Good evening, everyone again.

We will now call the meeting to order.

Um, I would like to welcome those in attendance at tonight's meeting.

The City Planning Commission is a nine member commission whose function is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters.

The commission makes their recommendation based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive.

After a motion is moved and seconded, it is open for debate.

Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons.

Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons.

After everyone has been given a chance to be heard, the commission shall review the testimony and information presented, make finding effects, and forward their recommendations to the city commission.

Mike, would you uh call the roll?

Yeah, roll as noted with Commissioner Heinrichs absent all others present.

Thank you.

Is there approval of tonight's agenda?

So move so second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Agenda pres is approved as uh presented.

Is there a motion to approve um last meeting's October seventh meeting minutes?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Meeting minutes are approved.

Um at this time, any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation or request a time on the agenda for an item not listed.

Items to be added to the agenda will be scheduled at the end of the meeting.

Any requested action items may be scheduled for a future meeting date.

Individuals will state their name and city of residence for the record.

Public comment is limited to a maximum of three minutes per person.

The comments and views expressed by the public are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the City of Brookings or city planning.

Is there anyone that would like to be added to the agenda?

Seeing none, we'll move forward.

Um we will now convene as a board of adjustment.

The Board of Adjustment is a seven-member board which has the power to hear requests for variance variances and special exceptions.

The concurring vote of two-thirds of the full board membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board.

In accordance with Robert Rules of Order, we require a motion to approve a request before requests can be debated.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive.

Notices hereby given that Andrew Rostreim has made a request for two variances on the West 330 of the south half of outlaw four in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 23 Township 110 range 50, also known as 1214 Western Avenue.

The first request is to extend an accessory building beyond the allowable square footage.

The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a lot used for residential purposes in the R1A district shall not exceed 25% of the rear yard area or 1,000 square feet of all floors combined, whichever is less.

The second request is to build an accessory building three and a half feet from the rear lot line per section 94 394A.

An accessory building located upon a residential lot shall not be within five feet of any side or rear lot line.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you.

The variance before you tonight is at 1214 Western Avenue.

The applicant is Andrew Ostrheim.

This property is located in our residence R 1A single family district.

In this particular case, the the section of the ordinance is referenced where it's limited to 25% of the rear yard or a thousand square feet, whichever's less.

Currently, there is a detached accessory building on the property uh comprising approximately 2,800 square feet.

The second variance request is for a rear lot line setback.

Uh detached accessory buildings can be built five feet from the property line.

Uh they're proposing to build this particular one three and a half feet from the rear property line.

Um the staff recommendation on this is denial with all variances.

The Board of Adjustment has the ability to approve or deny.

Um with that, the property here is shown uh outlined in yellow at 1214 Western Avenue.

As you zoom in, uh the red outline area is where they're proposing the addition.

You can see just to the north of there, there are uh the detached accessory buildings currently on site.

Um, with that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, is there a motion to approve the variances?

Um yeah, a motion to approve both variances.

Thank you.

Second, thank you.

Um we will now open public hearing and ask for any testimony.

Is there anyone in favor that would like to come forward and speak regarding this matter?

I'm I am Andrew Rostram.

I guess I live at 1214 Western Avenue where I've lived for 22 years or something like that.

Um raised a family, four kids.

Definitely uh a staple in the neighborhood.

Um over the years I've acquired a fairly large car collection, and I've ran out of room.

Uh I'm here tonight to ask for the variance, which uh Mike and Scott have just described to you.

Um couple of notes I'd like to point out.

I guess um my proposed addition would still be 30 feet from my south lot line and about but only about a foot and a half, like they say, uh, or three and a half feet from the rear lot line.

Um this isn't exactly your average residential property.

Um, it's 330 feet long by 99 feet wide, it's 32,000 square feet.

Um that exterior build accessory building uh as you describe it, uh would be still less than nine percent of the proper of the total property.

Um neighborhood cons uh currently consists of uh one residence to the south of me, uh which has what I believe is a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard.

So it's it's definitely an industrial there.

Um they got a 2500 square foot building that's a foot off my property line, another four thousand some square foot building further back to the east and north of me is industrial zone contractor.

Um, if anything doesn't belong in this neighborhood, it's my house, frankly.

Um it's uh the neighborhood in itself uh is not your average residential neighborhood.

Um there's no sidewalks, there's no curb and gutter.

Um I have a four-foot road ditch, kind of what's similar to what you'd see out in the country, not residential city neighborhood.

Anyway, I'd like to uh just say, you know, that I think this is a perfect example of uh the reason that this board and this process exists is a um because not all properties are exactly the same, and and this is a place where it makes sense to have a bigger building, bigger garage.

Anyway, any questions.

None at this time.

Thanks, Andrew.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak uh for or against the variants?

Doug Ostrom, uh owner, majority owner of the property just to the north of this at 1222, and the property that will be right next to the uh proposed addition.

I am speaking as the owner of the property and not necessarily uh because I'm a relative of the party involved.

So I've been involved with that property out there for almost 30 years.

We uh it's been a very mixed use neighborhood.

The property the South was at one time a plumbing business.

It's now a uh masonry business, even though it has a house there, it's also a business.

Uh our property to the north uh was uh construction business, mills construction, and then we after we bought it became the location roster and landscaping.

Uh some years back, we bought the back part of what was 1214 Western Avenue and added it to ours.

But just to the north, there's one house, and then you skip over that.

There's another contractor, uh, which has been several different contractors have been on that property since I've been involved.

