Planning Commission

Spearfish Planning Commission Agenda October 18, 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 October 4, 2022 D. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest E. Items for Action 1. Request: Approve a Development Review District Final Plan Amendment to allow revised setbacks along Bluestem Boulevard frontage. Location: Phase G of Countryside Subdivision of the Spring Creek Addition Applicant: James Boke Action: Set a public hearing for November 1, 2022 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 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  Spearfish Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Location: City Council Chamber, 625 Fifth Street, Spearfish SD 57783 and by Zoom Teleconference, see page 3 for instructions to join. Meeting time and Tuesday October 18, 2022 at 3pm date: Applicant: The Countryside of Spearfish, Inc. - James Boke Approve a Development Review District Final Plan Amendment to allow Request: revised setbacks along Bluestem Boulevard frontage. Action: Set a public hearing for November 1, 2022 Phase G of Countryside Subdivision of the Spring Creek Addition Location: Proposal Amend the building setbacks along Bluestem Boulevard frontage Summary: Page 1 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: • 2001 - Annexed and rezoned to PUD in November of 2001; concept plan showed a single-family phase, a ‘small lot residential/ churches allowed’ phase, and a phase of multi-family/office uses along Windmill Drive. • 2003 - Development Review District zoning text was first adopted and repealed the language of the Planned Unit Development. All PUD approvals for this property were considered vested at that time for land use and lot layout and building setbacks would be according to standard zoning regulations. • 2006 - Revision to the PUD concept plan and approval of preliminary plat that further defined the ‘small lot residential’ concept to be duplex townhouses. Standard building setbacks for duplex and single family were approved at 25 feet front and back, 8 feet sides, 0 feet where duplexes share the common wall on property line. • 2019 – Final engineering approval was given to begin road construction and the first phase of infrastructure is expected to be complete by this summer with the duplex/townhouse homes built first. • 2020 - Change in zoning from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to DRD (Development Review District) and revision to setbacks along Red Fern, Fox Glove, and Gooseberry Road frontages. REVIEW CRITERIA: The applicant wishes to amend the setbacks along Bluestem Boulevard which qualifies as a substantial change to the approved Development Review District Final Plan. Per ordinance, the approved Final Plan for the DRD must be amended following the same procedure of the original plan approval. The DRD zoning text lists the following criteria that guide this review. Staff’s comments are included in italic text In consideration of a request for Final Plan approval, the Planning Commission and City Council shall take into account of the following factors both the One-Step and Two-Step types of Final Plan approval: a. Conformance with Permitted Uses, Prohibited Uses, and Minimum Requirements for Improvement and Design. No changes are being requested to the previously approved duplex-townhomes, single- and multi-family residences, and office uses. b. Site and building design compatibility with and relationship to existing and potential uses adjacent to the proposed project: The applicant has requested to reduce the minimum required setback from the south side of Bluestem Boulevard to 15 feet and to 20 feet along the north side of Bluestem Boulevard. This request is consistent with the previously approved Final Plan requiring a 15-foot minimum setback along the west side of Gooseberry Road and south side of Red Fern Road and 20-foot minimum setback along both sides of Fox Glove Lane. c. Aesthetic considerations related to the scope and size of the proposed use(s): No changes are being requested to the previously approved duplex-townhomes, single- and multi-family residences, and office uses. d. Public safety issues relating to projected traffic generated by the proposed uses and to the existing or potential transportation system of adjoining properties: No changes are being requested to the previously approved duplex-townhomes, single- and multi-family residences, and office uses. As such, there is no anticipated change traffic generation from what was originally approved as part of the Final Plan. Page 2 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022 e. Testimony received from the public, and comments received by departments, agencies and commissions as provided in Section 10. F.3.a. or 10.G.4.a, as applicable. No comments have been received as of this writing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Upon setting of the public hearing, mailed notice must be provided to owners within 140 feet and a sign must posted on the property advising of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set a Public Hearing for November 21, 2022. Join by zoom teleconference https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88567070608 Meeting ID 885 6707 0608 Or dial in at +1 669 444 9171 and enter Meeting ID ATTACHMENTS: Page 4 - Phasing Plan Page 5 - Previously approved setbacks reference Page 6 - Proposed setback reference - south of Bluestem Boulevard Page 7 - Proposed setback reference - north of Bluestem Boulevard STAFF CONTACTS: Marlo Kapsa, Planning Director 605-717-1122; marlo.kapsa@cityofspearfish.com Page 3 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022  Page 4 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022  Approved Preliminary Plat and Land Use Final Plan Duplex/townhouse parcel Single family parcel Multi Family and Office Parcels Proposed building setback along the west side of Gooseberry Rd. and south side of Red Fern Rd. frontages: - 29 feet from back of curb/ 15 feet from property line. - No sidewalks will be present along these locations. Proposed building setback along both sides of Fox Glove Lane - 29 feet from back of curb/20 feet from property line. Page 5 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022  Page 6 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022  Page 7 Spearfish Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: 10/18/2022