Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_2008_09_020 • 0 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota September -2, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on September 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, Curt Ness, Larry Fjeldos, and Forgen. Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, and John Gustafson, were absent, Also present were Wade Price, Colleen Vukovich, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, City Manager Jeff Weldon, Toby Morris, Wayne Wagner, Beverly Dobbs, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others. Item #1 - (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the minutes from the August 5, 2008 meeting. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #2 - (Fjeldos/Ness) Motion to approve the agenda with the addition of # 3e - Lot 1, Wellness Center Addition and # 7 - Discussion on parking issues. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #3 - The following plats were submitted for action: a. Tracts 1, 2, and 3, Primrose Drive, Morning Glory Drive, Morning Glory Circle, Blue Bell Drive, Blue Bell Circle, Larkspur Ridge Drive, Larkspur Ridge Circle, and portions of 20th Street South and Western Avenue South in Moriarty Heights Addition (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. b. Lot 6, Block 1, Telkamp Addition (Heuton/Gregg) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. c. Lot 4, Block 4, Lots 3 - 5, Block 6 and Lots 5 - 7, Block 7, Bluegill Addition (Ness/Gregg) Motion to approve the plat subject to appropriate utility easements. All present voted aye except Fargen abstained. MOTION CARRIED. d. Lots 1 - 9, Block 4, Lots 1 - 8, Block 5, BlairHill Second Addition S:\City Engrs\ dms\ pc \minutes\ PC-2008-09.doc (Fjeldos/Gregg) Motion to approve subject to appropriate utility easements and a signed stormwater drainage assurance agreement. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. e. Lot 1, Wellness Center Addition (Ness/Heuton) Motion to approve the plat. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #4 - VPMN Partners has submitted an application for a Conditional Use on the following described real estate: the west 1/2, W 1/2 of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, excluding Lot H-1, Block 11, Skinner's Second Addition, also known as 1016 6m Street. The request is to establish an apartment use in the Business B-2 District. (Ness/Heuton) Motion to approve the conditional use. (Heuton/Ness) Amendment to the motion to require a landscape area abutting 6m Street to include a 30 to 40 square foot area for plantings. Ness and Heuton voted aye. Gregg and Fjeldos voted no. Fargen abstained. AMENDMENT FAILED. • The motion was voted on. All present voted no except Fargen abstained. MOTION FAILED. Item #5 - Oakwood Equity Group LLC has submitted a project plan for Tax Incremental District 4. (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the project plan. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #6 - The City of Brookings has submitted a petition to rezone Lot 3, Nelson Eighth Addition from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1 B District. (Heuton/Fjeldos) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. e meeting was adjourned. Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson Brookings City Planner S:\City Engrs \ dms \ pc \minutes\ PC-2008-09.doc 2 • • -10 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota September 2, 2008 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on September 2, 2008 at 7;00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, Curt Ness, Larry Fjeldos, and Fargen. Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, and John Gustafson, were absent. Also present were Wade Price, Colleen Vukovich, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, City Manager Jeff Weldon, Toby Morris, Wayne Wagner, Beverly Dobbs, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others. Item #3c - Heuton asked if the pond would capture all the run-off from the subdivision. Lanning replied that the stormwater drainage plan indicated that all flows would go to the pond. Item #3e - Hanson explained that the lot encompassed the new Wellness Center next to the HPER building on the SDSU campus. Item #4 - Wade Price, representing VPMN Partners, stated the apartment would be on the second floor and contain three (3) bedrooms. Heuton was concerned about the location of the building on the lot. He also felt the community's image was important regarding the redevelopment of the block. He recommended that approval should be subject to additional landscape requirements since the block had little landscaping now. Price noted that he would like to save the evergreen tree, but the elm trees would go. Fargen asked if parking off the alley was for the apartment. Price replied yes. Fjeldos felt the project was too large for this size lot. He favored clustering businesses in other areas versus packing them in on 6th Street. Fargen remarked that the current number of property owners on the half -block was too numerous to think that a unified plan could be attained. Colleen Vukovich, another partner, stated their project would make the block more attractive, but they could not control other properties. Item #5 - City Manager Jeff Weldon stated the project plan was very similar to the plan for TO # 3. The Sieler Addition had 33 residential lots that would be developed with lower priced homes. The developer would obtain the loan and front the costs. The city would reimburse the developer with the tax increment generated in the district. He added that the project would have to be competitively bid. S:\City Engrs\ dms\ pc \minutes\ PC-2008-09.doc 3 Toby Morris of Northland Securities stated the projections indicated a 10 year payoff. He reiterated that the developer assumed the risk. Morris added that the timetable was to build 15 homes in 2009 and 18 homes in 2010. The target price per home was $160,000. Wayne Wagner, a partner in Oakwood Equity Group LLC, stated he had built about five (5) homes in the $160,000 range. Fjeldos remarked that, if the purpose was to build affordable housing, low income families may not be able to afford a home priced over $120,000 to $130,000. Wagner responded that the $160,000 was the high end. Their emphasis would be on energy efficiency to keep monthly costs down. Fargen asked what the savings per house would be with the TIF. Weldon replied that an easy method would be the loan amount divided by the number of houses. However, this excluded debt service costs. Fargen inquired as to how resale values were determined. Weldon remarked that a subsequent buyer would pay market rate. Heuton supported the project and felt a TIF project was one of only a few methods to build affordable housing. Fjeldos also felt the market was efficient and hoped that the homes would be affordable and that developers understood their role in making these projects attractive. 11911 Item #6 - Hanson stated that the 3.3 acre parcel was considered surplus land. The city would prefer to rezone it prior to any sale. A drainage easement would be retained along the east side. Item #7 - Beverly Dobbs, a citizen, felt the city needed an ordinance that required stricter parking regulations for rentals or for properties with too many cars. Hanson responded by summarizing the history of zoning regulations and how they impact legal, non -conforming buildings. He stated that parking regulations have been changed several times over the years but must be applied consistently based on the use of the property. Tom Dobbs, a citizen, felt change was needed to some degree. Fargen remarked that the parking regulations could be discussed at a future meeting. The meeting was adjourned. Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg F� arg Chairperson Brookings City Planner S:\City Engrs \ dms \ pc \minutes\ PC-2008-09.doc 4 • TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Dan Hanson, City Planner , DATE: August 25, 2008 RE: Staff Report for the September 2, 2008 meeting Item #3 - FINAL PLATS a. Moriarty Heights Addition - A similar plat was approved in February 2008. That plat was never filed since there were issues regarding the location of detention areas (tracts 1, 2, and 3). This plat indicates the final layout of the rights-of-way and location of detention areas. Easements are correct as shown. City Engineer's Comment: We have received and approved the final drainage plan for this development. I recommend approval of the final plat. b. Telkamp Addition - This plat is a replat of three lots platted in 2006, The Final Development Plan approved last month conflicted with the existing easements. Therefore, a revised plat was created that eliminated internal easements by creating one lot. Easements are not shown on this draft plat. A stormwater detention plan would be required prior to approval of a building permit. City Engineer's Comment: A final drainage plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. I recommend approval of the final plat. c. Bluegill Addition - This plat coincides with the preliminary plan approved in 2005. Easements are not shown. The stormwater detention plan has been approved. City Engineer's Comment: The final drainage plan for this development has been approved. The detention pond is located on the south end of this development. I recommend approval of the final plat. d, BlairHill Second Addition - This plat matches the preliminary plan approved in May. One additional easement has been recommended by Brookings Municipal Utilities so approval should be subject to the proper easements. City Engineer's Comment: The drainage flows from these lots are being incorporated into the final drainage plan that is being completed for the 15th Street South/Camelot Drive/Christine Avenue Street Assessment Project. The drainage flows from the BlairHill lots shown on this plat would be managed in the City's large detention/retention pond just south of this development. The City will be working with the developer regarding an assurance agreement relating to the final SACity Engrs \dms\ pc \staff reports\PC-2008-09.doc •City Planning Commission August 25, 2008 Page 2 drainage plan and the costs associated with the drainage improvements. I recommend approval of the final plat contingent upon an assurance agreement. ITEM #4 - CONDITIONAL USE Proposal: Construct a mixed use commercial building with offices and an apartment Background: A single-family dwelling has existed on this lot for many years. The remaining north half of this block has a bank, a movie rental store, an office/apartment use and two residences. The entire half block is zoned B-2. Specifics: The B-2 District permits an office use, by right, and an apartment by conditional use. The proposal is to have offices on the main level with up front parking, The second level will have an apartment with parking off the alley. An existing approach off 6th Street would be shared by the bank and office. isAdjacent properties consist of a mix of retail, office, and residential uses. This proposed use would be similar, and the impact of the development on the adjacent properties would likely be minimal given its design and size. i Item #5 - TI #4 PROJECT PLAN Proposal: Review and act on the various elements of a tax increment project plan as required by SDCL Chapter, 11-9. Background: The Planning Commission recommended approval for the creation and declaration of boundaries of Tax Increment District #4 on August 5, 2008. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council on August 26th. Specifics: The following excerpts from SDCL 11-9 pertain to a project plan: 11-9-13. Recommendation of project plan by commission --Statement of improvements proposed, costs, and plan for financing. In order to implement the provisions of this chapter, the planning commission shall prepare and adopt a project plan for each tax incremental district and submit the plan to the governing body. The plan shall include a statement listing: S:\City Engrs\dms \ pc \staff reports\PC-2008-09.doc •City Planning Commission August 25, 2008 Page 3 (1) The kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the district; (2) An economic feasibility study; (3) A detailed list of estimated project costs; (4) A fiscal impact statement which shows the impact of the tax increment district, both until and after the bonds are repaid, upon all entities levying taxes upon property in the district; and (5) A description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs and the time when related costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred. No expenditure may be provided for in the plan more than five years after a district is created unless an amendment is adopted by the governing body under § 11-9-23. 11-9-14 Definition of project costs. 'Project costs" are any expenditures made or estimated to be made, or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred, by a municipality which are listed in a project plan as costs of public works or improvements within a tax incremental district, plus any costs incidental thereto, diminished by any income, special assessments, or other revenues, other than tax increments; received, or reasonably expected to be received, by the municipality in connection with the implementation of the plan. 11-9-15. Specific items included in project costs. Project costs include, but are not limited to: (1) Capital costs, including the actual costs of the construction of public works or improvements, buildings, structures, and permanent fixtures; the demolition, alteration, remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of existing buildings, structures, and permanent fixtures; the acquisition of equipment; the clearing and grading of land; and the amount of interest payable on tax incremental bonds or notes issued pursuant to this chapter until such time as positive tax increments to be received from the district, as estimated by the project plan, are sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the tax incremental bonds or notes when due; (2) Financing costs, including all interest paid to holders of evidences of indebtedness issued to pay for project costs, any premium paid over the principal amount thereof because of the redemption of such obligations prior to maturity •and a reserve for the payment of principal of and interest on such obligations in an amount determined by the governing body to be reasonably required for the S:\City Engrs\ dms\ pc \staff reports\PC-2008-09.doc 3 •City Planning Commission August 25, 2008 Page 4 • marketability of such obligations; (3) Real property assembly costs, including the actual cost of the acquisition by a municipality of real or personal property within.a tax incremental district less any proceeds to be received by the municipality from the sale, lease, or other disposition of such property pursuant to a project plan; (4) Professional service costs, including those costs incurred for architectural, planning, engineering, and legal advice and services; (5) Imputed administrative costs, including reasonable charges for the time spent by municipal employees in connection with the implementation of a project plan; (6) Relocation costs; (7) Organizational costs, including the costs of conducting environmental impact and other studies and the costs of informing the public of the creation of tax incremental districts and the implementation of project plans; and (8) Payments made, at the discretion of the governing body, which are found to be necessary or convenient to the creation of tax incremental districts or the implementation of project plans. 11-9-I6. Statement as to zoning and property use impact --Relocation methods, The plan required by § 11-9-13 shall also include: (1) A map showing the existing uses and conditions of real property in the district, (2) A map showing the proposed improvements and uses therein; (3) A map showing the proposed changes of zoning ordinances; (4) A statement listing changes needed in the master plan, map, building codes, and municipal ordinances; (5) A list of estimated nonproject costs; and (6) A statement of a proposed method for the relocation of persons to be displaced. S:\City Engrs\dms\pc\staff reports\PC-2008-09.doc 4 •City Planning Commission August 25, 2008 Page 5 • r� U Item #6- REZONING Proposal: Establish a low-density residential district Background: The City of Brookings purchased this property from an abutting landowner in 1998. Land to the north, west, and southwest has been developed for low-density residential uses. Land to the east is in a high-density district but is currently undeveloped. Specifics: The lot contains 3.3 acres and fronts on 15fh Street South. An R-1 B District designation would allow for four to possibly eight housing units depending upon the subdivision design, It would also be compatible with adjacent land use patterns. An existing drainageway would need to be retained along the east side. A drainage easement over this area would be established prior to