And then of course, beyond that, it's the ready mix plant.

So across the roads the Legion Hall.

Uh very mixed use neighborhood, has been since in the 50s, I believe.

Definitely not typical.

All of those properties originally had a quarter mile depth.

Uh 1214 had a quarter mile depth until we bought the back part of it.

But uh as I was looking over the thing today, nobody is gonna be able to see this addition.

Not even Rander's house will you really see it because of the fences.

And our property, the only way we'll see it is if we walk back along South Light Lot line and purposely turn around and look back towards the buildings.

Uh typical day-to-day operation.

I doubt if I'd ever even notice it there.

So uh now there's usually vehicles parked there, so I think this building would actually be more attractive.

I certainly urge you to consider approving this motion.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak regarding this matter?

Seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing and open for board discussion.

Anyone Mr.

Chair, Mike, what is the reasoning behind staff's recommendation to deny?

Uh just being consistent with the ordinance.

Um, with residential properties, uh there's the limitations at 25% or a thousand square feet, whichever is less.

And you know, that's the basis really for the recommendation.

Mr.

Chair, a couple questions for staff, if I may.

Um Mike, do we know was there another variance for the existing structure that's back, or is this just a pre-existing I I think it's kind of pre-existing.

Um at one point in time with accessory structures, you could be within three feet of a side or rear property line.

We moved it to five feet um five, six years ago to align with the building code issues.

Uh and so some of those, you know, they've been some of those buildings have been there for quite some time, and so um they're non-conforming uses.

I I don't recall seeing any variances for these previous structures.

Um they were probably built, you know, some time ago, or they complied with the ordinance at the time, and then as the ordinance has changed, it's um put them into a non-conforming status, or even with the splitting off and selling of the of the um back half of the lot.

Sure.

Uh then the second question is do we know what the total percentage of the rear yard is that they're taking up by adding this?

Or roughly does it exceed 25%?

I guess is the base of my question.

I don't believe we've calculated that because you look at 25% or a thousand square feet, and they're at about 2800 square feet.

And so um it's the lesser of the two, and since they're already over that thousand um square feet, that's just kind of what we went with.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh Mike, do you know if any of the buildings like around it are required any variances?

Like I'm looking at a lot of these.

This whole area has.

I mean, I can just look one, two, three, four.

I mean, there's five buildings just in the view of this that are that are still going to be larger than this one that even with his addition.

So were any of these recent?

I do recall a variance and a nearby property.

I believe it maybe had something to do more with the floodplain.

I think it varies depending on the zoning districts.

Um this is unique because it's a residential zone property.

I think some of the properties adjacent or in the vicinity are accommodation of maybe a B3 or an I one type zoning, and so the regulations change a little bit differently on the sizes.

However, there if it's an industrial building, there still would be a setback area.

So yeah, there is a lot of non-conforming structures out in this area.

If the addition were to connect the two buildings, it would stop technically being an accessory building, wouldn't it?

Um it would be in order to not be classified as an accessory structure, they would have to be attached to the house.

Um so yes, if you did an addition onto the house and eventually connected to all the buildings, it would technically be part of the primary structure.

What generally happens though with that is now you get into building code issues where they have to do footings, foundations, uh fire rating, and such when it starts to become when it's attached or within a certain proximity distance to the primary structure, uh the building code requirements trigger additional items that they would have to consider.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh I do have one more.

Uh the zoning of the uh parcels to the north, east, and south, they're all some flavor of industrial.

Is that correct?

I'm pulling that up on my computer right now.

There is some R1A to the south, I one to the east and north, B3 more industrial to the north, um to the wet northwest is uh I one R3A directly across the street to the west, R1A as you move to the southwest.

Thank you.

Any others seeing none, we'll call the vote, Mike.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson, yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Braun.

Yes.

Solemn?

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Letty.

Oh, sorry.

No.

Correct.

Nope.

So uh it passes 7-0.

Um, when you're ready to proceed, uh just key please get a building permit from the building services division down in uh suite 140.

Thanks, Mike.

Moving on to the next agenda item 5B.

Notice is hereby given that Kevin Grunwald has made a request for a variance for lot four, block three of oil's addition and lot 13, block two of Henry's addition, also known as 208 8th Street.

The request is for a two-family dwelling on a 64-foot lot.

The required lot width for a two-family dwelling in the residents R2, two family district is 65 feet.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Chair.

Um the applicant is Kevin Greenwall.

He's requesting a variance at 208 8th Street.

Uh this is located within the R2 two-family district.

The request is for uh variance to the lot width requirements for a two-family dwelling.

Um the current lot dimensions are 64 uh feet wide uh with a two-family dwelling in the R2 district, the minimum lot width is 65 feet.

Um you can see the the parcel here located on A Street outlined in yellow.

Um it's a little difficult to see on the overhead, but uh there is an alley.

Uh they can meet the off-street parking requirements um off the alley, and then they're proposing a parking pad off of the A Street as well.

Um the request is simply uh at this time he is one foot shy of meeting the minimum lot with requirements.

Uh the staff does recommend approval of the variance requests, as always with the board of adjustment.

You have the ability to approve or deny such request.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, is there a motion for the variant?

So moved.

Aiken?

Second, solemn.

Thank you.

Um we will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variants?

Good evening, I'm Kevin Grunwalt.

I've uh been taking on distressed properties all over town and uh remodeling since uh 2000, and this one was a condemned house that was here.

Um I I have since put on a new foundation.

The intention is to have an entrance off the front and the back.

