HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2024_10_01Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
September 3, 2024
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Tanner Aiken called the meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on Tuesday,
September 3, 2024, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers Room #310 on the third floor of the City &
County Government Center. Members present were Tanner Aiken, Kyle Jamison, Scot Leddy, Jacob
Limmer, Roger Solum, and Debra Spear. Nick Schmeichel was absent. Also present were Community
Development Director Michael Struck and City Planner Ryan Miller. Also present were Todd Fergen,
George Houtman, Scott Thompson, Daniel Rhody, Lyle Pudwill, Lynda Pierce and Kelan Bludorn.
Item #1— Roll Call
Item #2 —Approval of Agenda
(Solum/Spear) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #3 —Approval of Minutes
(Limmer/Spear) Motion to approve the August 6, 2024 minutes. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #4 — Convene as Board of Adjustment
Item #4a — Todd Fergen requested a variance on the East Half of Lot 9, Lot 10 & the West 13 feet of
the West Half of Lot 11 all in Block 2 of Skinners Second Addition, also known as 815 5th Street. The
request was for a 5 -foot side yard setback.
(Solum/Limmer) Motion to approve the side yard setback variance. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #4b — Scott Thompson requested for a variance on Lot 14 in Block 8 of Folsom Addition, also
known as 102 Folsom St. The request is for a 17.5 -foot front yard setback for an accessory building.
(Solum/Spear) Motion to approve the front yard setback variance. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #4c — Daniel Rhody requested a variance on Lots 3 and 3A of Weiland Addition, also known as
528 West 8th St S. The request was for 14 -foot sidewall heights for an accessory building.
(Limmer/Solum) Motion to approve the sidewall height variance. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #4d — Brookings Health System requested variances on the East 221.4 feet of Outlot B in Section
30, Township 110, Range 49 and the West 39 feet of Block 5 in Mayland Addition, also known as
2311 Yorkshire Drive. The requested variances included exceptions to Sec. 94-399 Landscaping and
Sec 94-399.1 Bufferyards.
(Metcalf/Limmer) Motion to approve the landscaping and bufferyard variances. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
Item 95 — Reconvene as the Planning Commission
Item #6 — Other Business
Item 96a — Prairie Hills, LLC submitted a petition to rezone Lot 2 in Block 3B of Prairie Hills
Addition from a Planned development district (PDD) with B -2A underlying to a PDD with B-2
underlying district.
(Jamison/Solum) Motion to approve the rezone. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 46b — The City of Brookings proposed amendments to the City's zoning ordinances located in
Chapter 94, Article VI, Division 3, pertaining to Sec. 94-395 related to the regulations or porches,
decks and platforms within required yard areas.
(Solum/Spear) Motion to remove item from the table. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
(Solum/Jamison) Motion to amend item #5 of zoning ordinance amendment and add stairs "or ramps."
All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
(Motion made 8/6/24) Motion to approve the amendments to the regulations for porches, decks and
platforms within side yard areas. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
Item #6c — The City of Brookings proposed amendments to the City's zoning ordinances located in
Chapter 94, Article IV, Division 2, pertaining to Sec. 94-165 related to the regulations for the
Commercial corridor design review overlay district ("CCOD").
(Limmer/Jamison) Motion to approve the amendments to CCOD. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item #6d — The City of Brookings proposed amendments to the City's zoning ordinances located in
Chapter 94, Article IV, Division 2, pertaining to Sec. 94-163 related to the regulations for the Planned
development district ("PDD").
(Solum/Limmer) Motion to approve the amendments to PDD. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
Item 96e — Staff explored areas along Main Avenue South for future land use map revisions. The areas
included Main Ave/12th St S - 15th St S, Main Ave/20th St S - Blue Bell Dr, Main Ave 2400/2500
Block, Main Ave/26th St S - Sweetgrass Dr, Main Ave/32nd St & Main Ave/35th St S - 37th Street S.
