MINUTES JOINT LINCOLN COUNTY and SIOUX FALLS PLANNING COMMISSIONS April 9, :30pm Court Room (3 rd Floor)-Lincoln County Court House

Transcription

1 MINUTES JOINT LINCOLN COUNTY and SIOUX FALLS PLANNING COMMISSIONS April 9, :30pm Court Room (3 rd Floor)-Lincoln County Court House A joint meeting of Lincoln County and Sioux Falls Planning Commissions was held on April 9, 2008 at 7:30pm in the Court Room of the Lincoln County Court House. Lincoln County Planning Commission members present: Burdell Coplan, Bob Evanson, Craig Andersen, Chuck Molstad and Harvey Hoffman. Sioux Falls Planning Commission members present: Pam Breidenbach, Lynnette Olsen, Jessie Schmidt, David VanVeldhuizen and Kent Metzger. Staff Present: Lincoln County: Paul Aslesen and Laurie Powell Sioux Falls: Steve Randall and Jeff Schmidt The Sioux Falls Planning Commission chair Kent Metzger presided over the meeting. Lincoln County Planning Commission chaired by Craig Andersen. 7:30 pm Joint Jurisdiction CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS The Consent Agenda consists of the non-controversial items on the Planning Commission s agenda. The Chairman will ask if there are any requests from the Planning Commission members to move an item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. The Chairman will then read each item and ask if there are any objections from the audience to any item listed on the Consent Agenda. If so, please raise your hand and ask that the item be places on the regular agenda. Any items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning Commission, including the conditions recommended by staff. ITEM 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 12, 2008 Meeting. A motion was made for Sioux Falls by Van Veldhuizen and 2 nd by Schmidt to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. The same motion was made for Lincoln County by Evanson, 2 nd by Molstad. The motion passed unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS The planning staff will present a brief report on each item. The petitioner will then be asked to come to the microphone and make a statement or answer questions. Anyone from the audience who wishes to address a particular agenda item shall be recognized by the chairperson, move to the microphone, identify themselves and state their address for the record. The Planning Commission will then discuss the matter further and take appropriate action. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made for Lincoln County by Hoffman and 2 nd by Evanson to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously. The same motion was made for Sioux Falls by Breidenbach and 2 nd by Schmidt. The motion passed unanimously.

2 ITEM 2. CONDITIONAL USE #08-JJ-01 (Initial request 07-01received September 10, 2007) Variance to Zoning Regulations : To increase the allowed height for an existing grinding and recycling waste facility from 35 feet to 52 feet. Legal Description - Lots 1 & 2 of Mueller s 4 th Addition in the SE1/4 of Section 19, Township 100, Range 50. Location Mueller Place, Sioux Falls, SD Petitioner/Owner- Margaret Mueller, Mueller Pallets, LLC. General Information Present Zoning: C Commercial District Existing Land Use: Grinding and recycling waste facility. Parcel Size: 1.5 acres Report by: Steve Randall The subject property and facility is located at the northeast corner of the I-29 Tea Interchange outside the limits of the City of Sioux Falls 2015 Future Land Use Plan, approximately ½-mile south of a portion of the Plan calling for Economic Development. An existing tower and dust control equipment installed by the Applicant for a grinding and recycling facility on the subject property is 80 feet high and a variance to the Joint Zoning Regulations for maximum height allowed is required. As part of the wood recycling operation, Mueller Pallets installed an 80 feet tall clamshell and dust removal system which was needed to transfer the product from their grinder to trailers for delivery to customers. Due to dust issues and complaints concerning the current operation of the clamshell and dust removal system, and because efforts by the Applicant to have the system manufacturer add more effective equipment to the system have not been successful, the Applicant is now proposing to remove the existing collection system from the top of the clamshell, thereby lowering the overall height, and to provide a new conveyance system, most of which will be completely enclosed in the building where Mueller Pallets currently has its grinder. The only part of the conveyor that will be on the outside of the building is between the clamshell and the line marked approximate support location on the left hand side of the drawing (per exhibit). The height of the clamshell after the collection system is removed from the top is 48 feet. The conveyor will dump into the top of the clamshell. The conveyor is approximately four feet wide. Consequently, the entire height of the structure outside the building will be 52 feet. For better control of fugitive dust at ground level, the Applicant has stated they are considering putting up a fence. A building permit for the existing tower and equipment installation was not applied for, nor was one granted. The Applicant states that County staff had no objection to the tower height when asked if construction could proceed. County staff states they were not aware of the actual height of the tower until after it was constructed.

3 Staff understands the Applicant to say now that the proposed enclosed conveyance system will mitigate any adverse environmental impacts observed thus far from the wood recycling and grinding facility and will be constructed with approval of the height variance Density, Area, Yard, and Height Regulations. Maximum height- 35 feet Additional Height Regulations A. 2. Mechanical appurtenances and elevator penthouses which are located on top of a building shall not exceed 12 feet in height above the maximum permitted in the district in which they are located Variances. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not vary the regulations unless it shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that all of the following conditions are present: A. The particular physical surroundings shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The Applicant states, More than a mere inconvenience would result if Mueller Pallets was not allowed to utilize the equipment at its current height. As noted previously, Mueller Pallets grinds wood into chips for delivery to various customers, including dairy farmers and Poet Biorefining-Chancellor. In order to deliver the product to its customers, Mueller Pallets has to get the product from the grinder to the trailers. The most cost effective method to move the product to the trailers is through a system that enables the trailers to drive under the collection bin so that the product can be delivered from the top down. Given the size of the parcel of land and the standard height of semi trailers, it would result in a particular hardship to Mueller Pallets if it was not able to utilize the system at this height and in this manner. There is no financially feasible way for Mueller Pallets to transfer the product to the trailers in another fashion. Comment: The site is not large enough to convey processed material without vertical loading of trailers. B. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification or other property substantially similar in use. The Applicant states, The circumstances under which Mueller Pallets seeks this variance are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. Mueller Pallets seeks this variance due to transfer and loading issues that are unique to the wood grinding and recycling industry which is not generally conducted within commercial zoning classifications within the joint jurisdiction area. Comment: A recycling facility is currently not allowed in the C District under any condition, and so is not likely to be a similar use on other property in that District. That is to say, similar height variances would not be expected. C. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

4 The Applicant states, Granting Mueller Pallets the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Mueller Pallets recognizes that there have been complaints about the dust coming from its facility by two neighbors. With respect to the dust coming from the exhaust fan, the addition of the bag collection system which is part of this variance application is designed to close the loop in the system and eliminate dust being emitted from the top of the equipment. Additionally, Mueller Pallets has designed a wind break and baffle system to limit the amount of dust that escapes when the trailers are loaded. Having the system at the height it is enables the loading of the trailers in the manner intended. Comment: The tower height as constructed does not appear to be detrimental or injurious and hopefully will contribute to mitigation of the fugitive dust problem associated with this grinding and recycling facility. D. The proposed variance will not unreasonably impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; increase the congestion in the public streets; increase the danger of fire; endanger the public safety; or diminish or impair property values within the area. The Applicant states, There will (be) no impact on the supply of light and air to adjacent property, (no) increase(d) congestion in the streets, (no) increase (in) the danger of fire, or (will not) endanger public safety through the allowance of the height variance. There have been no complaints from neighbors regarding the height of the equipment. Mueller Pallets also has Federal Aviation and State of South Dakota permission to have a piece of equipment at this height near the Tea airport. Comment: The tower height as proposed does not appear to have a detrimental effect, if the fugitive dust problem can be mitigated by allowing that height as claimed by the Applicant. E. That because of circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. The Applicant states, As noted previously, in order for the recycling and grinding facility to operate and permit the efficient delivery of the product to the trailers, the system needs to be over 35 feet tall. Comment: The variance is necessary to carry out the material processing plan as described by the Applicant on the subject property. F. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford reasonable relief and will represent the least modification desirable of the zoning regulations. The Applicant states, Given the size of the semi trailers and given the design of the equipment at issue which is necessary to eliminate the dust problems, this variance request is the minimum variance necessary to afford Mueller Pallets with reasonable relief and represents the leas(t) modification desirable of the zoning regulations. Comment: Short of a business relocation, the variance in height requested represents the minimum height required by equipment suppliers for handling of processed materials on site.

5 G. The Board shall hear and make determinations on variance to exceed the height limits as established by these regulations. H. The Board of Adjustment, under its authority to grant variances may impose reasonable conditions on the grant, and one accepting those conditions is bound by them. The issue of fugitive dust in the neighborhood that originates with Mueller s business operations will hopefully be resolved with approval of this variance. If it is not, and there continues to be a problem, a Conditional Use Permit Application from Mueller s will be required for public hearing and approval. Recommendation Because the Application has included enough information to warrant a particular hardship, and proposes that the granting of the variance will not result in a continued detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property or improvements in the area in which the property is located, staff recommends that the Joint Commission approve the variance request as presented subject to a one month performance review of dust control in the neighborhood at a public hearing by the Board of Adjustment. Based on Staff report and public testimony a motion was made for Sioux Falls by Van Veldhuizen to approve the variance with a review one month after the completion of new conveyor system (July is expected completion), the motion was 2 nd by Schmidt. Motion passed unanimously. The same motion was made for Lincoln County by Hoffman and 2 nd by Evanson. ITEM 4. ADJOURN A motion was made for Sioux Falls by Breidenbach, 2 nd by Van Veldhuizen. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made for Lincoln County by Coplan, 2 nd by Molstad to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. NOTE: Future meetings will be held at 7:00 pm