There's more enough adequate parking and a three-stall garage.

Um we have as it's laid out, um, eight stalls outside, three more additional in the garage space.

The neighborhood around there is multiple duplexes, uh, one directly to the south, directly to the north, apartment buildings, um two lots down, commercial just down the alleyway, um, two more duplexes just to the east of there.

So there's a lot of rentals, um, and obviously, as there's a lot of construction going on here in Brookings, you know, we need to look at parameters of like how do we adapt some of these properties we have that we can't fully use.

Uh because of the standards we've set up for itself, which is not horrible, because some neighborhoods, you know, they're just family-oriented.

You know, we should just have families live in those, and some we need to adapt to make them a little bit nicer, and sometimes the only way we can do that is if um we spend a little money in remodeling them.

But the only way you can spend the money is if you have a little bit money coming in to make these neighborhoods a little bit nicer, if you can.

So with this particular one, like I said, it was a condemned house.

Um the family could not live there anymore.

So I've moved forward to start remodeling it now.

So now I'm just asking to make it duplex status.

Um about it.

You guys have any questions?

None of that's time.

Thank you, guys.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or opposed to this variants?

I'm Christy Tarnquist.

I own the property at 314A Street.

And I just had a question about the parking pad, how that would lay out in the front of the house.

So there's not currently a parking pad there at this time.

They would need to get uh a driveway permit.

The driveway uh can be allowed uh to be in the front yard as long as it's leading to a garage or the side or rear yard.

Uh they'll have to look at um that driveway to what extent that it can extend in front of the house.

So you know, once they have you know the houses measured on site, that'll dictate really how large that parking area could be.

It's essentially considered a driveway.

So you're allowed access off the street um through the front yard to a side or rear yard for a driveway.

Mike, could you clarify?

Is the garage on the A Street side or the alley side?

The alley side.

The alley side.

Yep, yep.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh just one uh clarification if I if I could.

Uh when we're approving this, we're not in approving the site plan, we're just approving the use as a two-family residence, correct?

What you are approving is the variance to the minimum lot with requirements of 65 feet.

Great, thank you.

Any others?

Seeing none, uh Mike, would you call the vote?

Limmer.

Yes.

Jameson.

Yes.

Speer.

Yes.

Braun.

Yes.

Solem.

Yes.

Akin.

Yes.

Schmeichel.

Yes.

Uh motion is approved.

Variance is approved.

Uh please get a building permit for any work that is needed.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, next item on the agenda 5C.

Notice is hereby given that Sterling Fenning has made a request for a variant on lot 60 of River Ridge, also known as 236 Heather Lane West.

The request is to expand the existing driveway to 41 feet.

First section 94 343 B for A.

The width of a driveway may be expanded proportionally to match a garage that has a width of 24 to 36 feet.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh the applicant is Sterling Fenning at 236 Heather Lane West.

Uh, this is located in the joint jurisdiction area in the uh River Ridge edition.

Uh it is currently zoned uh residents R1B single family district in the um residential districts, driveways are limited uh to the width of the garage.

Um, and then they have the ability to be expanded an additional 12 feet um within that front yard setback area.

Uh this is the location that is shown uh outlined in yellow.

Uh what they're proposing is um expand the driveway five additional feet uh to 41 feet in total width within that front yard setback area, and so essentially um creating a slight parking pad off to the side.

Um staff does recommend approval.

Um and then the board of adjustment has the ability to approve or deny such requests, and I'd stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, is there a motion to approve the variants?

So move.

Second.

Second.

Thanks, Roger.

We will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variance?

My name is Sterling Fetting.

If you look at the drawing that's on the screen right now, the proposed driveway is to access a garage that we are attempting to get permanent as well.

That was we were told that would get permitted.

So it's a it's a driveway to access the garage.

It's hard to read, but that says future garage in that white area.

So I was told by the city that that would be approved if it met the lot lines requirements for that space.

Thank you, Sterling.

Um is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this variance?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board comment.

Anyone?

Mr.

Chair.

Um Mike, would the with the parking pad or with the parking extension?

Um is there any way to do this where it's pending approval of the garage versus I guess it for the variance, it's not extending just a parking pad past the garage, the current garage, right?

Like it's just for the front.

Commissioner Schmeichel, if I understand where you're going with this, is you're concerned about approving this, but then the garage never gets built, and now you just have a large parking.

Um, once the variance is approved, uh it's approved for that driveway with within the front yard setback, regardless of whether or not the structure is actually approved.

Uh they do have maximum of three years from the date of approval to complete the improvements.

And then the variance would, if not done, then the variance is voided and they'd have to come back and ask for approval again.

Correct.

But the the approval does this also include like could they pour concrete where the garage expansion is?

Is this approving all of that or just the front yard stuff?

It's just the front yard.

Um once they get beyond that front yard setback, as long as they meet the zoning and building code requirements, they can get the necessary permits and proceed forward.

Um they could technically build them the garage addition as is now, but they would have a smaller, well, they really wouldn't have a paved access to it, they'd have to drive over grass to it.

Any others?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Mike?

Jameson?

Yes.

Speer?

Yes.

Braun?

Yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion is approved.

Thank you.

Um next item on the agenda 5D.

Notice is hereby given that Mary E and Thomas M.

Fishback have made a request for a variance on lot 3C of block 2 in the Americana edition, also known as 2101 Freedom Street.

The request is to install a six-foot-high ornamental iron fence in the front yard setback.

The maximum height allowed in between the front lot line and principal building is four feet in a residential district.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Uh the applicant for this proposed variance is Mary and Thomas Fishback at 2101 Freedom Street.

Uh, the property is zoned residence R1B single family district.

The request is to install that six-foot high ornamental iron fence in the front yard setback.

Uh we have particular uh zoning regulations in place uh for fencing, in particular with this particular property, it's technically a um has two front yards because it's a corner lot, and as you look at the site plan, uh the fence is proposed to extend eastward and then north, and so it's really this part here to the east that is under consideration tonight.

And so it's really this part here to the east that is under consideration tonight.

Uh the rest of the fencing is all appropriate.

Uh there is no issues with sight lines here.

That's one of our biggest concerns when we look at uh fencing in the front yard and particular with corner lots.

Uh it doesn't uh present any site line visibility issues.

It's also an iron rod type fencing, so it's 75% uh transparent see through.

So uh there are no concerns from staff on this particular variance requests.

Uh the recommendation is for approval, and as the board of adjustment, you have the ability to approve or deny, and with that I'd stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, is there a motion to approve the variants?

So move solo.

Second, Aiken.

Thank you.

Um we will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variance?

Um anyone that would like to speak in favor or against the variance.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open for public comment.

Or excuse me, board comment question.

Anyone?

Mr.

Chair.

Mike, did the application say I couldn't see anything in it?

Was there anything on a hardship on this?

It's just it's uh it's a very large lot.

I think these are actually a couple of lots that were platted into one.

It's a corner lot with the two front yards.

Uh we had similar requests for similar type fencing that have been approved in this neighborhood in the Americana edition.

Um really the applicant is proposing the the type of decorative fencing for you know to for security safety issues with his uh children.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh yeah, I have one.

So this is uh roughly 70 percent transparent system, but the variance they're requesting is talks about a privacy fence over 48 inches, but this is not a privacy.

It's not a privacy fence, it's for security to keep you know it's the rod iron fencing vertical bars, but what it with uh fencing in the front yards, they're restricted to four feet in height.

They're requesting a six-foot kind of decorative rod iron fencing around the perimeter of the property.

Um it's more for safety of keeping occupants in the yard and not extending out towards the street.

Are there other areas in town where we've denied something like this and said no, you have to build the 48 inches versus the six feet or five feet or whatever?

Usually they are solid fences.

And typically where we get concerns is when there's the uh intersection safety zone, the site triangle.

Um, but with you know, we I believe it's on the corner of um, I think it's Constitution Boulevard and uh 22nd Avenue that we have some similar requests.

I've got a question, Mike.

Um, for this to not need a variance, this entire fence on the east side would need to be four feet, is that correct?

Four feet, or it would need to be moved back to the northeast corner of the house and then run north because the front yard is essentially the plane of the house or the setback for the zoning district, whichever is greater.

So if you were to look at the east side of the house, if you look at that northeast corner, if they came off of that corner of the house, I don't know if if you can see my cursor here.

If you were to come off that corner and run directly north and then over, um, they wouldn't need the variance.

Mr.

Chair.

I just want one more question or clarification from staff.

Uh Mike, if this property wasn't a corner lot, if this is just a standard lot, there would be no variance required, correct, to do the exact same thing.

Correct.

If it was like an interior lot, they could essentially put the fence up to the property line.

Yeah.

Um, and even when we have double frontage lots, which we have some of those, like especially on 20th Street South, they can have a fence, but as long as it's uh it's got to be at least four feet off the property line.

And they can have a solid privacy fence as long as it doesn't uh uh create intersect doesn't violate the intersection safety zone ordinance.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote, Mike Spear, yes, Braun.

Yes, Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

No.

Limmer.

Yes.

Jameson.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, next item on the agenda 5E.

Notice is hereby given that the city of Brookings has made a request for variances on lots one, 1A, 2, and 3 in block 4 of the original plat edition, also known as also known as 203 front street.

The first request is for a reduced front yard setback to 2nd Avenue.

The second request is for a reduced front yard setback in front street.

The minimum required front yard setback in the business B2 district is 25 feet.

The third request is for a 100-foot driveway.

The maximum allowable width for a driveway is 40 feet.

The fourth request is for a fence located within a required landscape area.

In all business districts, fences up to eight feet in height should not be erected between a lot line and any areas required to be landscaped.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Uh the applicant uh for the variance at 203 Front Street is the city of Brookings, in regards to the proposed construction of a new fire station.

This is located in the business B2 district as mentioned.

There are four setbacks associated with this.

Um are related to the front yard setback.

This is a corner lot issue, so there's a front yard to the south and to the west.

The other is a variance for the driveway width.

They're proposing a hundred foot wide driveway, maximum allowed by ordinance is 40 feet.

And then the fourth request is to locate a fence within the required landscape area.

Uh this is the site, it is west of the current uh public safety center.

There's actually a fire station uh right here.

It's planned to be relocated and a new structure built on the highlighted lot.

Um I'll go through each of the setbacks.

The first setback would be to the south of the front street.

That's a front yard setback.

It's very difficult to see on here, but you can see this 25-foot mark here from the property line.

It runs parallel.

There's a slight portion of the building that gets within that, it's less, it's a couple of inches, but it's a technicality, and we hold everyone to the same standard, so they don't meet uh 25 feet.

I think they're looking at for like a four or five-inch set variance to the south.

To the west to second avenue, they are proposing um a setback of eight feet, eight inches, where in the zoning district it would be a required 25-foot setback.

Uh it does not violate any of the intersection safety zone aspects at that intersection where we would come back 25 feet in each direction and draw the triangle, and uh no portion of the building falls within that site triangle.

The third request is for a hundred foot wide driveway.

Uh the proposed new fire station has five bays that uh fire apparatus are parked within.

Um the proposal is is that each bay has direct unobstructed access to the public right-of-way to respond in the event of emergencies.

The fourth request is for the privacy fence to the north.

Um, this is subject to the buffer yard requirements through a combination of fencing and landscaping.

There is what is being proposed to be a buffer to the neighboring property to the north.

Um typically when we get into buffer yard situations, uh the requirement is for tree plantings and shrubs to try and break up a little bit of that skyline view that the neighboring properties would have to see.

They're proposing a combination of uh trees and fencing to accommodate that request.

Um the fire station was looking at this particular location.

One of the things they were trying to do is maintain the same service level in the community, and so um they were somewhat limited on the potential sites to make sure that they still had sufficient coverage for the northwest portion of the community.

They looked at other options going on the south side of the railroad tracks, um, but they were uh leery about compromising coverage um moving a station further away, plus they also the potential if you ever have a train coming through the community at the time that response is needed.

They like to have stations on both sides of the track, and this particular station is um proposed to house one of the light ladder trucks where the other station on the south side of the tracks along 22nd Avenue also houses a ladder truck.

There isn't additional room at the 6th Street station for a ladder truck at this time, and the expansion opportunities are a little bit more limited there.

So that this is one of the preferred sites that they're looking at because it meets the requirements and provides the coverage area that they feel is appropriate for the community.

With that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Is there a motion to approve the variance?

Is so moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Um we will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the variances?

Good evening, everybody.

Um, Jeremy Scott with the Brookings Fire Department currently serving as the deputy chief.

Um, Mike did a very good job of explaining our situation.

Um essentially, we're replacing the station that's existing with the old city hall.

Um that structure has many issues, and that's why we're you know, PD's at also looking to replace their side of it.

Um, our our biggest concern is covering that um making sure we have the coverage area of that northeast or northwest quarter of the city.

Um it's quite a large uh number of calls in that area, excuse me, including the downtown.

Um, and as like Mike said, um it does house our ladder truck and a rescue truck and then a couple engines along with some other vehicles.

Um essentially we're taking the same amount of bays as what we have now, and then it's moving it over to the new site.

Um, the addition off to the side um is basically um allowing us for uh decon for equipment for our um bunker gear.

Um it also includes uh showers um basically so that when we get back from a call or our people get back from a call, they'll have the ability to go in there and um completely shed their gear, shed their clothes, shower, clean up, and go home clean.

Um our biggest concern uh with the decon is that um the risk of cancer with firefighting is significantly higher than uh to a normal person, and we certainly don't want to be bringing that back to our families, and so that's what some of the additional space is on there, also included in that area is uh we call it like a decompression room.

Um it's a room where we can after a bad call, everybody can gather and kind of talk it out, and um you know helps with the mental stress.

Um believe the upstairs is going to be an open shell at the moment.

Um it's kind of uh deceiving on here because it doesn't the upstairs isn't the entire building.

Uh the roof line will be the same all the way across, but only a portion will have an upstairs.

Um, and that's gonna be for future growth, um, whether it be um individual rooms or an open area for other uh gatherings.

So do you guys have any questions for me?

None at this time, thank you.

You bet is there anyone else that would like to speak uh for or against this variance or the variances I'm Stuart Appland.

I live at 313 2nd Avenue, which is right west of everything there.

I'm just trying to figure out the variance on the back of it for like your fence and everything like that.

There actually is what's considered a gutter system you have back there.

I'm just trying to figure out if that's actually gonna be affected by this for the fact of for drainage from both sides of everything around that.

Because for the fact of the dwellings being behind there, you know, because there is families live right behind there.

I'm just trying to hope it's not gonna be affecting any of their buildings per se and things, and for me, I live right west, and for me it's it's I kind of like the idea of being there, but for parking wise, I see you guys got parking spaces, which I talked to a couple of the firefighters that they might say something to people about parking across the street if there's any calls, if they have to stay there longer, which I'm just that's for me, because I live right there and I my wife parks on the street, so it's just nothing that's just the concerns I've had, and uh, but I like the idea of actually doing it because it's needs to stay on the west side of town.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding the matter?

Seeing none, we'll uh close the public hearing and open for board comment questions.

Anyone Mr.

Chair, was is there anything on this that would be similar to what we did for the um I can't think of what it's called now, the mental health facility that was just put up.

This looks very similar in terms of like the trash enclosure and stuff like that.

That's why I was curious.

Yes, uh, Commissioner Schmeichel, uh just north of here there is um the IV center.

Um they we did something very similar with the fencing around the IV center to the on the north side, uh a combination of fencing and then also some uh landscaping materials to kind of as that buffer yard between the Ivy Center and the residential properties.

There's also some things with the uh trash enclosure as well.

One point of clarification.

Um the parking on the west side of the proposed fire station is not subject to zoning approval.

That is um that's not part of any of the consideration tonight.

That is uh um a separate request that needs to be made for boulevard parking.

So in just looking at it, it looks like the on the drawing, the existing drainage is remaining the same, correct?

Is what's there to address his concerns?

I'm seeing um a nodding of approval from the public works director.

I I and I think I'm safe to say this is the structure is actually moving further south than what is currently there right now, with there's um the city has some garage space there, and so that structure will be removed, and the station will actually move further south, so it'll create more buffer between the structure and the neighboring property.

But they are proposing the vegetation and fencing as a screening buffering mechanism.

I the other thing um I also wanted to point out is there are four variances here tonight.

Um forgot to mention if you wanted to take them individually or if you wanted to take them all because they're all interrelated with without one none of them, you know.

That's up to you if you want to decide if you want to break them down on each individual variance or if you want to take them all as as one approval process.

Oh, sorry, I I would say altogether.

That's what my intent was.

Mr.

Chair, I do have a question.

Yes.

Um the high degree of the decon cleaning.

If I'm reading this right, that's at the back of the fire station.

So that would be facing towards the residents.

I believe the area they're talking about is actually the West edition.

That's where the interior space is for the firefighters when they return.

They can remove their gear.

I think it's to the west and a little bit to the north is where they store their gear, they clean their gear, and then they can also go in and shower and put on clean clothes.

And that's what I'm a little concerned about.

Um is there is the drainage possibly going to contaminate any of the drainages already back there?

No.

So this is all inside of the building.

It's washing their clothes and washing machines and hanging them to dry.

There's also, you know, the the gear they they scrub down and clean, um, but that's all contained on site inside the building.

Drainage is not within not is not gonna like no.

They would there would be floor drains inside the building that would be able to capture any of that.

That's what, yeah.

Um none of it would be flowing, none of the from inside of the facility would be flowing out through the so it's not going to be going into any of the drainage that's behind that's simply pass through drainage uh coming from the alley flowing to the west.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any others seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Mike Braun.

Yes.

Solem.

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel.

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Spear.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, we will now reconvene as a planning commission.

Um, first item on the agenda is 6A.

Notice is hereby given that TH companies LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings and Brookings County, South Dakota.

The northeast one quarter of the northwest one quarter, excluding out lot A in Section 310950.

The request is to rezone the above described real estate from the residential R3 apartment district to a residential R1A single family district.

Mike, would you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh the proposal tonight before you is uh application from TH companies LLC for rezoning on property also known as 1115 West 20th Street South.

Uh the proposal is to rezone this from a residential R3 apartment district to a residential R-1A single family district.

Uh the proposal is consistent with our comprehensive plan as this identifies an area as medium density residential.

You may recall this rezoning occurring back in January of 2025.

It when the rezoning was approved for the R3, but it also came along with a large-scale residential development at that particular time.

I believe they were proposing 50 58 lots for two family dwellings, so a total of 116 dwelling units down in this area.

It is a 30.46-acre um parcel.

The development team has revisited this and taken another look at it and felt that it's probably more appropriate to look at going back to more of small acreages down in this area due to the location.

Uh some of the uh neighbors uh concerns.

And so uh in conversations with them, they would like to do the acreage.

Uh the challenge being is on 30.46 acres, once you deduct out for right-away and drainage improvements.

Uh the R1 district has a minimum lot area requirement of three acres, so they're drop them below the 30 acres total.

So then they would only be looking at nine total lots.

They do want some flexibility.

So with the R1A, the minimum lot area requirement is 15,000 square feet, and so that gives them the um the fluctuation to have some potentially three-acre lots, but maybe a two or one-acre lot and and still try and achieve you know somewhere around 15 or so, 10 to 15 residential lots down in this area.

Um staff does recommend approval.

The development review team supports the rezoning request, and the planning commission has the ability to approve or deny.

Um any action taken by the planning commission is a recommendation to the city council.

With that, I would stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, is there a motion to approve the petition?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

Um, we will now open the public hearing.

Um is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the rezone?

Hello, Travis Harsma, uh owner of the land and uh partner in the development.

Mike hit it.

Perfect.

He said everything that I would have said, so that's what we're wanting to do, and that's why we're changing what we were doing before.

So thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or opposed to the uh rezone?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion or comment.

Anyone Mr.

Chair, I just make a comment.

Uh I will vote in favor of this, and I'm I'm glad to see that TH companies decided on a lower density out here.

I think it's much more fitting.

I know there was a lot of um public opinion on that and and some opinion from the our board as well on on maybe dropping that.

So glad to see it.

Thank you.

Any others?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Mike.

Solem.

Yes.

Aiken.

Yes.

Schmeichel.

Yes.

Limmer.

Yes.

Jameson.

Yes.

Speer.

Yes.

Ron.

Yes.

And Letty.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thanks, Mike.

Next item on the agenda 6B.

Notice is hereby given that the City of Brookings has submitted a petition to rezone the following describe real estate in the City of Brookings and Brookings County, South Dakota.

Lot three of block two of Tel Camp Industrial Edition.

The request is to rezone the above described real estate from the industrial I1R restricted district to an industrial I-1 light district.

Mike, would you introduce the topic, please?

Thank you, Chair.

This is an application requested by the City of Brookings.

The city owns this particular parcel over in the Tel Camp Industrial Park.

It's currently zoned industrial I-1R, which is a restricted industrial district.

Similar properties to the north of here have gone through this process of rezoning from the I1R to an I-1.

It's just a little bit less restrictive district.

It allows more of a lot to be developed, and it doesn't come with the same landscaping requirements that you might see on these properties that are adjacent to the interstate.

Thanks, Mike.

Is there a motion to approve the uh rezone?

So I'll move solo.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

We will now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the rezone?

Seeing none, are there any others that would like to speak regarding this matter?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open for board discussion.

Anyone seeing none?

I think it's fairly straightforward.

Um Mike will call the vote, please.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Jameson.

Yes.

Speer.

Yes.

Braun.

Yes.

Solemn.

Yes.

And Letty.

Yes.

Motion is approved.

Thanks, Mike.

Next item on the agenda 6C.

Notice is hereby given that Chad and Kelsey Borchart have submitted an application for a conditional use permit on the following described real estate in the city of Brookings.

Lot six in blocks two, block two of Henry's edition, also known as 709 Main Avenue.

The request is for an office use in the residents R2 two-family district.

Mike, would you please introduce the topic?

Thank you, Chair.

The applicant is Chad and Kelsey Borkhart.

They have acquired the property at 709 Avenue.

This is located within the residents R2 two-family district.

They are proposing an office use in this particular structure in the R2 district.

An office use is by conditional use.

One of them is which it needs to be located on a collector or arterial street.

Main Avenue does satisfy that requirement.

Consideration shall be given to the chat traffic generated by such use, the type of sign, the hours of operation, and the character of the use.

So with this, this is Main Avenue.

There is diagonal parking along Main Avenue.

It's an extra wide street.

It is one of the thoroughfares within the community.

It's a counseling service.

So there's not a lot of additional traffic that is generated by that.

And then parking shall be screened from any adjacent residential areas.

This is their proposal.

So there is off-street parking off the alley that they're proposing.

They're also proposing to provide an off-site or off-street ADA parking ramp in case any of the potential clients coming to the counseling services need accessible parking or access into the structure.

As mentioned, they're not proposing any alterations to the structure.

And what they were looking at for the types with their three office suites, a licensed professional counselor, a licensed clinical social worker, and a licensed marriage and family counselor.

Um the recommendation from the development review team and staff is uh recommendation of approval with the condition that the conditional use is limited to the three office suites and the conditional use is non-transferable.

Um the planning commission has the ability to approve or deny any action is a recommendation made to the city council within it stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Um is there a um motion to approve the um matter permit.

Um please state whether or not you will be including the conditions.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve uh this proposal, including the uh two conditions as listed.

Thank you.

Second second.

Thank you.

We will now uh open the public hearing.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this matter?

Good evening.

Uh Chad Borchard here uh appearing tonight.

My c my wife Kelsey and co-applicant on this uh agenda item could not could not be here.

She wanted to.

Um she is the uh lead therapist in the group practice that Mike referenced.

Um it is called the Growth Collective LLC.

I uh I handle business matters and and things of that nature, so I am here tonight to uh introduce uh this to you.

Uh Mike did a really good job of of his overview.

Um we recently acquired the property at 709 uh Main Avenue, and as you know, and as Mike alluded to, um, this neighborhood does allow for the conditional use of um of a structure to be in office, and that is what we are requesting with this agenda item.

Uh working with city staff, it's my understanding that our site plan does meet the uh standards and criteria as lined out in city code.

Uh but beyond that, I just wanted to briefly add some context as to what our practice entails and the type of use and traffic flow that that it may entail.

And I I add that for the um for this board and also for the community members that might be in uh in attendance tonight.

Uh currently there are three professional clinicians in the group.

Uh they serve about 25 to 30 clients a week.

Uh around half of those sessions are uh occur virtually through Zoom.

Or additionally, um they could occur in an off-site setting.

For example, the um one of the the larger populations that that the clinicians serve are um students like uh children under the age of 18.

So many times our therapist will meet with them at their school and you know, just be able to facilitate a session where that client is doesn't have to leave their school to go see their their mental health uh provider.

Um so with I bring that up only to kind of um kind of set the parameters for what we would see for sessions in office at this particular location.

Um currently we serve between 25 and 30 clients.

Around half of those occur off-site or virtually.

That really only leaves 12 to 15 sessions per week or two to four clients per day that would be utilizing this uh particular um address for for their um for their therapy session.

Um fairly low use.

I would it's I guess it's my personal position that the usage of this building is probably less um what we are proposing would create less traffic than what a single family or uh or you know a rental dwelling would uh would uh create.

So that's kind of an overview there.

Um the three the element that we're that Mike alluded to, having three individual suites within the building, that that really comes down to more bookkeeping for um credentialing with insurers and having a separate mailing address for um the various um providers that that work within the group.

So that's not it's not we're not uh proposing a uh you know massive uh remodel where we would have three distinct businesses operating out of the structure.

It's really more uh for credentialing with insurers and stuff of that nature.

So one last uh thing I do want to add is that um my wife Kelsey started this practice.

Um she did so with the um with the aim to connect clients who need care with the professionals that are able to provide that care.

Um we found that um there are professionals that may have the um the education and the licenses and the um everything you need to provide mental health therapy, but maybe you're practicing uh professionally elsewhere, or maybe you're a uh you know a mother who wouldn't otherwise not be in um in practice.