Item 97a — Adiourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Ryan Miller Tanner Aiken, Chairperson
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
September 3, 2024
OFFICIAL SUMMARY
Chairperson Tanner Aiken called the meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on Tuesday,
September 3, 2024, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers Room #310 on the third floor of the City &
County Government Center. Members present were Tanner Aiken, Kyle Jamison, Scot Leddy, Jacob
Limmer, Roger Solum, and Debra Spear. Nick Schmeichel was absent. Also present were Community
Development Director Michael Struck and City Planner Ryan Miller. Also present were Todd Fergen,
George Houtman, Scott Thompson, Daniel Rhody, Lyle Pudwill, Lynda Pierce and Kelan Bludorn.
(Following is a summary of the meeting and not a word for word dictation. Please see the City's website to
view the meeting video for full details. https://ciiyofbrookings.legistar.com/calendar.aspx )
Item #1— Roll Call
Item #2 —Approval of Agenda
Item 93 —Approval of Minutes
Item #4 — Convene as Board of Adiustment
Item #4a — 815 5th Street was a single-family home located on an interior lot between 8th Avenue
and 9th Avenue. The 1/3 acre lot was located within a Residence R-2 Two-family district and the
Central Residential Historic District. The applicant would like to construct an attached garage addition
to the existing home to replace an existing detached garage which had a 5 -foot side setback to the east
lot line. Single family homes in R-2 districts include 7 -foot side setback. A detached building could
have a 5 -foot setback to the side and rear, however, due to the positioning of the existing detached
garage within 10 -feet of the dwelling, the required setback for the current garage would also be 7 -feet.
The proposed location of the addition would utilize the existing driveway to 5th Street. The east side
yard of the home is larger than the west side, making it the most feasible for a garage location. The
proposed project was required to go through the 11.1 Historic Review and received approval from the
State Historic Preservation Office in terms of the project's perceived impact on the historic district.
Fergen stated that his neighbors were in support. Houtman, project contractor, said that losing 2 feet of
width would make it impossible to install a garage door on the front of the addition. Jamison asked if
the intention of the garage door to the north was to allow for access from the ally. Fergen stated that he
would like to go all the way to the rear setback with concrete. Struck clarified that single family
dwellings were required to maintain 50% of the rear yard as green space and the proposed plan was
within that requirement with the driveway going all the way to the ally.
Item #4b — 102 Folsom Street was a single-family home located at the corner of 1 st Avenue South
and Folsom Street on a 50 -feet x 140 -feet lot with a rear alleyway. The lot was located in a Residence
R -3A district. Setbacks in the district included 20 -foot front yard, 7 -foot side yard and 25 -foot rear
yard setbacks. The existing home built in 1918 had a 17.5-f6ot setback. The applicant wanted to match
this setback with a new detached garage constructed behind the home within the front yard setback
along Folsom Street.
Thompson was available for questions. Spear asked if the location of the garage was where the existing
shed was. Miller said the shed would need to be removed or relocated to build the garage. He went on
to explain that the house was constructed prior to the setback ordinance and was nonconforming.
Thompson stated that access to the garage would come off the ally.
Item #4c — 528 W 8th St S was a single-family home located south of the Brookings Airport.
The 4.26 acre lot was located within an R-lA Single-family district. The applicant wanted to construct
a 40x40 (1,600 square foot) detached garage behind the home. On a two -acre lot, detached garages
may be up to 2,000 square feet or no larger than the total square -feet of the first story of the home,
whichever is less. Sidewall heights were limited to 12 -feet in the side or rear yards and the overall
height may not exceed the height of the home. The proposed project would meet all of these
requirements with the exception of the 14 -foot sidewall height. The overall height of the garage would
not exceed the height of the home.
Rhody explained that he had a tractor with a snowblower to maintain the property and a camper that
required taller overhead doors.
Item #4d — The Brookings Health System proposed a demolition and reconstruction at 2311
Yorkshire Drive. The former clinic would be demolished and a two-phase redevelopment was
proposed. The applicant sought variances to required landscaping and bufferyards on the site. As a part
of the redevelopment, a replat was required due to irregularities with the existing lots. Through the
replat, the new lot will be 3.76 acres located between the church and the Neighborhoods at Brookview.
