Muyni
← Back to Spearfish

Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

Spearfish, SD · October 4, 2022

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

Spearfish Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes October 4, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. The Spearfish Planning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, October 4 at 3:00 p.m. in the council chamber of city hall and via Zoom video conference. Chair Byrum called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Roll call was taken with the following members present: Meghan Byrum, Greg Kruskamp, Bob Meyer, Larry Vavruska, Barbara Zwetzig, Rick Tysdal, and Toby Bordewyk Absent: Toby Bordewyk, Meghan Byrum. Also present: Jayna Watson and Planning Director Marlo Kapsa. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tysdal moved, Bordewyk seconded, and all voted to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting with the following amendments: Revise Tysdal’s motion as it did not include item 2 and include Commissioner Meyers’ written memo concerning his position on the item as part of the October 4, 2022 meeting minutes. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Byrum called for any potential conflicts of interest to be identified. No conflicts were expressed. 1. Request: Approve a C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan Location: 544 North 7th Street Applicant: LJ Rentals LLC/Luke Donovan Action: Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council Luke Donovan provided an overview of the request. Watson followed with an analysis of the C-1 criteria of the staff report. Vavruska moved, Kruskamp seconded and all voted to recommend approval. 2. City Council Update – Kapsa stated that the first phase of the new recreation path is nearing completion and that City Council approved the name of this portion of the path as “The Community Sawmill Path.” 3. Public Comment – No comments were provided. 4. Adjournment - Byrum adjourned the meeting at 3:25 PM. (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Overview At the 6-Sep-22 Planning Commission meeting I was requested to present o the Commission a written explanation of my view on the Highway 85 Development agenda item. My views cover a lot of territory. They are presented in these topics: Overview This page The Basics What’s the issue, basic definitions and basic concepts The Risk What’s the main concern (spoiler alert: wastewater contamination) Simplicity How can we keep the ordinance simple Flexibility & Costs More ordinance objectives Actions Items What actions we should take and when Please note: All this content represents thoughts. It’s all offered just for your consideration. It’s not offered as a proclamation that’s the best way to see the issue. It’s not offered as the only correct solution. I’ve tried to present my view primarily to promote discovery of options. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 1 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) The Basics Planning Commission Agenda Topic: Highway 85 Development The issue: The apparent absence of a process to guide development of some in-City properties that lack City water & sewer. The solution (which seems to be favored by the Planning Commission): Develop a Special Permitted Use to establish an environmentally, administratively and economically appropriate process to allow qualified development of certain in- City properties that lack City water & sewer. A basic question: How to determine if a septic system is allowable? Definitions proposed: an individual wastewater treatment system, typically consisting of a septic tank, and a drainage field where there is natural biological decontamination as wastewater is filtered septic system through the soil private treatment plant a non-publicly owned wastewater treatment system that uses decontamination technology (PTP) different from a septic system private sewage disposal a non-publicly owned wastewater treatment system which can be either a septic system or system (PSDS) a private treatment plant the material that flows out of a private sewage disposal system (PSDS) and enters the site effluent environment wastewater the process in which noxious wastewater components enter the discharge environment contamination and interferes with safety and practical human uses Special Permitted Use An ordinance that allows and encourages land uses declared harmonious with the (SPU) applicable zoning district under a special condition. Special Permitted Use – An ordinance that allows and encourages land uses declared harmonious when the PSDS (SPU-PSDS) location has no available City sewer system connection. Basic Concepts needed to be addressed by a Special Permitted Use - Sewage Risk Wastewater contamination The objective of making the applicant portion of applying for development approval under the SPU- Simplicity PSDS ordinance easy to understand, objective and brief. The objective of creating a SPU-PSDS that anticipates enough future applications and Flexibility contingencies to reasonably avoid dead-ends and limbo. The of objective of creating a SPU-PSDS that results in an acceptable balance of expenses to Cost City taxpayers and the land developer. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 2 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) The Risk The “Risk” a Special Permitted Use – PSDS (SPU-PSDS) needs to address What is the “risk”? - The risk is wastewater contamination. - Wastewater contamination is the process in which noxious wastewater components enter the discharge environment - Wastewater contamination can interfere with safe and practical human uses. What are noxious wastewater components? There can be many, including these categories: - pathogenic microorganisms (think E.coli, for example) - heavy metals - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances such (PFAS); often referred to as “forever chemicals” - plastics and microfibers What are risk categories we need to deal with? - Site Risks  upper level soil characteristics (where septic system biological decontamination takes place)  geology (which includes an understanding of faults and gypsum locations)  hydrology (which includes an understanding of underground water supplies vulnerable to contamination) - Effluent Risks  amount of effluent (total gallons over a period of time)  rate of flow (gallons per unit of time)  identifying what noxious elements expected to enter the the private sewage disposal system (PSDS) How much does the Planning Commission and/or the City Council need to know about the Risk and Risk elements ? - We do not need to know a lot of technical details. (We don’t need to what’s in the sausage* and how its made.) - We do need to know that: (We do need to know if the sausage* is safe and tasty.)  The risks (and risk elements) exist.  The risks (and risk elements) are important.  Failure to mitigate the risks can make people sick (or dead) and/or cause economic damage.  The technical facts of risk mitigation are well researched and documented.  There are experts familiar with the technical facts.  We should seek expert advice on how to convert documented facts into a SPU-PSDS ordinance. * OK. Maybe tasty sausages aren’t the best analogy for sewage but, hopefully, you get the idea. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 3 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Simplicity How “Simplicity” could be achieved by a Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal System (SPU-PSDS) ordinance Note “Simple” is how the ordinance should appear to the public. (The sausage needs to be safe and tasty.) How the ordinance is created and used behind the scenes is whole difference story. In General - We have an impressive (overwhelming) amount of data on the risk of wastewater contamination. - We also have access to individuals with impressive expertise on how to utilize the data - We need a system of utilizing experts to convert existing data into a simple (for the applicant) process the City can use to determine what an applicant must do in order to be approved for developing in-City property that lacks City water and sewer. - In short, we need a plan and tools for creating an ordinance that, behind the scenes deal with a large amount of important details but results in an application process that’s simple for the developer. Tools for keeping it simple? “Site Risk” Rating “Effluent Risk” Rating Risk Level - Requirement Chart Why Use these Tools? - They enable the City to determine and communicate what an applicant must do in order to be approved for developing in-City property that lacks City water and sewer. - The risk rating systems and the Risk Level - Requirement Chart will not be simple to create. However, once created, the process of using these tools is straightforward, simple and relatively objective. - These tools can keep complexity “behind the scenes” and enable simple ordinance language. - The risk rating systems are analogous to the rating system we already successfully use in the Telecommunication ordinance (Article V, Section 8) and the Solar Energy ordinance (Article IV, Section 16). - The Risk Level - Requirement Chart shows development requirements such as:  If a septic system is allowable  Characteristics of a required PSDS  What (if any) inspection are required  What (if any) maintenance certification is required Note: - Creating these tools is where the “sausage” gets made. - This is the complicated part of the job that requires expert assistance. - The number of Site Risk and Effluent Risk categories presented on the following pages are starting suggestions. - We should have a final decision about the number of categories after working with experts. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 4 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Simplicity Site Risk Rating What is the “Site Risk”? The “site risk” is risk of wastewater contamination associated with site characteristics. What is a “Site Risk” rating? This is a system for using a single letter (“A”, “B”, “C”) to represent the relative sensitivity of the site (the environment) to contamination. Here’s are site risk ratings I suggest we start with: “A” risk site lowest level of contamination risk “B” risk site moderate level of contamination risk “C” risk site greatest level of contamination risk What would be considered in assigning a “Site Risk” rating? - soil characteristics - geology (including faults and gypsum) - hydrology (what underground water supplies may be vulnerable to contamination) How would we determine a “Site Risk” rating? - We need to convert documented facts and data about the site into