So one one last uh thing I do want to add is that um my wife Kelsey started this practice um she did so with the um with the aim to connect clients who need care with the professionals that are able to provide that care um many times we found that um there are professionals that may have the um the education and the licenses and the um everything you need to provide mental health therapy but maybe you're practicing uh professionally elsewhere or maybe you're a uh you know a mother who wouldn't otherwise not be in um in practice so that's way why she started this as a group to bring on professionals that might not be practicing kind of on the sidelines but offering them a way to to maybe see three or four clients a week um in addition to their other obligations in their life uh both you know professionally and personally so it's not a it's it's a group practice we do see uh a number of clients but it's not a a practice where we're really aspiring to be a you know hit a lot of um volume or whatnot it's really more about uh providing quality care um the best we can so with that I appreciate the opportunity thanks Chad is there anyone else like that would like to speak on this matter please come forward seeing none um I'm sorry I apologize fast getting my hand um Chrissy Torquest I um live at 727 Maine so just north of this you may remember me from a few meetings ago when another office building was approved um I have similar questions um one is about the signage if what the plans might be for signage I understand that there's rules and I assume they would be complying with that and then um also the I'm wondering if they're expecting most of the clients to be parking in the front or in the back is more maybe the provider parking I understand the ADA would be for potential clients too but wondered if they really thought more people would be entering in the front and then um finally the conditional use again Mike is for the whole building so this is that same question as last time can they choose to use the building for other purposes again um living there renting out say a top floor or something like that or is it now conditional use for office only they're applying for conditional use for the office only so that would entail the entire structure I am looking up the signage question.

I think the proposal is for no more than eight square feet is that right do it's really a question for you like what you're thinking the sign might look like right now nothing of note with every the the question being what our plans were for signage um everything would of course be contingent upon uh this board and the um approval of city council if uh if we're fortunate enough to get that approval we'll um we will conform to the um standards as they are written and would not ask for any additional except you know uh exceptions for signage um very uh minimal signage as you would expect in uh in this district before you go could oh yeah could you also address the front and back um thank you uh right uh so as like on on main avenue uh north of downtown of course this street does have the on-street parking um we don't necessarily want stipulate where uh clients or clinicians would park but I think the natural idea is that the um much like uh I think the downtown district I think the expectation downtown is that the you know the owners of the the businesses would park in the rear um utilize the rear parking of course we do have the ADA component back there um for for uh clients that would need it the wheelchair ramp would be back there as well so we try to we're trying to you know conform to uh or will conform to ADA um with the rear parking uh on street parking of course you know there that that's there I would expect that uh clients would use it as needed but you know with the numbers that we talked about um rarely do we have all three providers uh practicing at the same time so there would be uh rear parking available for uh for client uh for clients to use uh the on-street parking would of course be available uh if it were needed but I don't have but cumulatively for both on-street and off street I don't there will there won't be more than certainly not more than six or seven individuals in the building at one time so that would be how I would answer that question.

Um it's not our aim to do that.

Um just you know, counseling there is uh an element of privacy and discretion that that goes into that.

So it really doesn't behoove us to try to put more offices in there.

Okay, so you're perfectly happy with three.

Perfectly we won't be back asking for for more.

Great.

In response to the signage question, um so maximum square footage of signage in a residential lot is 16 total square feet.

However, um one individual free standing sign can exceed eight square feet, uh maximum height is five feet.

There's certain setbacks three feet off the property line.

Um as far as a sign on the actual structure itself, you're limited to two square feet.

So basically is if you wanted a free standing sign, eight square feet, and if it's on the on the structure, it's two square feet and we we would conform to that uh and and likely simply have a sign on the on the structure, two square feet or less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any others?

We'll uh no close uh public hearing and open for board uh we already there.

Excuse me.

Board discussion, excuse me.

Seeing none, we'll call the vote, Mike.

Michael Yes.

Limmer, yes, Jameson.

Yes, Speer.

Yes, Braun.

Yes, Solem.

Yes, Aiken.

Yes.

And Letty.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, next agenda item 6D is nominating committee.

Mike, would you take this?

Yes.

Yes.

Uh so we're looking for a couple of volunteers that be willing to serve on the nominating committee each year in November.

We put together a nominating committee to propose um potential candidates for the positions of chair and vice chair to serve for the upcoming year.

Uh what we ask of the nominating committee is to get together and uh talk amongst yourselves of who you think would be a good representative to be the chair and vice chair, and then to seek out and talk to those individuals to make sure that they're comfortable um serving in those positions.

Uh obviously the chair chairs the meeting, the vice chair in the absence of the chair would take over and chair the meetings.

Uh in addition, outside requirements outside of these meetings for the chair and vice chair, is they occasionally get invited to um present at a city council um retreat.

Um usually was it 10 minutes, 15 minutes?

Sometimes you get invited to specific holiday parties, but I think all the volunteer boards do.

So I mean um the other thing is is when we have new members, they invite you to attend the orientation with the new board members, and we typically do them virtually by uh Teams or Zoom now.

So um with that, I guess the question we'd be asking is is there um two or three members that would like to serve on a nominating committee um for to come up with potential candidates for to serve in the position of chair and vice chair for 2026 I would volunteer.

Um I sorry Commissioner Billy Joe Heinrichs um was not able to be here tonight, but she did uh message us and let us know if she'd be interested in serving as well on that nominating committee.

So we got Kyle.

I'm sure I could.

Do you need a type?

Like, do we need more than two?

What do we have last year?

Oh you know, we can have two or three.

I would say three probably at the max.

So if we're comfortable with two or three, we're fine.

Um really just need to get together and and uh think about uh who's and that which is interesting because we do have three members that their terms expire at the end of the year.

We should know by the end of November if they're being reappointed or who's being reappointed, hopefully, if not early December.

Um Kyle.

in and uh think about uh who's and that which is interesting because we do have three members that their terms expire at the end of the year we should know by the end of november if they're being reappointed or who's being reappointed hopefully if not early December um but yeah so Kyle So I have Kyle Billy Joe and Emily you three okay is we're good with that for nominating committee perfect anything else Mike we did pretty well tonight nice job um is there a motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor meeting adjourned thanks everyone's a little bit more than a little bit