MINUTES PENNINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 25, 2010 @ 9:00 a.m. County Commissioners’ Meeting Room - Pennington County Courthouse MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Hoffmann, Charlie Johnson, Fred Weishaupl, Karen Hall, Jim Coleman, and Gale Holbrook. STAFF PRESENT: Dan Jennissen, Lysann Zeller, Mandi Schmierer, and Jeri Ervin. Patrick Grode (SAO Office). ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2010, MINUTES Moved by Johnson and seconded by Weishaupl to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by Johnson and seconded by Weishaupl to approve the October 25, 2010, Planning Commission Agenda, including the Consent Calendar, with the addition of Item #9 to the Consent Calendar and the discussion of sheds under Item #22. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). CONSENT CALENDAR The following items have been placed on the Consent Calendar for action to be taken on all items in accordance with staff’s recommendation by a single vote. Any item may be removed from the Consent Calendar by any Planning Commissioner, staff member, or audience member for separate consideration. The findings of this Planning Commission are recommendations to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners who will make the final decision. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 92-19: Harold Willis. To review a mobile home as a caretaker’s residence in a Low Density Residential District in accordance with Section 204-D of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Lot 4, Vaughn Addition, Section 19, T2N, R8E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. (Continued from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.) To recommend approval of the extension of Conditional Use Permit / CU 92-19 with the following three (3) conditions: 1. That Building Permits be obtained for any structure exceeding 144 square feet or located on a permanent foundation, which includes the necessary site plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director; 2. That one of the mobile homes be removed from the property when the applicant, Harold Willis, and his daughter, Marcy Weichmann, no longer requires additional care and/or moves from the property; and, 3. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in three (3) years. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 05-36: Ronald Baxter. To review a bed and breakfast in a Suburban Residential District in accordance with Sections 208-C-6 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Lot 5, Fort Meade Placer MS 244, Section 8, T1N, R6E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. To recommend approval of the extension of Conditional Use Permit / CU 05-36 with the following fourteen (14) conditions: 1. That only one (1) guest bedroom in the existing residence will be utilized in the Bed and Breakfast establishment; 2. That members of the family reside on the premises and no more than one (1) additional person conduct the business; 3. That the Bed and Breakfast comply with South Dakota Codified Law 34-18- 9.4: Bed and Breakfast establishment to maintain a guest list and shall place a smoke detector in each sleeping room with a minimum of at least one (1) smoke detector per floor. That smoke detectors must be tested semi-annually as requested by the Pennington County Fire Coordinator and must be Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed and be either AC or battery operated. 4. That 2 A-BC dry chemical fire extinguishers be accessible to all guests at all times on each floor or structure requested by the Pennington County Fire Coordinator; 5. That prior to using any additional bedrooms or exceeding the existing maximum household occupancy of seven (7), the on-site wastewater system must be reviewed and upgraded as necessary by the Pennington County Environmental Planner and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 6. That a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces be provided; and that each parking space shall not be less than 162 square feet, or nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet, surfaced with gravel, concrete or asphalt and maintained in such a manner that no dust will result from continuous use; 7. That the Bed and Breakfast continues to utilize the existing access off of Thunderhead Falls Road; 8. That the Bed and Breakfast be registered with the South Dakota Department of Health; 9. That a Sales Tax License be held by the owners of the Bed and Breakfast; 10. That the applicant posts the address in contrasting colors visible from both directions of Thunderhead Falls Road; 11. That the addition of accessory structures (i.e., decks, sheds, etc.) shall be allowed through the issuance of building permits which include necessary site plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director; 12. That the applicant is allowed two (2) business signs advertising the Bed and Breakfast, not exceeding 24 square feet in area. The applicant shall be allowed to have one (1) wall sign and one (1) freestanding sign. The freestanding sign shall not be located closer than 17 feet to the nearest street right-of-way line; 13. That the applicant must obtain an approved Sign Permit from Planning and Zoning prior to the installation of any business signs; and, 14. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in five (5) years to determine if the Bed and Breakfast is continuing to comply with all of the conditions of approval. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 06-09: Nena Wilburn-Nyberg. To review a single-wide manufactured home as a single-family residence in a General Agriculture District in accordance with Sections 204, 205, and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. SW1/4NE1/4, Section 30, T2N, R10E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. To recommend approval of the extension of Conditional Use Permit / CU 06-09 with the following eight (8) conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the double-wide manufactured home, an On-site Wastewater Permit shall be obtained; 2. That an approved Building Permit be obtained for the double-wide manufactured home prior to its placement on the subject property; 3. That the applicant uses the existing approach off of 155th Avenue to access the subject property; 4. That the property remains free of debris and junk vehicles; 5. That an address be properly posted on the double-wide mobile home and at the driveway in accordance with Pennington County’s Ordinance #20; 6. That the double-wide mobile home or any structures be located outside the 100-year floodplain; 7. That the single-wide mobile home be allowed to remain on the property as a temporary residence while the double-wide manufactured home is being moved on and set-up, for a period not to exceed 90 days; and, 8. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed on January 24, 2011, or on a complaint basis. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 08-44: Rochford Fire District; Gary Frohme – Agent. To review a Fire Hall in a General Agriculture District in accordance with Sections 205 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. All less MS #’s 973, 974, 167, PT 164, PT 1797, 1928, PT 158, PT 2109, PT of Town of Rochford and PT 1364 and 1294, Section 23, T2N, R3E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. To recommend to continue the review of Conditional Use Permit / CU 08-44 to the December 13, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 09-31: Robert and Stacie Tschetter. To review an existing garage to be used as a temporary residence while constructing a single-family residence in a Suburban Residential District in accordance with Sections 208 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Lot 2 and RTY, Dahm Subdivision, Section 18, T1N, R7E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. To recommend to continue the review of Conditional Use Permit / CU 09-31 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 09-14: Ryan and Gail Wells. To review a recreational vehicle to be used as a temporary residence while remodeling the interior of an existing agriculture building into a single-family residence in a General Agriculture District in accordance with Sections 205 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. The NW1/4SE1/4, Section 12, T1N, R9E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. (Continued from the April 26, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.) To recommended to revoke Conditional Use Permit / CU 09-14 and that the RV no longer be utilized as a residence on the property. Vote: unanimous (6 to 0). END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW / CU 04-31: Pauletta Gutierrez. To review a manufactured home as a caretaker’s residence in a Low Density Residential District in accordance with Section 207 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Lot 15, Radar Hills Ranchettes, Section 30, T2N, R9E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. (Continued from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.) Schmierer reviewed the this item had been continued from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to speak with the applicant regarding the review of the Conditional Use Permit. Schmierer indicated that a letter was sent to the applicant, with no response, and further added that, to date, the applicant has not contacted staff and a caretaker’s unit has not been established on the property. Staff recommended to revoke Conditional Use Permit 04-31. Commissioner Weishaupl clarified that only one residence is located on the property at this time. Schmierer stated yes. Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Coleman to revoke the extension of Conditional Use Permit 04-31. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CU 10-29: Dan and Beth Thomas. To allow a temporary residence (camper) on the property while constructing a residence and to also allow a yurt to be used as a residence in a Low Density Residential District in accordance with Sections 207 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Lot 3 of Tract 3, Tigerville Subdivision, Section 9, T1S, R4E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. (Continued from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.) Zeller reviewed that this item had been continued from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting in order for the affected property owners to be able to attend the meeting and also due to the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding the amount of use and safety of the proposed yurt. Zeller stated that Mr. Thomas had clarified that the yurt is to be installed permanently on the deck platform and he does not intend to build a stick-built residence in the future. Zeller further added that Mr. Thomas indicated the yurts are built to International Building Code Standards and can withstand wind speeds of 70 to 100 miles per hour and a two to three foot snow load. If necessary, Mr. Thomas stated a representative from a yurt manufacturer could possibly attend a future Planning Commission meeting to answer questions. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use permit 10-29 with the following nine (9) conditions: 1. That an Approach Permit approved by the Tigerville Road District be submitted by the applicant prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed decking and yurt; 2. That the lot address be properly posted in accordance with Pennington County’s Ordinance #20 so it is clearly visible at the intersection of the driveway with Tigerville Road; 3. That the wastewater from the camper and yurt be properly disposed of at all times and if the camper utilizes the on-site wastewater treatment system, it be disconnected once the yurt it finished and habitable; 4. That the camper no longer be used as a residence once the yurt is finished and habitable, following which it only be allowed to be parked on the property; 5. That the yurt not be utilized as a nightly or weekly vacation rental and only be used by the applicants for their personal use; 6. That the property remain free of debris and junk vehicles; 7. That the applicant obtain an approved Building Permit prior to construction of the proposed decking and yurt and that this Building Permit enable the applicant to set-up and take-down the yurt as often as desired, until such time it is permanently removed for a period of greater than one (1) year; 8. That this Conditional Use Permit is not valid until the applicant signs the Statement of Understanding, which is available at the Planning Office; and, 9. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in one (1) year or on a complaint basis to verify that all conditions of approval are being met. Zeller recommended Condition #7 be revised to state: “That the applicant obtain an approved Building Permit prior to construction of the proposed decking and yurt.” Commissioner Weishaupl wanted to know if the yurt will then be a permanent structure/residence for the applicants. Zeller stated yes, and explained that the applicants will only be using the yurt while they are visiting the property. Commissioner Weishaupl addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding a time limit for the use of the yurt and stated he would not support the application without a time limit. Zeller responded that the applicant does not intend to build a stick-built residence in the future and a time limit has not been added, as a condition of approval, for similar-type uses that have been approved. Commissioner Coleman asked if electrical power will be supplied to the proposed yurt. Zeller said yes. Commissioner Johnson reviewed manufactured safety guidelines from the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the proposed application and feels by allowing the proposed use, this would set a precedent for allowing structures which are not stick-built. Commissioner Coleman also addressed the issue of safety in regards to the electrical power lines being visible. Commissioner Johnson further expressed concern and stated he would not support the application for a yurt. Zeller reviewed that the yurt does meet International Building Codes and can withstand wind speeds of 70 to 100 miles per hour and snow load of two to three feet. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Holbrook to continue Conditional Use Permit 10-29 to the December 13, 2010, Planning Commission meeting in order for a representative and/or the applicant to appear at the meeting to address concerns of the Planning Commission. Discussion further followed on the health and safety concerns of the proposed yurt and building codes. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Holbrook to continue Conditional Use Permit 10-29 to the December 13, 2010, Planning Commission meeting in order for a representative and/or the applicant to appear at the meeting to address concerns of the Planning Commission meeting. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CU 10-33: Jason and Kristi Orelup. To allow a single- wide mobile home to be used as a single-family residence in a General Agriculture District in accordance with Sections 205 and 510 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. The NE1/4NW1/4, Section 10, T1S, R9E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. Zeller reviewed the Staff Report indicating the applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a single-wide manufactured home as a single-family residence in a General Agriculture District. The applicants are intending to purchase the property from the current property owner following approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Zeller added that there is an existing on-site wastewater treatment system located on the property which the applicants are intending to utilize. At the time the Conditional Use Permit was applied for, the applicants were instructed to obtain an Operating Permit in conformance with Pennington County’s new On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems Ordinance. It was later determined that the applicants are exempt from this Ordinance since the subject property measures 40 acres and is zoned General Agriculture District. Nonetheless, an Observation Form was turned in by the applicants for the existing septic system; the results indicate the existing septic tank is leaking and requires repairs. It is recommended those repairs be conducted and proof of such be provided to the Planning Department prior to approval of a Building Permit for the proposed single-wide mobile home. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit #10-33 with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed single-wide mobile home, the necessary repairs be conducted to the septic tank and proof of such be submitted to the Planning Department; 2. That the septic tank lid be locked for safety, if there is an existing access port in accordance with the Environmental Planner’s comments; 3. That the new single-wide mobile home be allowed to utilize the existing on-site wastewater treatment system, if the number of bedrooms does not exceed the number of bedrooms in the home previously located on the property, and that the Environmental Planner review the existing on-site wastewater treatment system prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the single-wide mobile home; 4. That the lot address be posted at the intersection of the driveway and Bradsky Road so it is clearly visible at all times in accordance with Ordinance #20; 5. That the property remains free of debris and junk vehicles at all times; 6. That this Conditional Use Permit is not valid until the applicant signs the Statement of Understanding, which is available at the Planning Office; and, 7. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in two (2) years or on a complaint basis to verify that all conditions of approval are being met. Commissioner Weishaupl questioned if an easement or Section Line is in place for the applicants to use the road to the subject property. Zeller stated the driveway is located a Section Line right-of-way in place. Commissioner Coleman expressed concern the mobile home would be moved on to the property, prior to the septic tank being fixed. Zeller responded that she did speak with Ms. Orelup, prior to the meeting today, and was informed that the septic tank would be repaired today or the next day and staff will not issue a Building Permit until the repairs are completed. Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Johnson to approve of Conditional Use Permit 10-33 with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed single-wide mobile home, the necessary repairs be conducted to the septic tank and proof of such be submitted to the Planning Department; 2. That the septic tank lid be locked for safety, if there is an existing access port in accordance with the Environmental Planner’s comments; 3. That the new single-wide mobile home be allowed to utilize the existing on-site wastewater treatment system, if the number of bedrooms does not exceed the number of bedrooms in the home previously located on the property, and that the Environmental Planner review the existing on-site wastewater treatment system prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the single-wide mobile home; 4. That the lot address be posted at the intersection of the driveway and Bradsky Road so it is clearly visible at all times in accordance with Ordinance #20; 5. That the property remains free of debris and junk vehicles at all times; 6. That this Conditional Use Permit is not valid until the applicant signs the Statement of Understanding, which is available at the Planning Office; and, 7. That this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed in two (2) years or on a complaint basis to verify that all conditions of approval are being met. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 12. REZONE / RZ 10-02 AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT / CA 10-02: Duane Brink-LLB Investments; Dream Design – Agent. To rezone 1.036 acres from General Commercial District to Suburban Residential District and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the Future Land Use from General Commercial District to Suburban Residential District in accordance with Section 508 of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Metes and bounds description: Commencing at the northeasterly corner of Lot 1 of Heavlin No. 2 Addition, common to the intersection of the southerly edge of South Dakota Highway 40 right-of-way and the westerly edge of South Airport Road right-of- way, and the point of beginning; Thence, first course: S00°04’00”E, along the easterly boundary of said Lot 1, common to the westerly edge of said South Airport Road right- of-way, a distance 48.80 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 1; Thence, second course: S00°04’00”E, along the westerly edge of said South Airport Road right-of-way, a distance of 33.00 feet, to the section line common to Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R9E, BHM; Thence third course: S89°54’00”W, along the section line common to said Sections 19 and 30, a distance of 200.00 feet; Thence, fourth course: N00°00’00”E, a distance of 22.73 feet; Thence, fifth course: S89°54’00”W, a distance of 112.68 feet; Thence, sixth course: N03°14’18”E, a distance of 203.00 feet, to a point on the northerly boundary of said Lot 1, common to a point on the southerly edge of said Highway 40 right-of-way; Thence, seventh course: S64°35’20”E, along the northerly boundary of said Lot 1, common to the southerly edge of said Highway 40 right-of-way, a distance 333.37 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, and the point of beginning; Said Parcel contains 1.036 acres more or less. Zeller reviewed the Staff Report indicating the applicant, Duane Brink of LLB