the Site Risk ratings. - Here’s where we will need expert advice (on how to make the conversion). PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 5 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Simplicity Effluent Risk Rating What is the “Effluent Risk”? The “effluent risk” is risk associated with effluent characteristics: - how much effluent is discharged - what potentially noxious materials are in the effluent What is a “Effluent Risk” rating? This is a system for using a single numeral (“1”, “2”, “3”) to represent the relative hazard of the effluent characteristics. Here’s are effluent risk ratings I suggest we start with: “1” effluent risk lowest level of wastewater contamination risk “2” effluent risk moderate level of wastewater contamination risk “3” effluent risk greatest level of wastewater contamination risk What would be considered in assigning a “Effluent Risk” rating? - amount of effluent (total gallons over a period of time) - rate of flow (gallons per minute) - what noxious elements can be expected to enter the the private sewage disposal system (PSDS) How would we determine a “Effluent Risk” rating? - We need to convert documented facts and data about the effluent into the Effluent Risk ratings. - We need to collect facts and data about the effluent from the applicant. - We will need a form* requesting certified information supplied by the applicant answering questions about effluent characteristics. - We will need expert advice on how to establish effluent criterial for each Effluent Risk ratings. * The information form should start with questions identifing a low risk situation that could eliminate the need for the applicant to answer the remaining, more detailed, questions. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 6 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Simplicity (overall) Risk Level How would the Risk Level be used? (overall) Risk Level = Site Risk Rating + Effluent Risk Rating How would the (overall) Risk Level be used? The Risk Level assigned to an application would be used to create development requirements such as:  The type of private sewage disposal system (PSDS) allowed: septic system or PTP*  Characteristics of a required PSDS  What (if any) inspection are required  What (if any) maintenance certification is required Risk Level – Requirement Chart Once Risk Ratings are established, we can create a “Risk Level Requirement Chart” which would look like this: Site Effluent Risk PSDS Inspection Maintenance Risk Risk Level PSDS Type Requirements Requirements Certification A 1 A1 Septic TBD* TBD* TBD* A 2 A2 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* A 3 A3 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* B 1 B1 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* B 2 B2 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* B 3 B3 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* C 1 C1 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* C 2 C2 TBD* TBD* TBD* TBD* C 3 C3 PTP* TBD* TBD* TBD* PTP* = Private Treatment Plant (not a septic system) TBD* = To be determined by the working group PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 7 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Flexibility & Costs “Flexibility” concepts a Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal System (SPU-PSDS) ordinance needs to address The final SPU-PSDS ordinance must be reviewed to avoid creating dead-ends or limbo situations in which the applicant is left with no workable options. We must attempt to anticipate future applications and contingencies. Achievement of these concept objectives is primarily a challenge for the ordinance writing phase of this project. “Costs” concepts a Special Permitted Use - Private Sewage Disposal System (SPU-PSDS) ordinance needs to address The following are cost related concept I believe are significant: - City (tax payers) should pay for costs associated with the creation of the SPU-PSDS ordinace as it affects the entire community by mitigating risks while promoting development. - The applicant should pay for costs associated with property development and SPU-PSDS compliance. This includes costs for providing certified information, site studies, PSDS operation and inspections. - Cost for expert assistance can be minimized or eliminated by utilizing qualified individual volunteers and non-profit entities. - Up front costs that prevent major future expenses will not always be appreciated by uninformed people. Notes: - OK. The above is quite (but probably not criminally) general. - The justification for the generalities is that these concepts need to converted into specifics primarily by the language used in the ordinance. - Hopefully the important principles for achieving the concepts are covered by the other sections of this report. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 8 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22 (Meyer’s View on) Highway 85 Development Special Permitted Use – Private Sewage Disposal Systems (SPU-PSDS) Action Items Please note: - Many times, in my opinion, individuals and organizations fail to achieve desired results because decision making did not start “at the beginning”. - More than 60 years ago (!) I was taught a five step system for making decisions. A number of years later I added a step number six. Here’s the system: 1. Define (the issue and other significant terms) 2. Collect (the available information) 3. Consider (the options) 4. Select (an option) 5. Apply (Ah. Finally there. The action step!) 6. Follow through (Did you get results or did you you get consequences?) - Think of step 5 (the “actions items”) as a road map. - Think of the previous steps (1 through 4) as trip planning. Here is what I believe may be a useful outline of our possible action items (in coordination with the other 5 steps): 1. Review and Modify (add to, subtract from, change) the “Basics” until we have a consensus. 2. Review and Modify (add to, subtract from, change) the “Risks” until we have a consensus. 3. Review and Modify (add to, subtract from, change) the “Simplicity” until we have a consensus. 4. Create a “working group” to collaborate with experts on geology, hydrology, civil and environmental/sanitary engineering. 5. Working group projects: a. Select references for data and technical information b. Site Risk actions - Convert data and technical information to define Site Risk categories. c. Effluent Risk actions - Determine what certified data and technical information on effluent characteristic need to be supplied by the applicant. - Create a “Effluent Characteristic” questionnaire to be completed by the applicant Risk Site Risk - Covert effluent characteristic questionnaire data and technical information to define Effluent Risk categories. d. Risk Level – Requirement Chart actions - Convert data and technical information to define requirements for each Risk Level. d. Report proposal for Site Risk, Effluent Risk, and Risk Level requirements to the Planning Commission. 6. Planning Commission accepts Working group proposal or send them “back to the drawing board” until we have a consensus. 7. Review and Modify (add to, subtract from, change) the Flexibility and Costs concepts until we have a consensus. 8. Begin work on drafting the ordinance. In essence, there are 8 categories of steps with the “heavy lifting” taking place in step 5. PandZ/Projects/Special Permitted Use – PSDS > My View.docx Page 9 of 9 Date Last Revised: 13-Sep-22

Agenda

Spearfish Planning Commission Agenda October 4, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Meeting Location: City Council Chamber, 625 Fifth Street, Spearfish, SD And Zoom Online Meeting Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88567070608 Meeting ID: 885 6707 0608 Or Dial in: +1 669 444 9171 US and enter Meeting ID A. Call To Order B. Roll Call C. Approve the Minutes from September 6, 2022 D. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest E. Items for Action 1. Request: Approve C1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan: 544 North 7th Street Location: 544 North 7th Street, Spearfish, SD Applicant: Luke Donovan Action: Hold a Public Hearing and make recommendation to City Council F. City Council Update G. Public Comment - Public comments are welcome at this time, however, no action will be taken. H. Adjournment ADA Compliance: The City of Spearfish fully subscribes to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you desire to attend this public meeting and need special accommodations, please notify the Building and Development Office at 642-1335 and 24 hours prior to the meeting so that appropriate auxiliary aids and services are available. Spearfish Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes 06Sep22 at 3:00 p.m. The Spearfish Planning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, 06Sep22 at 3:00 p.m. in the council chamber of city hall and via Zoom video conference. Meghan Byrum called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Roll call was taken with the following members present - Meghan Byrum, Greg Kruskamp, Bob Meyer, Larry Vavruska, Barbara Zwetzig, Rick Tysdal, and Toby Bordewyk. City staff was represented by Planning Director Nick Broyles, Mayor John Senden, City Administrator Steve McFarland, City Attorney Ashley McDonald, and Administrative Assistant Erica Bussiere. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kruskamp moved – Zwetzig seconded, and all voted to approve the minutes of the 02Aug22 Planning Commission meeting. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Byrum called for any potential conflicts of interest to be identified. No conflicts were expressed. 1. Request: Discuss Development Options for the Highway 85 Corridor Location: City Council Chamber, 625 Fifth Street, Spearfish, SD Applicant: N/A Action: Request Motion from Planning Commission on How to Proceed Broyles presented findings for questions posed by the Planning Commission on 02Aug22. The Planning Commission asked for details on the following three topics; (1) potential special permitted land uses and criteria, (2) changes to the subdivision code to reflect the special permitted uses, and (3) methods to identify and quantify risks with septic and drain fields. Staff was asked to consider our responses through the lenses of risk, simplicity, and flexibility. Broyles presented hypotheticals for land uses that may use lower sewer flows as well as higher sewer flows. Broyles also presented possible language to modify the subdivision code to align with suggested special permitted uses. Thoughts surrounding identifying and quantifying risk were also discussed. Regarding risk, staff recommended including