the sale of the property. DKH:dms S:\City Engrs\dms\pc\staff reports\PC-2008-09.doc 5 s To: Planning Commission members From: Dan Hanson Date: September 2, 2008 RE: Parking problems raised by local citizen I have attached a "Speakout'letter to the Brookings Register from Beverly Dobbs regarding parking problems in her neighborhood. I Ms. Dobbs is proposing that the city require on -premise parking spaces based on the number of vehicles owned by the occupants of a particular residential building. The issues that would need to be addressed with this type of proposal are as follows: • A legal, non -conforming use is protected from adhering to new zoning;,. regulations. This is a common element in all zoning ordinances. It basically means that you can't create new, stricter regulations and make them retroactive to existing uses (unless those uses are changed/converted voluntarily to another use). Many residentiaf properties existed prior to the adoption of the official zoning • ordinance (Brookings incorporated in 1881, zoning ord. adopted 1966). Applying zoning regulations retroactively on developed property could lead to near takings lawsuits on many properties. • Requiring additional parking regs based on the number of vehicles on the ` premises would be extraordinarily difficult with apartments where this number could swing considerably from year to year. The city currently prohibits boulevard and front yard parking. It also, restricts access drives onto residential properties. These regulations would come under fire from owners of small lots in old neighborhoods where there simply wasn't any option for even one more parking stall. This would be particularly difficult on some corner lots and lots without alley access. • Even though the city has on -premise parking regulations, an owner or tenant does not have to park on -premise. On street parking along the curb is permitted throughout most of the city for up to 72 hours. • Tracking vehicle ownership and determining if all the vehicles owned by certain individuals are actually on a certain premises would be a daunting task. 0 r 0 Readers air their v ew Lit mat than a letter to the editor allows. We need new parking regulations I am writing to express my concern with our current parking laws, or the total lack of parking laws, in the residential areas that were built before 1966. Houses that were built after that have parking laws, but we in the older neighborhoods don't seem to deserve this protection. As a result, we have cars everywhere, lining the streets to the point where accessing the street from the opposite j*w_cPPAis daPgecous.-There is the con- it noise of cars starling, doors slam- ming and just the overall problems of auto congestion. I've discussed this problem the city manager's office. I have taken the prob- lem to the City Council and they sent it to the City Planning Commission. I will attend that meeting Sept. 2 and ask to pre- sent my proposal of what I think should happen. I have contacted the city attorney and have asked for his opinion on the legal aspects of the issue. He is at present reviewing the laws regarding this and will get back to me with some answers. I have talked to the city manager's office and am told that changing the park- ing law are impossible because no laws existed when these people bought the houses to use as rentals. The person in the city manager's office maintains any changes would be very unfair to the people holding the proper- ties and using them as rentals. However, I see the lack of regulation as very unfair to people in these residential areas that have to put up with all this congestion and safety hazards. With the total lack of any parking reg- ulations, the renters can maintain any number of vehicles they want (15 or 20 per residence are acceptable). However, many of these houses were built to accommodate only two vehicles.. I would propose to the City Planning Commission and to the City Council that THIS SPEAKOUr WAS WRrrTEN BY BEVERLY we make some DOBBS Of new ordinances BROOKINGS to try to alleviate this burden on the many home- owners who live in the home they own and who would like a more peaceful and safe neighborhood. When we moved into our house this problem didn't exist; but changes have been made to allow owner -occupied homes to be converted to rentals that can be occupied by several unrelated individ- uals.. _L ,Would propose that further changes need to be added to protect the homeowners living in their homes from this situation and from our property val- ues being affected. Because the city manager's office is telling me that the laws cannot be changed on existing rentals, I would fur- ther propose that an ordinance be written to affect any properties that become rentals after the date of the enactment of the ordinance and that as properties are sold, then they too will become affected by this ordinance and have to adhere to it. This would start addressing this problem. The ordinance would need to say sim- ply that all rentals in the neighborhoods built before 1966 provide adequate off- street parking for the number of vehicles involved. If the renters have six or seven vehicles among them, then six or seven off-street parking places must be there. If that is impossible, they will need to put fewer renters into a unit or have them park their cars in some other planned space. Keep in mind that all neighborhoods built after 1966 already enjoy this protec- tion. I ask that those of you who are dealing with this problem and would like to see changes made to better your neighbor- hood, call the City Planning Commission and the City Council and express the desire to see new a new parking regula- tion put into effect.