Investments, Inc., is requesting to rezone approximately 1.03 acres from General Commercial to Suburban Residential District and also to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the designated Future Land Use of the subject property from General Commercial to Suburban Residential District. The purpose of the Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendments is to plat proposed Lot 1R of Heavlin No. 2 Addition and to bring into compliance the existing residential use of the subject property. Staff recommended denial of Rezone 10-02 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 10-02, as it is contrary to the intent of both Pennington County’s and Rapid City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the Rezone request is approved, staff strongly encourages the Comprehensive Plan Amendment not be approved in order for the Future Land Use designation to remain as General Commercial in conformance with both Pennington County’s and Rapid City’s Comprehensive Plans. Commissioner Hoffmann clarified that the City of Rapid City is opposed to amending the Comprehensive Plan. Zeller said yes and stated that she did speak with Rapid City Growth Management Personnel. The city has a corridor along both sides of E. Highway 44 designated as Neighborhood Commercial in their Comprehensive Plan as well. Commissioner Weishaupl questioned if the residential use is grandfathered or if it is designated as a caretaker’s residence. Zeller explained that the structure was allowed as a caretaker’s residence, when the property was owned by Rapid Valley Equipment. Commissioner Coleman discussed the use for the area and spoke of the size of the property and expressed concern for setting a precedent because the property is suburban in nature and not commercial. Mr. Scott Wrigglesworth, prospective buyer of the property, appeared and discussed the proposed application, and added that he would like to operate a part-time automotive business on the subject property and the residence would be used as their primary residence. He also spoke of financing for residential and commercial properties. Commissioner Weishaupl asked the applicant if he knew he would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the part-time automotive business on the property. Mr. Wrigglesworth responded yes. Discussion followed. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Holbrook to deny Rezone 10-02 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 10-02. Commissioner Coleman commented about the existing residence on the property and feels that an exception could be made for this application. He stated he would not be supporting the motion to deny the applications. Substitute Motion: Moved by Holbrook and seconded by Johnson to deny Rezone 10-02 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 10-02 without prejudice. Commissioner Coleman wanted to know what the steps are if the applications are denied without prejudice. Jennissen stated the applicant would be able to reapply within one year and they would have to pay advertising costs, send notification letters, and appear before the Planning Commission and County Board. Commissioners Hoffmann and Coleman stated they would not support the motion to deny without prejudice. Vote on Substitute Motion: 2 to 4 to deny without prejudice. Johnson and Holbrook voted yes. Commissioners Hall, Hoffmann, Coleman, and Weishaupl voted no. Substitute Motion failed. Second Substitute Motion: Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Hall to approve of Rezone 10-02 and to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment 10-02. All voting, the Second Substitute Motion carried 4 to 2. Commissioners Johnson and Holbrook voted no. 13. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS VARIANCE / SV 10-12: Robert Hammerquist. To waive platting requirements in order to create Lot D of Government Lot 3 in accordance with Section 700.1 of the Pennington County Subdivision Regulations. EXISTING LEGAL: Lot 2 of Lot C of GL 2; Balance GL 3 (NE1/4NW1/4), Section 6, T1N, R6E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. PROPOSED LEGAL: Lot D of Government Lot 3, Section 6, T1N, R6E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. Staff reviewed the Staff Report indicating the applicant has applied for a Subdivision Regulations Variance request to waive several platting requirements that are required as a result of platting a three (3) acre lot, proposed Lot D of Government Lot 3. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following to be waived: 1. The requirement to improve the easement providing access to the proposed lot, Sonquist Lane, and Forest Lane to Low Density Residential Local/Collector Road Standards; 2. The requirement to submit engineered road construction plans for said road improvements; 3. The requirement to dedicate an intermediate turnaround on the Preliminary Plat and to improve it according to the standards in Section 500.5-Table 1; and, 4. The requirement to provide topographic information for the proposed lot at a five (5) foot contour interval. Staff recommended denial of the portion of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-12 to waive the following requirements: 1. The requirement to improve the easement providing access to the proposed lot, Sonquist Lane, and Forest Lane to Low Density Residential Local/Collector Road Standards; 2. The requirement to submit engineered road construction plans for said road improvements; and, 3. The requirement to dedicate an intermediate turnaround on the Preliminary Plat and to improve it according to the standards in Section 500.5-Table 1 and staff recommended approval of the portion of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-12 to waive the requirement for topographic information for the proposed lot to be provided at a five (5) foot contour interval. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern the applicant did not submit a Preliminary Plat request with the Subdivision Regulations Variance requests. Zeller responded that a Subdivision Regulations Variance request can be submitted prior to a Preliminary Plat submittal, but the request can be challenging to review without the proposed lot having been surveyed yet. Commissioner Weishaupl asked staff if the proposed lot’s legal description has been surveyed. Zeller said no. Mr. Rob Hammerquist, applicant, appeared and discussed the proposed application. He stated the reason he wants to plat the subject property is because he and his brothers want to sell the proposed lot and keep the adjoining lot, Lot H, in the family. He is seeking approval of the Variance requests, since the required improvements will be too costly for them. Commissioner Weishaupl questioned the applicant about the lot configuration and wanted to know where access will be taken from for the proposed lot. Mr. Hammerquist added that the proposed lot needed to be three acres in size to meet the requirements of Low Density Residnetial and access will be taken from Sonquist Lane and traversing through another lot they own to the subject property. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if he understood the County Fire Coordinator’s request for a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Mr. Hammerquist said yes. Moved by Holbrook to sustain staff’s recommendations. Motion failed for a lack of second. Discussion followed on the required road improvements, engineered road construction plans, and the applicant increasing density. Substitute Motion: Moved by Johnson and seconded by Weishaupl to approve the request to waive: 1. The requirement to improve the easement providing access to the proposed lot, Sonquist Lane, and Forest Lane to Low Density Residential Local/Collector Road Standards; 2. The requirement to submit engineered road construction plans for said road improvements, but the applicant needs to submit as-built drawings for any additional future subdivisions; and, 3. The requirement for topographic information for the proposed lot to be provided at a five (5) foot contour interval and denial of the request to waive the dedication for a turnaround on the Preliminary Plat and to improve it, according to the standards in Section 500.5-Table 1. Jennissen asked if the Planning Commission also wants the easement to be 66 feet. Commissioner Johnson commented that future subdivisions will require the 66 feet, but not at this time. Jennissen explained that since the applicant is increasing density, road improvements are required. Commissioner Weishaupl added that there needs to be a 66-foot-wide right-of-way in place because of possible future development. Second Substitute Motion: Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Johnson to approve of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-12 to waive the following requirements: 1. The requirement to improve the easement providing access to the proposed lot, Sonquist Lane, and Forest Lane to Low Density Residential Local/Collector Road Standards; and, 2. The requirement for topographic information for the proposed lot to be provided at a five (5) foot contour interval; and, 3. The requirement to submit engineered road construction plans for said road improvements. And denial of the portion of the Subdivision Regulations Variance request to waive 4. The requirement to dedicate a turnaround on the Preliminary Plat and to improve it, according to the standards in Section 500.5-Table 1. Also denied the requirement to dedicate 66 feet of right-of-way for the easement providing access to the property. Discussion followed on the Motion. Second Substitute Motion: Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Johnson to approve a portion of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-12 to waive the following requirements: 1. The requirement to improve the easement providing access to the proposed lot, Sonquist Lane, and Forest Lane to Low Density Residential Local/Collector Road Standards; 2. The requirement for topographic information for the proposed lot to be provided at a five (5) foot contour interval; and, 3. The requirement to submit engineered road construction plans for said road improvements. And denial of the portion of the Subdivision Regulations Variance request to waive 4. The requirement to dedicate a turnaround on the Preliminary Plat and to improve it, according to the standards in Section 500.5-Table 1. Also denied the requirement to dedicate 66 feet of right-of-way for the easement providing access to the property. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 14. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT / OA 10-03: Pennington County. To amend Section 507-A “Construction Permits” and Section 511-D “Fees” of the Pennington County Zoning Ordinance. Jennissen explained that the Hill City Prevailer failed to advertise the legal advertisement in order for this item to be heard. Staff recommended to continue Ordinance Amendment / OA 10-03 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Moved by Holbrook and seconded by Hall to continue Ordinance Amendment 10-03 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 15. PRELIMINARY PLAT / PL 10-35: Larry McCaskell. To create Lots 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of High Country Ranch Estates in accordance with Section 400.2 of the Pennington County Subdivision Regulations. EXISTING LEGAL: Tract A less High Country Ranch Subdivision and less Right-of- Way, Section 15, T1S, R4E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. PROPOSED LEGAL: Lots 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of High Country Ranch Estates, Section 15, T1S, R4E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. Jennissen reviewed the Staff Report indicating the applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat to create Lots 12 and 17-20 of High Country Ranch Subdivision. The proposed lots will be part of the High Country Guest Ranch Planned Unit Development. Due to concerns expressed by the Environmental Planner regarding septic issues, the applicant has requested this item be continued so that he can address the concerns. Staff recommended to continue Preliminary Plat 10-35 to the January 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Moved by Holbrook and seconded by Johnson to continue Preliminary Plat 10-35 to the January 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, per the request of the applicant. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 16. PRELIMINARY PLAT / PL 10-37 AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS VARIANCE / SV 10-14: Linda and Larry Pearson. To create Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Hill City Heights and to waive a second means of ingress/ egress, Section Line Highway improvements, engineered road construction plans, and road improvements to Local Road Standards in accordance with Section 400.2 and 700.1 of the Pennington County Subdivision Regulations. EXISTING LEGAL: All less Hill City Heights (also in Section 31), White Whale Lode, MS 664 in Section 30 and GL 17 less Hill City Heights, all located in Section 30, T1S, R5E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. PROPOSED LEGAL: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Hill City Heights, Sections 30 and 31, T1S, R5E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. Jennissen reviewed that the applicant has requested to continue their item to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, as they are unable to attend today’s meeting. Staff recommended to continue Preliminary Plat 10-37 and Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-25 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, per the request of the applicant. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Hall to continue Preliminary Plat 10-37 and Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-25 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, per the request of the applicant. Commissioner Weishaupl questioned where the second means of ingress/egress will be located. Jennissen explained the applicant would have to provide an alternative means of ingress/egress to the property and stated there has been some discussion for possible access sites. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Hall to continue Preliminary Plat 10-37 and Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-25 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 17. PRELIMINARY PLAT / PL 10-36 AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS VARIANCE / SV 10-13: Valiant Vineyards/Eldon Nygaard. To create Lot G of Murray Subdivision and to waive submittal of platting requirements in accordance with Sections 400.2 and 700.1 of the Pennington County Subdivision Regulations. EXISTING LEGAL: Lot F of Murray Subdivision and the unplatted PT in NW1/4SW1/4 lying NW of Country Road and SE of Lot H3 in Section 21, T1S, R5E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. PROPOSED LEGAL: Lot G of Murray Subdivision, Section 21, T1S, R5E, BHM, Pennington County, South Dakota. Jennissen reviewed the Staff Report indicating the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Plat 10-36 to create Lot G of Murray Subdivision and Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-13 to waive engineered road construction plans and improvements to a portion of Robins Roost Road. Staff recommended to continue Preliminary Plat 10-36 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address issues for the revised construction plans of Robins Roost Road with the DOT. Staff also recommended approval of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-13 to waive engineered road construction plans and improvements to a portion of Robins Roost Road. Commissioner Weishaup clarified the applicant is decreasing density. Jennissen stated the applicant is combining Lot F and another unplatted balance to create Lot G, which would be decreasing density. Mr. Eldon Nygaard, applicant, appeared and reviewed the proposed realignment of Robins Roost Road, on the site plan, with the Planning Commission. He discussed an emergency turnaround, dust control, the alignment of Robins Roost Road, and comments from the DOT. He would like approval of the Subdivision Regulations Variance request and commented that he is not opposed to continuing the Preliminary Plat request. Moved by Weishaupl and seconded by Hall to continue Preliminary Plat 10-36 to the November 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting and approval of Subdivision Regulations Variance 10-13 to waive engineered road construction plans and improvements to a portion of Robins Roost Road. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. 18. COUNTY BOARD REPORT The Board of Commissioners concurred with the Planning Commissions’ recommendations from the October 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. 19. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no items from the public. 20. ITEMS FROM THE STAFF A. Sign Permit Ordinance. Jennissen explained that a contractor has asked about rebuilding nonconforming signs. Jennissen then reviewed the Sign Ordinance with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Weishaupl questioned what signs the contractor wants to rebuild. Jennissen stated the signs are off-premise ones billboards and the sign company would like to repair the sign faces and replace the wood frame with a frame. Commissioner Johnson spoke of the Sign Ordinance, depreciated value, and grandfathered signs, and also added that the County does not have a Building Inspector to do site inspections. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff on whether the signs will be reviewed on an individual basis, on whether the sign requests will be brought forth to the Planning Commission, or processed in-house. Commissioner Johnson stated the item needs to be brought before the Planning Commission as a discussion item. B. Violations/On-Site Wastewater Applications. Jennissen discussed if Building Permit applications or future applications on properties would be put on hold, when it is determined there is a septic tank violation. Commissioner Johnson spoke of wastewater systems in violation and stated it was his understanding that the Planning Director has the direction to make the decisions about wastewater violations and future applications. If an applicant does not like the decision of the Planning Director, they can ask to be on the Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Hoffman also spoke of placing Building Permits and applications on hold until the violations are corrected. If the applicant is requesting an exception, they can ask to be placed on the Agenda for the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. All Planning Commission members were in agreement that Building Permits and future applications can be put on hold until the wastewater violation is corrected. Any applicant can appeal to the County Board, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. C. Zoning Ordinance: Jennissen reviewed that an applicant would like to place a cable across a canyon to move construction materials to a building site. Jennissen would like an opinion to see if any permits are required Commissioner Johnson reviewed that the applicant would need to apply for a Building Permit for each anchor, based upon the Zoning Ordinance. 21. ITEMS FROM THE MEMBERSHIP A. Recommendations: Commissioner Hoffmann reviewed a list of items to address in the future. 22. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sheds. Commissioner Weishaupl asked to have this item placed under Discussion Items because he believed a committee was to be formed in order to review setbacks for sheds, and the committee was given four months to come back before the Planning Commission for any suggested changes. He questioned why a property in abeyance, was sent a violation letter to bring the shed into compliance. Jennissen explained that there was miscommunication and a letter was sent stating the violation needed to be brought into compliance. Jennissen further added that a letter of apology will be sent indicating the property is still in abeyance until further notice. Commissioner Hall added that the committee has not yet met and no suggestions have been brought forth to the Planning Commission. Ms. Melva Kindopp appeared before the Planning Commission and wanted to know when the committee will meet, what items they will be discussing, and what areas in the County will be reviewed. She also wanted it noted, on record, that she has provided a list and pictures of 115 sheds, which are in violation, and she would like to have those violations investigated. Commissioner Hoffman stated all those items will be addressed at the committee meetings, including the other 115 sheds in violation that Ms. Kindopp gave to the Planning Commission and Planning Department. Commissioner Holbrook suggested tabling the issue of sheds, including the committee. Moved by Holbrook and seconded by Hoffmann to table the discussion of sheds and the formation of the committee to review sheds and to enforce the Zoning Ordinance as it is written. Commissioner Johnson spoke of reviewing Ordinances from time-to-time. He discussed safety issues and added that he is not opposed to reviewing the item. Commissioner Coleman responded that he supports the motion to table the item and commented the Zoning Ordinance is well written. Discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson called the Question. All voted aye to calling the Question. Vote on Original Motion - 1 to 5. Motion failed. Commissioner Holbrook voted aye. Commissioners Hoffmann, Hall, Johnson, Weishaupl, and Coleman voted no. 23. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Hall and seconded by Coleman to adjourn. All voting aye, the Motion carried 6 to 0. The meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m. Jeff Hoffmann, Chairperson 1