Planning Commission

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE Spearfish Planning Commission TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 - 3:00 PM The Spearfish Planning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in the council chambers of Spearfish City Hall. Members present: Toby Bordewyk, Dan Green, Jim Hopewell, Greg Kruskamp, Bob Meyer, Larry Vavruska and Barbara Zwetzig. Members absent: None. Also present: City Planner Jayna Watson. City Attorney Eric Davis was absent today. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bordewyk at 3:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Planner Jayna Watson explained that the minutes have been revised to report that documentation presented by Mr. Meyer at the last meeting pertaining to his position on the proposed change in light industrial setbacks was received and will be part of the file. Vavruska moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 2017 as revised. 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. Bordewyk disclosed that he is currently involved with the Spearfish Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) Board of Directors however declared no conflict at this time. 1. A Request to Amend the Light/Restrictive Industrial District zoning ordinance text regarding setbacks. Applicant: City of Spearfish. Location: All areas zoned Light/Restrictive Industrial. City Planner Jayna Watson reported that the city council recently requested the Planning Commission consider additional options which might allow some degree of flexibility in the standard setbacks applied in the light/restrictive industrial district. Having recently reviewed aerial imagery of the parcels along Seaton Circle, Watson reported that most of the existing buildings are situated at setbacks that exceed the current twenty five foot (25’) side and rear setbacks of the light industrial zoning code. Staff recommends that if a flexible setback scheme is desired, it should be something that can be administratively approved using objective criteria when a building permit is sought. Two options were presented for discussion. Method 1: The “exchanged” setbacks method would require a standard front setback, but allow one side of the building (or more than one) a reduced setback when the front standard setback is increased. This could be done by allowing a foot for foot reduction, or a percentage. Method 2: Known as “aggregate setbacks” in other cities’ zoning ordinances, this method would establish a total dimension that two opposite setbacks must equal, and a minimum number for the smallest side. Example: Front and rear setback added together must be “50” feet, with a minimum of “20” feet on the smallest side (dimensions provided for example purposes only). The same type of calculation would be used for side setbacks. This method would allow for greater variety in the alignment of building frontages on a street. Page 1 of 2 2/17/2017 2:11 PM  In response to a question by Hopewell, Watson summarized current landscape requirements in the light/restrictive industrial zoning district which is based on a point system determined by the square footage of a lot not covered by a building. Meyer initiated discussion to gain insight from the commission as to the significance of wording at the end of the purpose statement found in Section A of the light/restrictive industrial district zoning ordinance text which states: “This district is intended to provide for a number of light manufacturing, wholesale, warehousing and service uses in an attractive industrial park-like setting”. Meyer also referred to strategies he deems significant which are identified in the economic development section of the comprehensive plan. These strategies also use the words “park-like setting” to describe the properties located within the light/restrictive industrial district. He is of the opinion this means how these lots look is significant and cautioned against making changes that will turn the light/restrictive industrial zoning into nothing more than a commercial zoning district. Meyer also recommends “beefing up” our landscaping standards. Bordewyk prompted discussion regarding the matter of outdoor storage which is addressed in Section E, items six (6) and seven (7) of the ordinance and appears to be one of the distinguishing factors between light/restrictive industrial and heavy industrial zoning districts. Green, Bordewyk and Meyer spoke in support of imposing a minimum front, rear and side setback. Zwetzig is supportive of changes that will allow greater flexibility with setback requirements in light/restrictive industrial zoning districts; she also favors a “park-like setting” in the light/restrictive industrial zoning district which includes trees, shrubs and grasses and holding property owners accountable for replacement of dead plant material and trees. Watson identified the need to close a gap in the existing ordinance to include a required street tree and front landscaped area. Kruskamp suggested the lack of business development in the light/restrictive industrial district might simply indicate “an over-inventory” of properties which prompted the question of whether we have the right balance of light/restrictive industrial versus heavy industrial. He believes there is a place in Spearfish for the light industrial zoning ordinance as it is today. He questioned whether the concept of economic development as presented in the city’s comprehensive plan represents what we really want and use of the light/restrictive industrial district as an economic development tool. Hopewell noted the comprehensive plan speaks of growth and development while speaking of implementing appropriate measures to protect our environmental assets. The commission viewed aerial imagery of the light/restrictive industrial zoning district at Exit 8 compared to Exit 14. Watson stated it appears evident that a “park-like setting” is being achieved at Exit 14 with site planning/organization, clearly defined on-site parking and landscaped frontages. The following recommendations will be formulated into options for consideration at the next meeting: a front setback minimum of twenty five feet (25’) with a cumulative front/rear setback of forty feet (40’) and side setback minimum of ten feet (10’) with a cumulative of fifty feet (50’). Watson will also include additional stipulations regarding placement of trees in lot frontage and landscaping requirements. The overall concern is high emphasis on the quality of the exterior space as it is organized and landscaped. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: Watson reported that the Spearfish Economic Development Corporation presented its 2017-2020 Strategic Plan at the city council meeting last night and she summarized the goals identified in the plan. The council agreed to hire Perry Mader as Parks and Recreation Director. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the commission, Bordewyk adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Page 2 of 2 2/17/2017 2:11 PM