Planning Commission

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE Spearfish Planning Commission TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 - 3:00 PM The Spearfish Planning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in the council chambers of Spearfish City Hall. Members present: Toby Bordewyk, Ken Halsey, Greg Kruskamp, and Larry Vavruska. Members Absent: Dan Green, Bob Meyer and Barb Zwetzig. Also present: City Planner Jayna Watson, City Attorney Eric Davis and Planning Intern Shabnam Khan. Chairman Bordewyk called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vavruska moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2016 as presented. The motion was seconded by Kruskamp and passed unanimously. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Bordewyk asked for any potential conflicts of interest to be identified. None were declared. 1. REQUEST: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE USES ELIGIBLE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) IN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE TEXT; REVISE THE CUP CRITERIA APPLICANT: City of Spearfish LOCATION: City-wide Chairman Bordewyk stated for the record that the public hearing regarding this matter commenced at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 and was held open to today. He called upon City Planner Jayna Watson for an update. The proposed revisions are necessary subsequent to legislative action taken in 2015 amending §11-4-4.1 pertaining to conditional use permits. The city has already taken action to address the necessary updates to the agriculture and rural large lot zoning district ordinance texts. Staff is hopeful these final revisions to the lists of eligible uses in individual residential zoning district texts for R-1, R-2 and R-3 will be acceptable to the Planning Commission in order to forward this on to City Council. Watson referred to page eight (8) of the staff report, under section 2 entitled R-3 Multi-Family Residential district noting item number nine (9) described as “restaurant or food preparation” as an added use eligible to apply for a conditional use permit. This is the only change not discussed previously by the commission. Staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions presented today and would like to move the matter forward to city council. Halsey requested clarification as to when/if issuance of a conditional use permit is subject to a referendum. At this point, Chairman Bordewyk looked to the audience for comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 3:20 p.m. Page 1 of 2 9/16/2016 9:25 AM Motion was made by Vavruska, seconded by Halsey to recommend the city council approve the revisions to the uses eligible for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in individual residential zoning district ordinance text for R1 and R2 and R3; and the proposed revisions to the CUP criteria as presented. Kruskamp initiated discussion regarding land use number five (5) listed in Article IV, District Regulations, Section 2 (R1) and Section 3 (R2) described as fraternity or sorority house and the lists in general. He also asked whether any comment had been received from the three commissioners absent from today’s meeting. Discussion ensued regarding accessory buildings and storage sheds. Kruskamp suggested using more generalized terms in the permitted uses lists, i.e. replacing bed and breakfast with residential tourism home occupation. Halsey feels the land use lists impose limitations; something he has testified against in several recent meetings. For the benefit of those present, Watson cited SDCL 11-4-4.1 which says “A municipal zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter that authorizes a conditional use of real property shall specify the approving authority, each category of conditional uses requiring such approval, the zoning districts in which a conditional use is available, the criteria for evaluating each conditional use, and any procedures for certifying property for approval of certain conditional uses”. This prompted considerable discussion on a variety of hypothetical situations and recourse adjacent property owners have to terminate an approved use even when all conditions are being met. City attorney Davis responded there is no remedy in that type of situation. Watson offered examples of other uses allowed by right that might not be suitable in the opinion of an adjacent property owner such as the color one chooses to paint a home. She concluded the CUP criteria should not result in an unreasonable barrier. Bordewyk suggested staff consider including a statement following the lists of uses permitted which explains the procedure for initiating an ordinance text amendment. Watson explained that the procedure is described in Appendix A, Zoning, Article VI, Administration and Enforcement. Hearing no further discussion on the aforementioned motion to recommend approval, upon vote taken thereon, the motion carried with Kruskamp voting no. 2. REQUEST: SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND REZONING FROM COUNTY AGRICULTURE (AG) TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DISTRICT (DRD). APPLICANT: Ward Development LOCATION: Lot DP of the SW¼SW¼ of Section 28, T7N, R2E, Lawrence County, SD City-wide Motion was made by Vavruska, seconded by Kruskamp and carried unanimously to set a public hearing for Tuesday, September 20, 2016 to consider voluntary annexation and rezoning from County Agriculture (AG) to Development Review District (DRD). 3. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Portable Storage Containers Watson referred the commission to the preliminary ordinance text drafted by Planning Intern Shabnam Khan to define regulatory measures pertaining to the use of portable storage containers. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Page 2 of 2 9/16/2016 9:25 AM