The eastern portion of the lot included a parking lot, stormwater pond and landscaping. The western
portion of the lot was recently rezoned to Business B -2A Office -district consistent with the eastern
half. The adjacent properties were zoned R-3 Apartment District. The proposed redevelopment
included a phase one building located in the southwest corner of the lot. The building met the front
yard setback and was proposed with a 20 -foot side yard setback. With the R-3 zoning of the church lot,
a minimum 20 -foot setback was required with a landscaped bufferyard or a 25 -foot setback would not
require landscaping. A majority of the building had a 22.5 -foot setback however the closest portion
had a 20 -foot setback. The 20 -foot setback contained gas, water and electric service as well as a
retaining wall along the southwest corner. The applicant wanted to avoid planting trees in the required
bufferyard area due to the planned utilities. Likewise, existing utilities were located along the north lot
line limiting the ability to plant trees. The northern property line was a common ownership line with
the Brookings Health System on both lots, the hospital to the north and the future clinic to the south.
The required setback from a parking lot to a side or rear lot line when bufferyards are required was 15 -
feet. The applicant proposed keeping the parking lot as it was with a 10 -foot setback and sought an
exception from required bufferyard plantings. Overall, twenty-two trees were required based on the
existing and proposed surfaced area of the replatted lot. Twenty-five trees would remain after
redevelopment. In addition, a number of trees existed between the church and the clinic building,
however, these trees were not located on the health systems property. A three-foot foundation planting
bed was required around the perimeter of the building. The applicant requested to leave out a
landscape planting area on the north side of the new building where a future phase 2 was proposed.
Overall, the variances sought included a 20 -foot side bufferyard structure setback (west) with no
required tree plantings, 10 -foot rear bufferyard parking setback (north) with no required tree plantings
& elimination of 3 -foot foundation planting on north side of phase one building.
Pudwill, Confluence landscape architect, was available for questions. Aiken asked the reasoning for
the area zoning being residential. Miller stated that the church and hospital were allowed to remain in
the residential zoning but the zoning had the bufferyard and tree planting requirements that other
zoning would not require.
Item #5 — Reconvene as the Planning Commission
Item #6 — Other Business
Item #6a — The area to be rezoned was Lot 2 in Block 3B of Prairie Hills Addition, a 1.03 -acre lot
located at the southeast corner of 20th Street South and Tall Grass Parkway. Adjacent zoning included
Residence R -3A multi -family district to the north, PDD with Business B -2A Office underlying district
to the east and south and Business B-2 district to the west. The area was located within an Urban Low
Intensity future land use according to the comprehensive plan which supported the request for B-2
zoning.
Pierce stated that corner lots were prime drive thru locations which were allowed under the previous
132A zoning. Bludorn, property owner, was available for questions. Miller said that the FDP was
approved with the removal of the drive thru. If this was approved it would need to be seen by Planning
Commission again for approval with the drive thru lane.
Item #6b — The new ordinance read:
(a) Open, unenclosed porches, decks and platforms may project into a required yard area as follows:
(1) Ground and entry level porches, decks and platforms may project into the front yard no more than
ten feet and in no case may be closer than ten feet from the front lot line.
(2) Porches decks and platforms leading to the second story and above may project into the front yard
no more than 6 feet and in no case may be closer than fourteen feet from the front lot line.
(3) Attached porches, decks and platforms may project into the side yard setback no more than four
feet. Detached porches, decks and platforms may not encroach into the side yard setback.
(4) Attached porches, decks and platforms may encroach into the rear yard setback a distance not
greater than 20 percent of the minimum required setback. Detached porches, decks and platforms may
not encroach into the rear yard setback.
(5) Stairs leading to an approved porch, deck or platform may exceed the allowable projections
described in Sec. 94-395.(a).
Solum motioned to include handicap ramps in item 45.
Item #6c — The overlay district was established in 2021 to guide City staff, Planning Commission and
City Council in their reviews of development located within the districts along 6th Street, Main
Avenue, 20th Street South and 22nd Avenue. There was a desire to allow for administrative review if a
proposed development met all the requirements in the overlay district ordinance. Plans that did not
meet all of the requirements of the overlay district would need to seek exceptions from the Planning
Commission and City Council. In order to help staff and developers understand whether or not
exceptions would be necessary for a proposed development, staff also made a number of changes to
the overlay district ordinance in order to clarify the intent of the ordinance and remove subjectivity in
certain sections of the code. An exemption for developments located with a Planned Development
District (PDD) was removed and a companion ordinance amendment to Sec. 94-163 would also be
presented in order to understand the development process for PDDs located within the overlay district.
The name of the overlay district is also being shortened to the Commercial corridor overlay district.
Struck noted that the changes incentivized builders to build to standards to save time. Spear asked if
the changes would only include commercial buildings within historic districts and if residents would
receive notification of a new project. Miller explained that standard residential buildings were exempt
and mixed-use buildings would be required to meet the CCOD. Struck stated that there was still the
11.1 historic review process but no notifications would be sent. He went on to say that the city could
implement their own notification process but it was not required by the state. Certain types of rezones
would require comment from State Historic Preservation Commission. Miller noted that there was a
10 -day legal notice in the paper as part of the 11.1 historic review. Aiken asked if there was a notice
triggered regardless of historic status in CCOD. Miller stated that the notices only go out if there was a
rezone but not if the project was compliant with existing zoning. Spear asked if there was an allowance
for corner lots to dictate that the access be on the non-commercial corridor street. Miller said that it
would allow for front parking on the secondary frontage and if the project was located on 2
commercial corridors it would not allow front parking. Leddy expressed that the "buildings will be
placed close to the facing street" under 94-165.2 a could potentially cause issue. Aiken discussed
"pedestrian scale" and that by pushing the buildings closer to the street you encourage less speeding
and more pedestrian traffic. Leddy commented that he liked the look of the buildings closer to the
street on Main Ave, etc but with 6111 St being a state highway it pushed the pedestrians towards the
traffic.
Item 116d — Proposed amendments to the Commercial corridor design review overlay district
include the removal of an exemption for development within a Planned Development District. The
intent is to place an emphasis on the site design requirements of the commercial corridor overlay
district while also incentivizing development that meets those requirements by exempting the final
development plan so long as the initial development plan is consistent with requirements of the
commercial corridor overlay district.
Aiken asked if a project meets CCOD for administrative approval what are the steps. Miller explained
that an Initial Development Plan (IDP) would still be required to be seen by Planning Commission for
a rezone and then approved by Planning Commission with any exception followed by City Council. If
all requirements were met the approval could be administrative.
Item #6e — Staff explored areas along Main Avenue South with considerations for future land use map
(FLUM) revisions. Each area included potential staff recommendation for the purpose of discussion.
The areas include Main Ave/12th St S - 15th St S'Main Ave/20th St S - Blue Bell Dr, Main Ave
2400/2500 Block, Main Ave/26th St S - Sweetgrass Dr, Main Ave/32nd St & Main Ave/35th St S -
37th Street S.
Main Ave S/12th St S-15 1h St S: Struck inquired if the City should reach out to property owners towards
7th Ave to determine future intentions and possibly update those classifications at this time as well.
Leddy confirmed that the civic area along Mustang Pass was a church. Miller said that Northern Plains
was previously church property and went through FLUM changes to build so it may be proactive to
update that location too. Jamison thought with a dog park and path in the area, having something
pedestrian scale would be great.
Main Ave S/20th St — Blue Bell Dr: Aiken asked if the drainage pond would be a good transition point.
Miller noted that R3 was currently in place which was more urban medium. Southwest of the pond a
developer was looking into multi -family housing.
Main Ave S/2400-2500 Block: Struck proposed changing the FLUM to a higher density due to being a
smaller parcel that would be expensive to develop so either high density residential or mixed use most
likely. Future street would go from 26th St to River Run on the east side of the school. Aiken asked if
the change should include the "boot" to the north. Struck explained that would make sense since it was
all one land owner.
Main Ave S/26th St — Sweetgrass Drive: This is not in floodplain or wetland on new map. Leddy
appreciated the reclassification from wetland with the updated floodplain.
Main Ave S/32nd Street: Aiken agreed that updating the FLUM was timely.
Main Ave S/35th-37th St: Miller explained that recent changes prompted a FLUM cleanup.
Struck reminded everyone that the November meeting would be Monday November 4.
Item #7a — Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Ryan Miller Tanner Aiken, Chairperson