a professional engineering consultant and obtaining City Council concurrence with future plans. Staff also recommended that creating a list of special permitted uses must be simple and written in such a way for staff to make a quick determination that would be administratively approved by city staff. Lastly, staff highlighted that any proposed process must be flexible enough to allow property owners options for how they want to develop their property. We should avoid a one-size-fits-all solutions and allow for specific solution for low and high impact uses. Attached with the agenda packet were an NRCS Soils Survey for the Highway 85 corridor, and specific State requirements for the design of septic tanks. The Planning Commission engaged in lengthy discussion across a variety of topics. The following list is intended to be an exhaustive list of the ideas raised in the meeting. 1. Commission was in favor of pursuing Special Permitted Uses to allow for septic/wells 2. There was interest in looking at only low sewer flow rates for the time being 3. Community wells were presented; perhaps having 1 well serve 2 or 3 owners 4. Septic density concerns were discussed, and how we tie in the subdivision ordinance 5. Idea to keep a minimum of 8 acres for a septic tank was proposed 6. Septic tanks must be designed by a professional engineer 7. We must comply with State guidelines 8. Add attribute of ‘cost’ to the risk, simplicity, flexibility assessment Spearfish Planning Commission September 6, 2022 Regular Session Minutes Page 2 9. City must have a method for septic inspections and follow-up, cost should be the landowner’s responsibility, special permitted uses must be reviewed annually, and the possibility of bonds was presented Staff suggested that if the Planning Commission seeks to strengthen the input/design aspect of this process, it may require the assistance of a consultant as staff does not possess expertise in soils and geology as it relates to septic design. Furthermore, staff suggested that if any of ideas presented over the last couple of months are to be initiated, that City Council needs to be made aware of options to determine future staff actions, as option presented may have budget impacts. Tysdal made a motion and Zwetzig seconded to direct staff to do the following. 1. Obtain appetite from City Council regarding their interest in allowing septic systems for ‘low sewer flow’ rates within the Highway 85 corridor 2. How might gallons per minute and lot size impact City Council’s interest The motion passed 6-1 with Meyer dissenting. 2. City Council Update: As there has not been a City Council meeting since the last Planning Commission meeting, Broyles had no City Council updates for the Planning Commission. Broyles did inform the Commission that a new Planning Director has been hired and will begin on 26Sep22. 3. Public Comment: No public comment was provided. 4. Adjournment: Byrum adjourned the meeting at 4:21 PM. Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Location: City Council Chamber, 625 Fifth Street, Spearfish SD 57783 and by Zoom Teleconference, see page 4 for instructions to join. Meeting Date and Time: October 4, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Applicant: LJ Rentals LLC/Luke Donovan Request: Approve a C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan Action: Set public hearing for 04 October 2022 Location: 544 7th Street Proposal Summary: This will enable the redevelopment of this property with an office use. Page 1 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: • Zoned C-1 Central Commercial • Surrounding zoning and development patterns: - North and south – C-1; North across Hudson is Lueders Grocery; south is a single- family residence. - East – R-2 – Single family residence. - West – CC – Central Core PROJECT DATA: Parcel size: 10,559 +/- square feet Building square footage: 2,760 Building footprint: 2,760 Parking required before 50% reduction is applied: 14 parking spaces Parking required after 50% reduction is applied: 7 parking spaces On private property: 7 In the public right of way: 0 Landscape points required: 7,799 (parcel size minus building footprint) Landscape points provided: Preservation of two street trees: 5,000 x 2 = 10,000 points Addition of five new street trees: 2,000 X 5 = 10,000 points Grass lawn: 452 sq. yds x 10 points/yd = 4,520 points 24,520 points This tool is designed to encourage reinvestment in the C-1 commercial districts where underutilized or blighted properties could otherwise re-develop but have difficulty in meeting the off-street parking requirements which then reduces the feasibility of the project. This method enables a parking reduction combined with the ability to count parking within the public right of way toward the parking requirement. In this request, the parking will be provided on the private property. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF ANALYSIS: Several years ago, the building on this property was removed and the lot is now undeveloped. The building was at one time a residence but remodeled for retail uses until its demolition. The present owner plans a modestly sized office building. This request is guided by the C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan Criteria noted below, with the staff analysis following each statement in italic text. C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan Criteria: 1. For any new or renovated structure, the required parking for non-residential land uses may be reduced under the following criteria. a. Mandatory Criteria: (1) Building design will incorporate features as described in the document titled: City of Spearfish Design Guidelines for the C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan. Page 2 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Staff analysis: The building reflects several features as identified in the guidelines such as: 1) Variety in the use of exterior finishes reflecting earth tones and colors common to the Black Hills; 2) Building entry has a clearly defined covered porch entrance; 3) Three separate roof planes reduce the overall mass of the roof; 4) See applicant’s narrative for additional information. (2) Site structures must have a building permit value that is the greater than or equal to twice the assessed value of the previous year as determined by the last certified value per the Lawrence County Office of Equalization. The permit value will be verified by Building Official or based on building permit information. Staff analysis: Current Assessed Value: The structure was removed from the property several years ago, but at the time of removal, its assessed value was $58,870 Estimated Building Permit Value: $524,000 Estimate confirmed by the Building Official (3) A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the required non-residential parking stalls must be provided either on private property, within the public right of way, or both. Staff analysis: Parking required after the 50 percent reduction is 7 spaces and will be provided on private property. (4) A maximum of ten (10) parking spaces are permitted within the right of way adjacent to the applicant’s property frontage either as 90-degree angle or diagonal parking. Staff analysis: Not applicable. Applicant proposes all parking to be on private property. (5) A maximum of ten (10) parallel parking spaces on one side of the street may serve as parking provided for more than one property. Staff analysis: Not applicable. (6) Parking for residential, hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, vacation home rentals, and uses that require overnight parking must be provided on private property. Staff analysis: Not applicable, none of these uses are proposed. b. Optional Criteria – In addition to the mandatory criteria above, a minimum of two of the following must be satisfied: As of the writing of this report, criteria number 2 and 3 have been satisfied. (1) Existing sidewalks are widened to a minimum of 8’. Staff analysis: No change to sidewalks proposed, not applicable Page 3 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 (2) New street trees provided at the rate of 1 per 50 feet of site frontage. Staff analysis: Applicant will add three new street trees along the Hudson Street side of the building and two new street trees along the 7 Street side of the building. (3) Provide landscaping per city code. Staff analysis: The landscape points will be 2.5 times what is required. (4) Utilize ecologically sustainable designs and technologies, which are in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as, but not limited to: i. water conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy ii. enhanced protection from fire, flood, and other natural disasters. Staff analysis: Not applicable (5) Other criteria deemed to have a significant public benefit Staff analysis: Not applicable. Conclusions: The applicant meets each of the mandatory criteria, and two of the optional criteria to be incorporated in the plan and is eligible for a parking reduction per the C-1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Owners within 140 feet of the property were notified of the public hearing via first class mail 10 days before the public hearing. Notice of the public hearing was also be published in the official newspaper 10 days prior to the public hearing. No comments have been received regarding this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve ATTACHMENTS: Page 5 – Site with surrounding zoning Page 6 – Proposed site plan Page 7-8 – Elevation drawings of the proposed structure Page 9 – Floor plan Page 10 – C-1 redevelopment incentive plan criteria checklist Staff Contact: Marlo Kapsa, 605-717-1122; marlo.kapsa@cityofspearfish.com Join by zoom teleconference: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88567070608 Meeting ID: 885 6707 0608 Or Dial In: 1 669 444 9171 and enter Meeting ID Page 4 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Location of request for C1 Redevelopment Incentive Plan Approval 544 7th Street Zoning Map Legend Magenta – Central Core Pink – C1 Central Commercial Yellow – R2 one and two family residential Page 5 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 SITE PLAN Page 6 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Page 7 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Page 8 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Page 9 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Page 10 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022 Page 11 Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2022

Get email alerts for Spearfish

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting