the property owner citing the code nuisance violation and giving the owner a reasonable amount of time to remedy the nuisance. The goal of the City is to achieve compliance with the code; not to unnecessarily pursue fines, litigation or issue any more citations than necessary. Approximately 90 percent compliance is achieved after the first letter to the property owner. Re-inspections are conducted and second notices are given for failure to February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 7 comply. In extreme cases, litigation is necessary. It is the goal of the City to achieve compliance as quickly as possible with the first notice in as amicable a manner as possible. Length of time given to remedy condition shall be at the discretion of the enforcing officer and shall take into consideration the severity of the condition and any history of prior offenses. Review of applicable City Codes A review of the above described City Codes indicates there is sufficient statutory authority to support the current as well as more aggressive enforcement practices. Recommendations for modification to code enforcement procedures 1) Re-organization of duties: Consolidate all rental inspections (large and small structures) in the Engineering Department for a uniform and streamlined procedure. 2) Re-organization of duties/Fire: Having been relieved of large rental inspections, the Fire Marshal should concentrate on commercial structures and other Fire Code issues of property. 3) Vegetation/weed control code enforcement: The Engineering Department should assume vegetation and weed mitigation from the Park Department as part of the overall property maintenance inspection. The Park Department would still be responsible for abatement of weeds when necessary. Croplands and wetlands are exempt. 4) Snow on sidewalk code enforcement: The Street Department will continue to abate violators of the snow removal from sidewalk ordinance by dispatching street crews to correct the deficiency and sending a bill to the property owner. It is anticipated most complaints will come directly to the Code Enforcement Officers. This will maintain the current practice. 5) Increased level of enforcement: The Engineering Department would be responsible for a more aggressive approach to code enforcement pertaining to nuisance abatement not merely relying on complaints but canvassing the community for violations. In addition, inspections should include situations, that left unabated, could constitute a public health hazard including but not limited to those that harbor rodents. 6) Record-keeping: The Engineering Department would develop a comprehensive record-keeping system of rental licensing inspections as well as property maintenance inspections to quantify the inspections by type and compliance on a monthly and annual basis. The Fire Marshal would do the same for commercial inspections. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 8 7) Public visibility: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff would become more visible by (a) wearing certain items clearly identifying them as code enforcement personnel such as possibly shirts, jackets, coats, badges, ID card; (b) driving a city vehicle clearly marked as a code enforcement vehicle. In visiting with property owners, hours of work may need to be adjusted to early evening during the summer months to find more people at home where appointments may be necessary. 8) Public education: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff should undertake a comprehensive public education program about the rental licensing program and the property maintenance requirements in an effort to proactively achieve compliance before they become a nuisance. This also promotes good customer service. Activities for additional public education could be: PSA’s in the newspaper, Shopper, and local radio stations; information on the city website, annual mailings about the regulations to the rental license-holders; information at the SDSU housing office; utility billing inserts; discussion topics for service club speakers’ bureau, to name a few. A more formal communication relationship should be developed between the City and SDSU housing office to identify/report housing issues. Prior to launching the new enforcement procedures, an extensive public relations efforts should be undertaken. 9) Legal action may be used: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff, the Fire Marshal (where applicable), and the City Attorney need to be prepared to aggressively prosecute offenders that do not comply or otherwise abate the nuisance after the City has exhausted all reasonable means to achieve compliance. Monetary fines to the maximum extent of the law should be pursued. The Police Department will enforce certain code enforcement provisions under their statutory authority and there should be a clear distinction in the type of violations enforced by civilian staff as opposed to law enforcement. 10) Other duties as assigned: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff could assist with other enforcement items tangentially related to property maintenance where inspections currently are insufficient. Some of these areas including but not limited to: signage, home occupation inspections, occupancy compliance, monitoring construction sites, sidewalk safety inspections, park playground safety inspections, illegal storm sewer discharge connections, illegal mobile home park modifications, minor zoning issues, minor building code issues. Clearly, additional labor resources will be necessary to implement a more aggressive code enforcement and rental licensing program. The City Council has authorized $60,000 in additional financial resources in the 2008 budget to address this issue and staff is recommending one additional staff person be hired to assist the current staff February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 9 with undertaking this revised program. This amount would be used to hire a staff person and implement the measures enumerated in Items 1-10. This additional staff position would be classified in the staffing and compensation as Code Enforcement Officer at Pay Grade 8, which is the same as our current code enforcement position. This would be a second identical position and will provide for dual coverage and cross-training but some specific duties may be segregated for efficiencies. The City Engineer would supervise this additional position. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 10 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 3. Creation of a Complete Count Committee. Council Member Tim Reed has submitted the following information regarding the creation of a complete count committee and will present his proposal for Council consideration. US Census Accuracy • Appropriation of Federal Funds • Accurate local statistical data – Retail Attraction – Average Income • Data for the community – Housing needs • How big is Brookings & Brookings County? What is a Complete Count Committee (CCC) A major vehicle for planning and implementing local, targeted efforts that will uniquely address the characteristics of our community. Why form a CCC? • To make everyone in the community aware of the 2010 Census. • To motivate the community to participate by filling out the census form. • To utilize local knowledge, expertise, and awareness campaign targeted to the community. What are the goals of a CCC? • Develop a community-specific 2010 Census awareness campaign • Provide leadership in the promotion of 2010 Census • Commit to ensuring that every resident in our community is counted. Specific Activities of CCC’s • Develop local theme for census participation. • Create and distribute community-specific promotional materials. • Work with local media to promote census • Identify hard to enumerate areas and create a targeted campaign for those areas. Timeline • Spring/Summer 2008 – Form CCC • Fall 2008 – Start creating plan • Summer 2009 – propose budget to Governments (City & County) • Fall 2009 – Finalize plan • Jan 2010 – Monthly meetings February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 11 • April 2010 – Implement plan for Census Day and Census Week CCC Members?? • Council Member(s) • City Manager / City Clerk • Community Members • Media • SDSU Student Leadership • County Commissioners • ???? U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Contact Information Complete Count Committee Program 2010 Census Timeline 2007 • State, local and tribal governments determine if local resources are needed to promote the 2010 Census 2008 • Local Census Offices begin opening • Local governments review address lists (LUCA) • Highest Elected Official or community leader determines Complete Count Committee (CCC) membership 2009 • CCC is established • CCC receives census training • CCC develops strategy and work plan • CCC spreads word about census jobs 2010 • Questionnaires are delivered to every address • CCC begins community organization mobilization • CCC begins 2010 Census publicity campaign • Households return completed questionnaires • CCC urges nonresponding households to cooperate with census takers • CCC thanks the community for their participation in the 2010 Census • Census delivers population counts to the President Issued May 2007 D-1256 www.census.gov/2010census ON THE ROAD TO THE 2010 CENSUS If you reside in: Please call: Alabama, Florida, or Georgia ATLANTA 1-800-424-6974 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, upstate New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, or Vermont BOSTON 1-800-562-5721 Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Virginia CHARLOTTE 1-800-331-7360 Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin CHICAGO 1-800-865-6384 Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas DALLAS 1-800-835-9752 Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, or Wyoming DENVER 1-800-852-6159 Michigan, Ohio, or West Virginia DETROIT 1-800-432-1495 Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, or Oklahoma KANSAS CITY 1-800-728-4748 Hawaii or Southern California LOS ANGELES 1-800-992-3530 New Jersey or New York City NEW YORK 1-800-991-2520 Delaware, D.C., Maryland, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania PHILADELPHIA 1-800-262-4236 Alaska, Idaho, Northern California, Oregon, or Washington SEATTLE 1-800-233-3308 For additional information about the Complete Count Committee Program, please contact your regional office. The 2010 Census is on the Horizon! Get Started Early Involvement of State, Local and Tribal Governments is Crucial “The Complete Count Committee turned out to be an excellent way to reach all segments of the community and educate them about the Census. Our efforts resulted in a mail-back response that was higher than anyone had anticipated.” Albert Pritchett, Chairman, Complete Count Committee, Cook County, Illinois “Rapidly growing and diversifying cities need to realize Just how critical a Complete Count effort is to...getting the absolutely best count possible during the 2010 decennial enumeration…to ensure their fair share of federal and state funding. The Census Bureau relies heavily on local Complete Count efforts to reach...difficult to enumerate populations. Each city can tailor their Complete Count efforts to best meet the needs of their urban personality.” Ryan Robinson, City Demographer, Austin, Texas “Forming a Complete Count Committee was indeed a labor of love for us. We followed the guide, formed the sub-committees and our entire city was energized. There is no doubt about the effectiveness of the Tell City Complete Count Committee. This was an effective program in bridging the gap between the community and the govern-ment. What a novel idea!” Louie Heitkemper, CCC Co-Chairman, Tell City, Indiana “With the 2010 census quickly approaching, it is important that every citizen in our community be counted. The Complete Count Committee...helps us mobilize resources, and ensure that Miami-Dade County gets its fair share of the federal funds and resources.” Carlos Alvarez, Mayor, Miami Dade County “The Complete Count Committee included every segment of our community. Some of the activities we incorporated in our CCC campaign were so successful in bringing every-one together that we have continued them as annual festivals. The CCC was indeed a strategy for building our community and learning more about our immigrant populations.” Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, Indiana WHAT? WHO? State, local, and tribal governments work together with partners in the community to form Complete Count Committees (CCC) to promote the 2010 Census in their communities. Community-based organizations also establish CCCs that reach out to their constituents. WHY? A Complete Count Committee is a team of community leaders appointed by the highest-elected official to develop and implement a locally-based outreach and awareness campaign for the 2010 Census. This team’s primary focus is to promote the 2010 Census in a particular community and to ensure that every resident in that area is counted. Community leaders are most qualified to understand the best way to reach all populations that reside in their area. The team is also best suited to mobilize community resources in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. WHEN? The process starts NOW! 2007 is when to identify CCC leaders and determine if resources need to be budgeted for 2009 and 2010 to promote the census locally. 2008 is the time to identify CCC leaders and members. 2009 is the time to establish a work plan, and 2010 is when this plan will be carried out. HOW? Its up to you! You know the best way to reach your community. Some activities could include: • Census rally or parade • Ethnic media luncheon • Census unity forum for youth • Interfaith breakfast and weekend events The 2010 Census is on the horizon and the U.S. Census Bureau wants to ensure that everyone is counted. We are developing partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments; community-based organizations; faith-based groups; schools; businesses; the media; and others. Through these collaborative relationships, we can reach our shared goal of counting all residents in the 2010 Census. By being informed about the census and better understanding the census process, residents are more likely to respond to the census questionnaire. The Complete Count Committee (CCC) Program is key to making this happen in communities all across the country. CCCs incorporate local knowledge, influence and possible resources to educate residents and promote the census through a locally-based and targeted outreach and promotion effort. CCCs provide a vehicle for coordinating and nurturing a cooperative effort between local governments, communities, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Local governments and community organizations can help the census get a complete count in 2010. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 14 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 4. Update on joint collaboration with County. February 20, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Update on city-county space needs collaboration At your previous meeting, you directed me to expedite considerations of the on-going dialogue between the city and county of our mutual space needs. This memo is a summary of the salient facts to-date. History: The City and County each independently undertook space needs studies concluding the County needing 18,628 square feet and the City projecting a need of 20,161 square feet. The County has responded by proposing construction of a new county administration building between the Court House and the 1921 Building. The needs for the County appear to be more imminent while the needs of the City appear to be more long-range. The greatest deficiency of space needs in the City Hall is in the police department. The City and County have generally discussed, as an alternative, acquiring more of the 1921 Building, continuing the renovation of this historic building to the balance of the first floor and into the second floor with a combined joint city-county government center. The property owner has offered a renovation package of $52/sf and buy-out package in 2010 of $3.1 million for the entire building. The County’s architect has projected renovation costs of the 1921 Building at $190/sf contrasted with that of new construction at $172/sf. The County further desires to keep county government offices in or near the current Court House square. The County Board held a public input meeting on February 19 regarding the proposed new construction of the county administration building. They described the space needs shortage in the Court House and the proposal is to move most other county offices leaving the Court House almost exclusively for court services. They are leaning toward siting a new county administration building adjacent to the Court House. Reaction from the few audience members who spoke was mixed. The County Board is leaving their options open but are on record by a 4-1 vote of supporting this proposed location. Combined city-county services in one building: In my opinion, there are many advantages of putting city and county government offices in the same building. There are many economies-of-scale to be achieved if February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 15 properly planned from the outset. Taxpayers are more interested in efficiency of government services than in “turf” protection by bureaucrats. Fair and effective cost-sharing of combined facilities can be achieved between governments. This can lead to “one-stop shopping” by the public. Such office-sharing can even be expanded to include school district administration offices and other ancillary agencies such as chamber of commerce, economic development agencies, etc. The sharing of common space such as conference rooms, board rooms, restrooms, and mechanical facilities can result in substantial cost savings. Consolidation can go beyond simply sharing the building to actually consolidating services such as data processing, GIS, property management records, zoning information, human services, elections, and payroll. The list goes on. But striking the correct time for all parties with the right building opportunity is the challenge to making any consolidation, whether physical or operational, effective. Analysis of city space needs: The City is using all of the available space in the current City Hall with very little ability to effectively add any staff to the current building with regard to administration, engineering, and finance departments. At current staffing levels, the current building meets our needs with the exception of the Police Department. There are significant space and operational deficiencies in this older portion of the building. There are, however, major advantages to retaining city operations, police, and a fire station in the same building. Options for the city to address future space needs include: 1) Consider adding a second floor to the existing city hall (will require a structural analysis). 2) Consider acquiring the Sawnee Hotel building, demolishing it, and using it for a city hall and parking lot expansion. 3) Consider a joint city-county government center in the 1921 Building. 4) Consider a joint city-county government center in a new construction project. 5) Consider constructing a new city hall building exclusively. 6) Consider acquiring the old First Bank & Trust building for a new city hall. If the city were to move from the current building, it could be used for expansion of the Police Department converting city hall into a Municipal Public Safety Facility with the current fire station. Alternatively, if city offices were to move, the current building is well-suited for other public or private sector offices and it has excellent adaptive re-use. With regard to option 2, I have contacted the owner of the Sawnee Hotel. At the time of writing this memo, the owner and I have yet to connect. Hopefully, I will have an update at the meeting. With regard to option 5, constructing a new building does not seem feasible, or even necessary now but it may be a viable option 7-10 years from now based on the projections of the study. Today’s construction costs would be approximately $3.5 February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 16 million for a new city hall building. Escalating construction costs are sure to drive this number up considerably. With regard to option 6, I have toured the bank building. It has a main floor and a lower level with substantially more square footage than the main floor as it extends west under the parking lot. The building is older than it looks, built in the late 50’s, and has approximately 20,000 square feet so it meets our space needs requirement in raw square footage. The building is ideally located downtown near the Court House square and has the architectural appearance of a municipal building. It has good on and off-street parking access. The building will take a considerate amount of interior re-construction for interior office spaces which can easily be achieved. If we wish to consider this option, we will need to hire an architect for a professional evaluation. The building has been expanded, the roof replaced, and the HVAC (heating- ventilating-air conditioning) system upgraded and appears to be well-maintained. The only significant down-side I can see to the bank building is there appears no viable way to construct suitable council chambers within the building. Ideally, the council chambers should be part of city hall on ground level with easy access from both the interior of the building as well as outside doors. The main floor does not appear large enough to hold the council chambers plus the offices for city services most needed by the public for good customer service. There are, however, two options to resolve this issue that could be explored. First, it appears a council chambers could be added to the south of the building into the parking lot with outside public access from 5th Avenue. This would involve removing the drive-up canopy and losing approximately seven parking spaces. Second, we could leave the council chambers in its current location in the lower level of the current city hall building. While it would be ideal to have the council chambers in the same building as city hall, it is certainly not necessary. After touring both the 1921 Building and the former First Bank & Trust building, I am of the opinion the bank building is better suited to meet our future needs. More cost-benefit analysis could be developed based on identifying other “what if…?” scenarios. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 17 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 5. Sioux Falls Tour Invite by Mayor Munson. Mayor Munsterman recently informed the Council that Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson had extended an invitation to the City Council for a tour of Sioux Falls to view the impact of private and public partnership with regard to development. Is there interest from the Council in participating in a tour? We anticipate this would be at least a one-half day commitment. No dates have been selected. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 18 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 6. Legislative updates. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 19 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 7. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. City Clerk records council attendance. 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Agenda. B. Action to appoint Pam Merchant to the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call Presentations/Reports/Special Requests: 5. Open Forum. 6. SDSU Report. Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 7. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th Street South). Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 8. Ordinance No. 07-08 -An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane) Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 9. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 10. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings: 11. Ordinance No. 08-08 - An Ordinance Establishing State Law Requirements For Campaign Finance Disclosures For Municipal Ballot Questions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call 12. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 20-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-01SWR, Sidewalk Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call 13. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 21-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-07STA, Alley Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call Other Business. 14. Action on funding to transportation providers - Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) and Safe Ride Program. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on a contract for Engineering Services with HDR to do a Traffic Modeling Study for 34th Avenue / 20th Street Overpass Improvement Project. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 16. Action on a Request for Building Upon the Public Right-of-Way from Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD, at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 17. Adjourn. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 20 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION A. Upcoming Council Meetings March 11th (Council Member Tim Reed gone) 5:00 pm ƒ Project Insight reports from Council Members ƒ Swiftel Center Expansion Plans 6:00 pm ƒ Action on resolution for landfill rate increases & garbage collection ƒ First Planning District - Dick Edenstrom ƒ 1st reading - Ordinance No. ___ - budget amendment ƒ Presentation of Annual Report to Council ƒ Public Hearings: ƒ Ordinance No. ____ - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N- R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R- 1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th Street South). ƒ Ordinance No. ____ -An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane) ƒ Ordinance No. ____ - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. ƒ Ordinance No._____-08, An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. March 25th 5:00 pm ƒ Liquor Application Presentations & Discussion o Hospital Campus Expansion Plans o Annual Reports from City Volunteer Boards, Committees & Commissions 6:00 pm o Award Streetscape bids o FBO Agreement o Action on Resolution No. ___ - appointing election judges February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 21 B. Council Invites & Obligations Date Day Event Time Location March 1st Saturday Shamrock Grand Opening 6-8 pm Shamrock March 5-6 Wed/Thu SD Airports Conference Wed 9:30 start Thu noon close Deadwood March 11th Tuesday City Council 5:00 pm City Hall March 8-12 Fri-Tuesday National League of Cities Washington DC March 17-21 Mon-Friday Board of Equalization Hearings Commencing Monday. Will attempt to finish in one day if possible City Hall March 25th Tuesday City Council 5:00 pm City Hall March 26th Wednesday City Council Goal Setting Retreat 9 am to 5 pm Swiftel Center April 8th Tuesday Election April 10th Thursday Council Meeting Canvass Ballots 4:00 pm City Hall April 15th Tuesday Council Meeting 5:00 pm City Hall April 29th Tuesday Council Meeting 5:00 pm City Hall May 13th Tuesday Council Meeting 5:00 pm City Hall May 18-21 ISCS Conference May 27th Tuesday Council Meeting 5:00 pm City Hall February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 22 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 9. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 23 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. City Clerk records council attendance. 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Agenda. B. Action to appoint Pam Merchant to the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call Presentations/Reports/Special Requests: 5. Open Forum. 6. SDSU Report. Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 7. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th Street South). Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 8. Ordinance No. 07-08 -An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane) Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 9. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N- R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 10. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 ** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced. Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings: 11. Ordinance No. 08-08 - An Ordinance Establishing State Law Requirements For Campaign Finance Disclosures For Municipal Ballot Questions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call 12. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 20-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-01SWR, Sidewalk Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call 13. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution No. 21-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-07STA, Alley Assessment Project. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call Other Business. 14. Action on funding to transportation providers - Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) and Safe Ride Program. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on a contract for Engineering Services with HDR to do a Traffic Modeling Study for 34th Avenue / 20th Street Overpass Improvement Project. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 16. Action on a Request for Building Upon the Public Right-of-Way from Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD, at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 17. Adjourn. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 24 6:00 P.M. Meeting CONSENT AGENDA #4 A. Agenda. B. Action to appoint Pam Merchant to the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 25 CONSENT AGENDA #4 4B. Action on an appointment to the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. Mayor Munsterman has submitted Pam Merchant as an appointment recommendation for the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. This would fill a vacancy created on December 31st. Merchant would serve a full three year term through January 1, 2011. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 26 CONSENT AGENDA #4 4C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36- T110N-R50W. Applicant: Dean Gulbranson and Tracy Odegaard Proposal: Create a mixed density residential subdivision Background: This 38 acre parcel is bordered on the south by 20th Street South. It is adjacent to a row of single-family dwellings to the east and a few more along the north side that front on BlairHill Circle. The land to the northwest and west is undeveloped. The original preliminary plat was approved in June 2007. It contained 77 lots and was designed for low-density development. A detention pond was planned for the southwest corner. A portion of the land was rezoned in October 2007 and a final plat involving 13 lots along the east side was filed in December. The remaining land is currently zoned Agriculture. The Future Land Use map reserves this area for residential uses. Specifics: The various elements of this subdivision plan are addressed below: ¾ Street Design – Platted and preliminarily platted land adjacent to this parcel on the east, north, and west have no interconnecting streets. The only abutting right-of-way is 20th Street South. All streets, cul-de-sacs and eyebrows conform to the minimum width/radius requirements. All streets are classified as local streets. Windermere Way will have adequate offsets from the future Bluegill Avenue and 20th Street South intersection and will be aligned with a potential future intersection to the west. All street intersections are at or near 90 degrees. ¾ Land Design – Block lengths vary but are appropriate. The subdivision has a row of perimeter lots with a two-tiered design on the interior. One block has double-frontage lots which are encouraged along 20th St. So. Corner lots have extra width. All internal lot lines are straight, and most are perpendicular to the right-of-way. Some minor tweaking on radial lines may be beneficial. The west side consists of blocks that will accommodate high-density uses. ¾ Open Space – This subdivision has a natural drainage channel in the northwest corner. This channel contains wetlands and will be preserved in its natural state. Fishback Soccer Park is southwest of this subdivision and has the ability February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 27 to be not only a special use park but also a neighborhood park. The city is also exploring the possibility of a pedestrian access over to Moriarty Park on the east side of 17th Avenue but this may require replatting and is not part of this proposal. ¾ Drainage Plan – Surface drainage flows generally from northeast to southwest. A retention/detention pond is planned in the southwest corner to detain outflows. The area is approximately three (3) acres in size. ¾ Grading Plan – The plat indicates planned surface drainage in the rear of the lots in Block 4. This will likely call for a partial “cut and fill” design. A grading plan with the new contours will be required prior to the issuance of building permits in this area. City Engineer’s Comment: The preliminary drainage plan for this development was approved for the original preliminary plat. This modified preliminary plat does change the street configuration. However, the drainage flows in the same general direction, and the detention pond will remain in the southwest corner of the development. We will not require a revised preliminary drainage plan, and I recommend approval of the revised preliminary plat. For future final platting, we will require a revised final drainage plan that will take into consideration the new layout Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes, 0 no and one abstention to recommend approval of this preliminary plat. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 28 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 5, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #4 – Dean Gulbranson and Tracy R. Odegaard have submitted a preliminary plat of the Windermere Point Addition in the SE¼, SW¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W. (Kurtz/Cameron) Motion to approve the preliminary plat. All present voted aye except Howlett abstained. MOTION CARRIED. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Item #4 – Hanson summarized the street design, land design, open space, and grading plan elements of the proposal. Heuton asked what the expected density would be in the anticipated high-density area. Hanson responded that approximately 45 to 55 units would likely be accommodated in the 3.5 acres. Cameron remarked that the Vision 2020 Plan indicated residential uses for this area. Lanning commented that the preliminary drainage plan had been approved. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 31 Presentations/Reports/Special Requests: 5. INVITATION FOR A CITIZEN TO SCHEDULE TIME ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR AN ISSUE NOT LISTED. At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time. 6. SDSU REPORT. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 32 Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 7. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th Street South). Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 Applicant: Dean Gulbranson and Tracy Odegaard Proposal: Create a mixed density residential subdivision Background: This area is currently undeveloped. Surrounding subdivisions and other vacant land have been rezoned in the past to mostly high-density residential use. Smaller adjacent areas have been zoned for low-density residential and light commercial use. The Vision 2020 Plan identifies this area for future residential use. Specifics: The east 300 feet of this acreage was zoned for low-density residential development in October 2007. Subsequently, a row of lots was platted in the zoned area in December 2007. The R-1B zone will transition into the R-2 District that runs through the center of the subdivision. A wetland area to the northwest will abut the rear of a row of lots and remain as open land through the identified channel. A high- density residential area and stormwater retention pond is planned on the west side. The adjacent land to the west is zoned for R-3 and B-2A uses. Overall, the rezoning proposal could result in approximately 140 – 180 additional dwelling units. Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes, 0 no and one abstention to recommend approval of the rezoning. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 33 Ordinance No. 06-08 An Ordinance to Change the Zoning within the City of Brookings Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota, described as follows: the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from an Agricultural A District and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District. In accordance with Section 94.7 of Article I of Ordinance 25-02 of the Code of Ordinances of Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III and IV of Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is hereby altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: February 26, 2008 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: March 11, 2008 PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS ______________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 34 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 5, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #6 – Dean Gulbranson and Tracy Odegaard have submitted a petition to rezone the SE¼ of the SW¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District. (Kurtz/Cameron) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye except Howlett abstained. MOTION CARRIED. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Item #6 – Dean Gulbranson, co-owner of the property, stated the plan for the R-3 land was not finalized. The south and east sides of the R-2 area would possibly be twinhomes with the northwest area next to the wetlands planned for single-family dwellings. Keith Rounds, a neighbor, favored an extension of the R-1B zoning along the north side so it matched with the zoning on his property. Cameron noted, however, that a large R-3 District was adjacent to Rounds on the west and felt the R-2 was appropriate. Kurtz recommended that the drainage channel area be identified as Ag since it was not part of the zoning proposal. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 38 Sec. 94-125 RESIDENCE R-1B SINGLE-FAMILY (a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross density of approximately five dwelling units per acre or less. The district permits single- family dwellings and supportive community facilities such as parks, playgrounds, schools, libraries and churches. (b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title, when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-1B Single-Family District. (c ) Permitted Uses. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. (d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in conformance with conditions prescribed herein: 1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-124(d)(R- 1A). 2. Private school of general instruction. a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector street. 3. Family day care. a. Restricted to 12 or less children at any one time. (e) Conditional Uses. 1. Vocational or trade school 2. Retirement or nursing home 3. Two family dwelling 4. Group home 5. Major home occupation 6. Public recreation facility 7. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, 8. Private lake 9. Bed and breakfast establishment (f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations. The R-1B district regulations shall be as follows: Per Min Min Min Min Min Max Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Hgt Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 39 Single-Family 10,000 10,000 75' 30' 8' 25' 35' Two-Family 6,200 12,400 90' 30' 8' 25' 35' Other Allowable Uses 10,000 75' 30' 10' 25' 35' Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no cooking facilities are provided in individual rooms (g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-1B District are buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district. (h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-1B District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter (i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-1B District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter (j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-1B District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in article II of this chapter February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 40 Sec. 94-126. RESIDENCE R-2 TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT (a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a density of six to eighteen dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single-family, two-family, townhouse and multiple-family residential uses plus support facilities such as schools, parks, churches and community and public buildings. (b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title, when referred to in this section, are the regulations of the Residence R-2 Two-Family District. (c) Permitted Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. 2. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. (d) Permitted Special Uses: A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in conformance with conditions prescribed herein: 1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Sections 94-124(d)(R-1A) and 94- 125(d)(R-1B). 2. Single-family zero (0') sideyard dwelling. a. A maximum of four (4) attached dwelling units are permitted. b. Additional lot area requirements apply (subsection f of this section). 3. Funeral home or mortuary. a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector street. (e) Conditional Uses. 1. Vocational or trade school 2. Retirement or nursing home 3. Group home 4. Major home occupation 5. Public recreation facility 6. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge 7. Domestic abuse shelter 8. Townhouse 9. Apartment or condominium 10. Boardinghouse 11. Office 12. Bed and breakfast establishment 13. Fraternity/Sorority 14. Day Care Facility (f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations. The R-2 district regulations shall be as follows: Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 41 Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Single-Family Dwelling 7,500 7,500 50' 25' 7' 25' 35' SF 0' Sideyard 2 Units 6,000 12,000 80' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall SF 0' Sideyard 3 Units 5,000 15,000 100' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall SF 0' Sideyard 4 Units 4,500 18,000 120' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall Two-Family Dwellings Condominiums Townhouses 2 Units 4,950 9,900 65' 25' 7' 25' 35' 3 Units 4,100 12,300 80' 25' 7' 25' 35' 4 Units 3,675 14,700 95' 25' 7' 25' 35' Apts, Condos, Townhouses* 5 or more Units 2,420** 16,000 100' 25' 7'*** 25' 35' Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Other Allowable Uses 7,500 50' 25' 7'*** 25' 35 *Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling unit exclusive of required building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3) of the landscaped area shall be located in a continuous, single tract which contains no portions thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to either the entire width February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 42 or entire length of said tract. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential uses according to Section 94-401. **A maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed. ***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more stories in height. Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual rooms. (g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-2 District are buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district. (h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI. (i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 5 of article VI. (j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in article II. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 43 Sec. 94-127. RESIDENCE R-3 APARTMENT DISTRICT (a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross density of seven to twenty-four dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single- family, two-family, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, fraternities and sororities plus support facilities such as schools, parks, churches and community and public buildings. (b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title, when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-3 Apartment District. (c) Permitted Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. 2. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. 3. Single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling 4. Apartment or condominium 5. Townhouse 6. Fraternity and sorority 7. Family day care (d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in conformance with the conditions prescribed herein: 1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-124(d)(R-1A). 2. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-125(d)(R-1B) excluding family day care. 3. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-126 (R-2), excluding single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling and family day care. 4. Day care facility. a. A 4-foot high transparent fence shall be constructed between the play area and the street when the play area is adjacent to any arterial or collector street. b. A safe pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided. 5. Boardinghouse. a. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residential properties with a four (4) foot high opaque fence. b. Asphalt or concrete surfacing of the lot will be required for all parking lots with five (5) or more spaces. 6. Retirement or nursing home. a. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residential properties by a four (4) foot high fence or equivalent landscaping. 7. Group home. a. Applicants shall provide statements as to the type of supervision the home will have. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 44 8. Domestic abuse shelter. a. All parking shall be provided on the premises. (e) Conditional Uses. 1. Public recreation facility 2. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge 3. Major home occupation 4. Vocational or trade school 5. Office 6. Bed and breakfast (f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations: The R-3 district regulations shall be as follows: Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Single-Family Dwelling 6,000 50' 20' 7' 25' 35' Two dwelling Units 8,400 65' 20' 7' 25' 35' SF Attached 0' Sideyard 9,600 75' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35' 2 Units on non-party wall 3 Units 12,000 90' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non-party wall 4 Units 14,000 105' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non-party wall Apts., Condos, Townhouses* (3 or more Units) 1,815** 10,000 75' 20' 7'*** 25' 45' Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Other Allowable Uses 6,000 50' 20' 7'*** 25' 45' *Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling unit exclusive of required building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3) of the landscaped area shall be located in a continuous, single tract which contains no portions thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to either the entire width or entire length of said tract. 50% of the required landscaped area may be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirement. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential uses according to Section 94-401. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 45 **A maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed. ***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more stories in height. Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual rooms. (g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-3 District are buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district. (h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter (i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter (j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in article II of this chapter February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 46 Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 8. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 07-08 - An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane) Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 Applicant: Prairieland Partnership LLP Proposal: Construct an apartment in the B-2 District Background: The Southbrook Addition was zoned for commercial and high-density residential development in 1977. The University Mall and Einspahr Ford were built shortly thereafter as were some apartment buildings on the west side of Southland Lane. Southland Lane became a dividing line between B-2 uses to the east and R-3 uses to the west. In 1992, a company proposed to build several apartment buildings in the B-2 District. The project was a three-phase development that involved 10 buildings with a maximum of 94 units. This was approved by the Board of Adjustment, and the first (north) phase was completed in 1994. Phase III (south) was completed in 1995. Phase II was not constructed. Specifics: The proposal involves a 60 unit apartment building with one and two bedroom units. The plan indicates surface and underground parking, one access drive to Southland Lane, perimeter landscaping, and stormwater collection in the southeast corner. The site contains two (2) acres of land with 286 feet of frontage width. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the north, south, and west, and the University Mall to the east. The minimum conditional use standards for establishing an apartment in the B- 2 District are as follows: Sec. 94-255. Apartments. (a) Generally. Apartments shall not be located in an area where they could have a negative impact on adjacent properties due to their size or the traffic generated from such use. The parking area shall be designed to have a February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 47 minimal impact on surrounding residential properties. In addition, supplemental zoning regulations address parking, landscaping, access, illumination, and signage. The unit density per acre for this proposal is 30. The surrounding apartment complexes have an 18 unit per acre density based on a previous maximum density requirement that is no longer in the ordinance for this district. An apartment complex further north on Southland Lane has a 28 unit per acre density that was granted by the Board of Adjustment a few years ago. Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the Conditional Use. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 48 Ordinance No. 07-08 An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for an apartment in the Business B-2 District. Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said Conditional Use shall be approved for an apartment on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35 feet thereof and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition with the following conditions: none All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: February 26, 2008 SECOND READING March 11, 2008 PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS __________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 49 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 5, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #7- Prairieland Partnership LLP has submitted an application for a Conditional Use on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35 feet thereof and Tract C of Lot 5, Southbrook Addition. The request is to establish an apartment use in the Business B-2 District. (Heuton/Gregg) Motion to approve the Conditional Use. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Item #7 – Peter Mork of Prairieland Partnership stated the apartment would contain one and two bedroom units. Hanson noted that the plan indicated underground parking and surface parking at the rear of the lot. Gregg inquired about the run-off from the site. Lanning replied that a final drainage plan would be required prior to approval of the building permit application. Cameron asked about traffic congestion on the street. Hanson responded if that occurred, options would be to consider removing parking from one or both sides of the street. Fargen inquired about the unit density of the project. Hanson replied that apartments in the area generally had 18 units per acre, but no specific unit per acre density was in the ordinance for apartments in the B-2 District. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 55 Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 9. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 Applicant: Dean Krogman Proposal: Up-zone an unplatted parcel from low to medium density residential Background: This area was part of a larger parcel that was rezoned from R-1A to R-1B in 1979. A preliminary plat was in place at that time and was subsequently revised in 1992. The specific area has remained undeveloped, but the construction of single- family homes has been ongoing to the south and east. The land to the west is owned by a church and is vacant. The map indicates the adjoining zoning districts and the current platting of lots and streets. Specifics: This rezoning would permit single and two-family dwellings to be constructed, by right, in this area. The existing platting does not allow for much flexibility in a redesign of blocks and streets. Therefore, density may not change a great deal other than by the reconfiguration of lots based on the 1992 preliminary plat. Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the rezoning. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 56 Ordinance No. 09-08 An Ordinance to Change the Zoning within the City of Brookings Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota, described as follows: the E610 feet of the W1,110 feet of the S640 feet of the N1,150 feet of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. In accordance with Section 94.7 of Article I of Ordinance 25-02 of the Code of Ordinances of Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III and IV of Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is hereby altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: February 26, 2008 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: March 11, 2008 PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS ______________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 57 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 5, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #8 – Dean Krogman has submitted a petition to rezone the E160 feet of the W 1,110 feet of the S640 feet of the N1,150 feet of the SE¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. (Cameron/Kurtz) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Item #8- Heuton asked what the potential density was for a development with this proposal. Hanson replied that the R-2 District generally permitted five to eight units per acre depending upon whether the plans were for one-family or two-family dwellings. Cameron felt the zoning was appropriate given the R-3 District to the north and the R-1B District to the south. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 62 Sec. 94-126. RESIDENCE R-2 TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT (a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a density of six to eighteen dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single-family, two-family, townhouse and multiple-family residential uses plus support facilities such as schools, parks, churches and community and public buildings. (b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title, when referred to in this section, are the regulations of the Residence R-2 Two-Family District. (c) Permitted Uses. 3. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. 4. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages, parking areas, etc. (d) Permitted Special Uses: A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in conformance with conditions prescribed herein: 1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Sections 94-124(d)(R-1A) and 94- 125(d)(R-1B). 2. Single-family zero (0') sideyard dwelling. a. A maximum of four (4) attached dwelling units are permitted. b. Additional lot area requirements apply (subsection f of this section). 3. Funeral home or mortuary. a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector street. (e) Conditional Uses. 15. Vocational or trade school 16. Retirement or nursing home 17. Group home 18. Major home occupation 19. Public recreation facility 20. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge 21. Domestic abuse shelter 22. Townhouse 23. Apartment or condominium 24. Boardinghouse 25. Office 26. Bed and breakfast establishment 27. Fraternity/Sorority 28. Day Care Facility (f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations. The R-2 district regulations shall be as follows: Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 63 Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Single-Family Dwelling 7,500 7,500 50' 25' 7' 25' 35' SF 0' Sideyard 2 Units 6,000 12,000 80' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall SF 0' Sideyard 3 Units 5,000 15,000 100' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall SF 0' Sideyard 4 Units 4,500 18,000 120' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35' on non- party wall Two-Family Dwellings Condominiums Townhouses 2 Units 4,950 9,900 65' 25' 7' 25' 35' 3 Units 4,100 12,300 80' 25' 7' 25' 35' 4 Units 3,675 14,700 95' 25' 7' 25' 35' Apts, Condos, Townhouses* 5 or more Units 2,420** 16,000 100' 25' 7'*** 25' 35' Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max. Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Other Allowable Uses 7,500 50' 25' 7'*** 25' 35 *Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling unit exclusive of required building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3) of the landscaped area shall be located in a continuous, single tract which contains no portions thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to either the entire width February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 64 or entire length of said tract. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential uses according to Section 94-401. **A maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed. ***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more stories in height. Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual rooms. (g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-2 District are buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district. (h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI. (i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 5 of article VI. (k) Other Regulations. Development within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in article II. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 65 Ordinances – 1st Readings ** 10. 1st Reading - Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. Public Hearing: March 11, 2008 The City approved Ordinance No. 18-06, which authorized the City to require a drainage plan for all projects involving one acre or more of land area. This requirement was intended to require a drainage plan for existing platted lots that were requesting a building permit. However, there are a few final-platted lots in residential subdivisions that would be requesting a building permit to build a residential home. Under the existing ordinance, the lot owner would be required to submit a drainage plan and build a detention pond on one individual residential lot, which was not the intention. A single family or two-family structure and driveway would not add a substantial increase in runoff. This ordinance amendment would allow an exception to the drainage plan requirement for single-family or two-family dwellings on a lot containing one acre or more of area. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 66 Ordinance No. 10-08 An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS THAT SECTION 22-36 AMENDMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: I. Section 106.2.1 Site Plan The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a final drainage plan for all projects involving one acre or more of land area. The final drainage plan shall conform to the city approved master drainage plan. All drainage facilities including storm sewers, on-site detention, drainageways, detention basins and detention channels shall be designed in compliance with approved engineering design standards and are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Exception: A final drainage plan shall not be required to be submitted with an application to construct a single-family or two-family dwelling on a lot containing one acre or more of area. First Reading: February 26, 2008 Second Reading: March 11, 2008 Published: CITY OF BROOKINGS Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 67 Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings 11. 2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 08-08 - Campaign Finance Amendment. To: Mayor Munsterman, Council Members, Jeff Weldon, City Manager, and Shari Thornes, City Clerk From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney Date: February 7, 2008 Re: Campaign Finance Requirements for Local Ballot Questions The South Dakota Secretary of State, in his publication entitled “South Dakota Campaign Finance Reporting Guidelines 2008”, addressed the applicability of the new, comprehensive campaign finance requirements established in State law to local elections. The following excerpt is the Secretary of State’s explanation: Application of Law to Local Government Elections (SDCL 12-27-39 & 42) The South Dakota campaign finance disclosure statutes apply to county offices and ballot questions in counties with population greater than five thousand according to the most recent Federal census and school district offices and ballot questions in school districts with more than two thousand average daily membership. School districts covered by these statutes must conform to the contribution limits applicable to legislative offices. The requirements of the State law do not apply to any township, municipal or special purpose district offices or ballot questions. However, the governing body of any county, township, municipality, school district, or special purpose district may adopt these requirements, with or without amendments, by passing an ordinance or resolution that makes the requires applicable to the jurisdiction. Any statement, form, or filing required by this Act shall be filed with the county auditor in the case of a county office election, with the school business manager in the case of a school district office election, or with the person in charge of the election in the case of other political subdivisions or special purpose districts. Since we have, several years ago, adopted a specific campaign finance disclosure ordinance for the office of mayor and council, it seems appropriate to simply add to it by adopting the portion of State law which requires campaign finance reporting concerning local ballot questions. The reporting forms and time for reporting are all established in State law, and these are incorporated by the reference made in the proposed ordinance which accompanies this Memo. As a February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 68 result of our ordinance, those who campaign concerning a ballot question which is on the municipal election ballot must report according to State law. They must also follow the definitions provided by State law and file their reports according to the State law schedule with the reports filed with the City Clerk. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Approve February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 69 ORDINANCE NO. 08-08 An Ordinance Establishing State Law Requirements For Campaign Finance Disclosures For Municipal Ballot Questions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: I. Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements for Municipal Ballot Questions. In accordance with SDCL 12-27-39, the campaign finance disclosure provisions of SDCL Chapter 12-27 which pertain to ballot questions shall be applicable to all municipal ballot questions. II. Brookings Ordinance Section 2-35, which establishes campaign financing disclosure requirements for mayor and council member candidates, shall continue in full force and effect. III. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: February 12, 2008 SECOND READING: February 26, 2008 PUBLISHED: February 29, 2008 CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 70 Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings 12. Public Hearing and Action - Resolution No. 20-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-01SWR, Sidewalk Assessment Project. The 2007-01SWR Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter repair project was a project to replace landowner sidewalks causing trip hazards. Resolution 50-07 authorized the sidewalk assessment project, the project was completed in 2007 and the final change order was approved. The resolutions to prepare the assessment roll and fix the date for the hearing have been approved and the assessment is ready to be levied. The assessment cost for each landowner is calculated by using their specific sidewalk cost plus the 6% engineering and administration fee. Each landowner was mailed a copy of the assessment roll showing the cost for each property and a notice of this hearing. The assessment roll gives each owner a breakdown in cost showing sidewalk, valve replacement and concrete sawing. This resolution will levy the assessment and authorize the Finance Office to send each owner a bill for the repairs. The payments are recovered into the assessment fund. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call City Manager Recommendation: Approve February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 71 Resolution No. 20-08 Levying Assessment for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR WHEREAS, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under Project No. 2007-01SWR. (2007 Sidewalk Repair Sites) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: 1. The City Council has made all investigation which it deems necessary and has found and determined that the amount which each lot or tract will be benefited by the construction of the sidewalk improvement heretofore designated as Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR is the amount stated in the proposed assessment roll. 2. The assessment for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR is hereby approved and the assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every lot, piece or parcel of land thereby described. 3. Such assessments, unless paid within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing of a statement of account by the City, shall be collected by the City in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Sections 9-43-30 to 9-43- 41, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967, as amended with interest of 10% on the unpaid balance. 4. Assessments amounting to less than $300.00 shall be paid in one payment. Passed and approved this 26th day of February 2008. CITY OF BROOKINGS __________________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 72 Name Sidewalk Location Mailing Address City/State/Zip TB Partnership 103 6th Street 611 6th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Rogerio Gomes 125 7th Street 125 7th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Chris Bauman 206 Harvey Dunn 1406 3rd Street Brookings, SD 57006 Theo Mittan 222 8th Street 222 8th Street Brookings, SD 57006 First Lutheran Church 325 8th Street PO Box 300 Brookings, SD 57006 Zeno Wicks 612 5th Avenue Box 342 Brookings, SD 57006 Christofer Eberline 616 5th Avenue 616 5th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Richard Gray 616 8th Avenue 616 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Douglas Filholm 202 7th Street 202 7th Street Brookings, SD 57006 TB Partnership 629 12th Avenue 611 6th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Patrick Lyons 703 8th Street 1620 Robin Road Brookings, SD 57006 Mark Kelsey 711 8th Avenue 711 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Charles McCullough 715 8th Avenue 715 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Curt Kabris 716 8th Street 716 8th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Lavonne Moller 721 8th Avenue 721 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Kent Resmen 724 12th Avenue 1301 Orchard Dr. Brookings, SD 57006 Kyle Prodoehl 718 12th Avenue 3026 Sunny View Dr. Brookings, SD 57006 Lonny Beynon 725 12th Avenue 5801 Josh Wyatt Dr. Sioux Falls, SD 57108 Carol Pitts 729 12th Avenue 725 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Gilbert Family Trust 804 6th Avenue 605 9th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Patricia Fishback 835 6th Avenue 423 8th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Kyle Prodoehl 908 8th Avenue 3026 Sunny View Dr. Brookings, SD 57006 Kirk Simet 917 6th Avenue 917 6th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran 919 9th Avenue 919 9th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Todd Haaseth 923 & 925 2nd Avenue 1016 Hammond Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Brian Artz 1017 3rd Avenue 1017 3rd Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Paul Moriarty 1031 3rd Avenue P.O. Box 705 Brookings, SD 57006 Dale Ishol 1049 7th Avenue 3305 Sunny View Dr. Brookings, SD 57006 Brad Farber 1303 7th Street 701 Railway St. Bruce, SD 57220 February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 73 Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings 13. Public Hearing and Action - Resolution No. 21-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-07STA, Alley Assessment Project. The 2007-07STA Street Assessment Project was a project to pave the alley from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue between 4th Street and 5th Street. The project was completed in 2007 and the final change order was approved. The resolutions to prepare the assessment roll and fix the date for the hearing have been approved and the assessment is ready to be levied. The assessment cost per front foot is calculated as follows: the total project cost plus 6% engineering and administration fee is divided by the total number of front feet, which gives the resulting per front assessment cost. Resolution 33-07 authorized the construction of this alley, with the estimated front foot cost of $34.00 as well as stipulating that the assessment can be paid over a five year period at 10% interest. The actual assessed front foot cost for this alley will be $27.29, which is the actual construction costs plus the 6% engineering and administration fee. Each landowner was mailed a copy of the assessment roll showing the cost for each property and a notice of this hearing. This resolution will levy the assessment and authorize the Finance Office to send each owner a bill for the repairs. The payments are recovered into the assessment fund. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call City Manager Recommendation: Approve February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 74 Resolution No. 21-08 Levying Assessment For Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA Whereas, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under Project No.2007-07STA (Alley from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue between 4th Street and 5th Street) Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: 1. The City Council has made all investigation which it deems necessary and has found and determined that the amount which each lot or tract will be benefited by the construction of the street improvement heretofore designated as Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA is the amount stated in the proposed assessment roll. 2. The assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA is hereby approved and the assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every lot, piece or parcel of land thereby described. 3. The assessment shall be divided into five (5) equal annual installments for alleys. 4. Such assessments, unless paid within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing of a statement of account by the City, shall be collected by the City in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Sections to 9-43- 51, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967, as amended. 5. Interest of ten (10) percent per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the assessment. Passed and approved this 26th day of February 2008. CITY OF BROOKINGS __________________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 75 Name Parcel No. Address City/State/Zip Ryan Bauer 40565-00500-002-00 417 9th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Richard Bentass 40565-00500-003-00 816 5th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Sheldon Mohor 40565-00500-005-00 810 5th Street Brookings, SD 57006 David Dotson 40565-00500-006-05 802 5th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Jeff Pitts 40565-00500-008-00 410 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006 Robert Hall 40565-00500-009-00 805 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Rosemary Heilman 40565-00500-010-00 809 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Mary Grebel 40565-00500-011-00 813 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Ruby Schulz 40565-00500-012-00 817 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 Carl Kline 40565-00500-013-00 825 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006 February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 76 Other Business. 14. Action on funding to transportation providers - Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) and Safe Ride Program. February 19, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Transportation Funding Request At the last council work session, you heard a presentation from Brookings Area Transit Authority regarding funding and services for this year. BATA’s service levels have experienced a change due to the cessation of services from the taxi company. Previously, you provided supplemental funding to BATA in the amount of $25,000, the Safe Ride program for $5,000, and the taxi service in the amount of $50,000. For the 2008 budgets, BATA and Safe Ride made budget requests while the taxi service did not and all transportation funding was lumped together in an amount approximately $85,000 to be disbursed later. In addition, you approved enabling legislation authorizing the Transportation Committee to further study transportation issues. It was, and remains, unknown as to any transportation initiatives this Committee may develop that would need funding. The Committee’s work is just beginning. In the meantime, these two requesting service providers are two months into their fiscal year without their appropriation from the City. BATA’s budgetary request was $50,000, double the previous year’s appropriation. In the absence of any necessary appropriation for the taxi service and given the fact BATA is picking up service levels previously met by the taxi, the question of an additional appropriation for BATA would be prudent. That was the purpose of the presentation at the last meeting. Staff recommendation: I would recommend you direct staff to make a budgetary appropriation to the Safe Ride program in the amount of $5,000 and BATA in the amount of $25,000 for their continued levels of service. I would further request you authorize an additional $25,000 for BATA for their increased levels of service. This leaves approximately $30,000 unencumbered in the transportation line item for future issues. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Approve February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 77 Other Business. 15. Discussion and possible action on a contract for Engineering Services with HDR to do a Traffic Modeling Study for 34th Avenue/20th Street Overpass Improvement Project. February 19, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Engineering proposal from HDR Attached is a proposal from HDR Engineering from Sioux Falls for the traffic modeling study for the proposed 34th Avenue/20th Street South overpass improvement project. This is the project that has gained considerable attention due to traffic and safety concerns along 6th Street between 32nd and 34th Avenues. Many of the businesses in the industrial park have also brought to our attention the need to develop an additional alternate route for employees who work in the east I-29 industrial and commercial area. Discussions have revolved around improving the surface of 34th Avenue from Prince Drive south to 32nd Street South. In addition, the project would include construction of an overpass at I-29 along 20th Street South. This would require the construction of 20th Street South from 22nd Avenue South to 34th Avenue South. The latter section of this street extension goes outside the city limits along the alignment boundary between Aurora and Trenton townships. The proposal from HDR is attached. Such projects need a qualifying traffic modeling study to be eligible for state and federal construction dollars in the future. The cost of the study is $119,602 plus $5,954 in reimbursable expenses. This cost estimate is reduced from an earlier proposal as we asked for a revision in the scope of services pertaining to the ramps at the 32nd Street South overpass as well as other considerations. Attached are two letters sent to the Brookings County Commission and the East Brookings Business and Industry Association asking for cost participation in the study from Mayor Munsterman. The East Brookings Business and Industry Assn. is a non- profit organization initiated by Al Kurtenbach with membership from businesses in this area for purpose of promoting additional economic development. It may not be completely formed yet I know it is in the process of being developed. A staff recommendation would be to approve 50 percent of the cost contingent upon favorable responses from these two inquiries. If either of them do not materialize, staff will bring the issue back to the council with further recommendations for options. I would also recommend funding our share of the project using the remaining February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 78 $30,000 of the unencumbered transportation budgetary item and the balance of $32,778 from the sales tax reserve fund. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Approve February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 91 Other Business. 16. Action on a Request for Building Upon the Public Right-of- Way from Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD, at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota. To: Brookings City Council From: Jackie Lanning, Brookings City Engineer Date: February 19, 2008 RE: Donna Ramsay application to build in the public right-of-way Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD, made application to me on February 19, 2008, to request permission to build in the public right-of-way at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota. Several documents were submitted as part of the application, which are attached. During October, 2004, the City Council discussed the issue of building in the public right-of-way. The City Council approved Resolution No. 68-04 which established criteria for building in the public right-of-way and Ordinance No. 24-04, which established exceptions to building in the public right-of-way. The resolution and ordinance are attached. Ordinance No. 24-04 states that the City Engineer shall review the application and issue a recommendation to the City Council. I have reviewed the application with the assistance of Greg Miller, Building Services Administrator, and the following comments summarize my position regarding each of the criteria in Resolution No. 68-04: 1. The applicant shall explore other alternatives that might remove the need for the use of public property. We have not been provided with documentation showing how other alternatives were explored. Two examples would be exploring the possibility of converting a window into an accessible entrance or constructing a recessed doorway. An example of the documentation of these or other alternatives would include “why” a window entrance couldn’t be used or why the doorway couldn’t be recessed. The applicant could also describe why the ramp couldn’t be built at another entrance or location, and why the ramp couldn’t have been on the inside of the building so there was access to the restrooms. Mr. Ramsay indicated verbally that the size of the deck is necessary for ADA purposes, but did not provide any other documentation. This criterion has not been met. 2. Applicant is required to have the property surveyed by a licensed land surveyor to determine the actual location of property lines. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 92 The applicant provided a land survey which is included and the City’s land survey by CDI is also included. There are minor differences between the surveys, but the general conclusion is that the deck does encroach into the public right-of-way. 3. Applicant shall apply for a permit and include an accurate site plan showing exaction location of the proposed structure and the severity of the intended encroachment into the public right-of-way. The applicant submitted the drawing provided by their land surveyor, which is attached. However, we have requested additional information about the deck including: dimensions of the deck (height above ground, length, width, ramp dimension), rise and run of the ramp, dimensions to the bottom and top rail height and spacing between spindles. The applicant indicated verbally that the height of the deck is 39 inches. This additional deck information is required on any building permit for a deck to assure it conforms to the building code. This deck is subject to the 2003 International Building Code because it is a commercial building. The requested information has not been received at the time of this memo, and I will update the City Council verbally as to the status of this criterion. This criterion has not been met. 4. Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance policy with a hold harmless clause for the life of the structure located in the public right-of-way. This requirement shall also apply to succeeding owners, specifically indemnifying the City of Brookings from any liability resulting from the construction and location of the structure in the public right of way. Prior to the transfer of property which includes a structure in the public right-of-way, the seller shall notify the buyer of the liability policy requirement. Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Liability Insurance, and has indicated that they are not able to obtain a hold harmless clause. I do feel there is a liability issue for the City regarding an obstruction in the right-of-way, and it is unknown if the City could transfer this liability to the owner of the structure. There is also a liability concern as to who would pay for repair costs if the deck was damaged by a vehicle. 5. The encroachment must not diminish sight lines at any sidewalk and street intersection. The sight lines to the south for pedestrians traveling east on the sidewalk are diminished due to the proposed location and bulk of the deck. 6. The encroachment into the public right-of-way will not be granted for more than 30% of the width of the sidewalk measured from the property line to the back of curb of the adjacent street. In no case shall the encroachment into the public right- of-way exceed a distance of 36 inches. February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 93 The deck encroaches approximately 14% into the public right-of-way sidewalk, which has a total width of 11.5 feet. The encroachment is less than 36 inches. 7. Said encroachment in the public right-of-way shall be removed if the principal building is removed or destroyed. Applicant states they will comply with this criterion. 8. Materials used to build the structure in the public right-of-way, as well as its height, proportion, and scale, shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building and adjacent buildings. The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission shall promptly review the architectural compatibility of the proposed structure and provide official statement comment to the City Council (City of Brookings Code of Ordinances Chapter 46, 10-97 (a) (b)). The materials used to build the structure conform to the building code. The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission will provide comments regarding this criterion. 9. If the structure is not designed to be permanent in nature, it should be durable enough to function properly in its intended service to the principal building. Applicant intends to properly maintain the structure. 10. The structure in the public right-of-way shall be attached to the principal structure or have its own frost footing. This structure is not required to have a frost footing according to the building code, and it conforms to this criterion. 11. Upon removal of the structure from the public right-of-way, the applicant shall reapply for a new permit before building a new structure in the public right-of-way. Applicant states they will comply with this criterion. Based upon the lack of information for Criterion 1 and 4, diminished sight lines and the liability issue of an unnecessary obstruction in the City right-of-way, I recommend denial of this application for the structure in the right-of-way. If I receive additional information prior to the February 26th Council meeting, I will provide that to the Council as well as an updated recommendation. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Concur with staff and recommend denial of application February 26, 2008 City Council Packet 109 17. Adjourn.