Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 7 Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 515 2nd Avenue SW, City of Minot, ND Meeting Called to Order: February 27, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. Presiding Official: Chairman, John Zimmerman Members in Attendance: Randy Bartsch, Wallace Berning, Jody Bullinger, Matt Geinert, Larry Holbach, Pam Karpenko, Todd Koop, Tyler Neether, Todd Wegenast, Bob Wetzler, John Zimmerman Members Absent: Jon Hanson, Jynette Larshus City Staff Present: Planning Director, Principal Planner, Assistant City Planner, City Attorney, City Engineer, Asst. City Engineer, Public Works Director, Traffic Engineer, Building Official, Public Information Officer Others Present: Aldermen Sipma, Straight. Meeting Called to order by Chairman John Zimmerman Approval of the January 30, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Koop, to approve the January 30, 2017 regular meeting minutes and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Berning, Bullinger, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wegenast, Zimmerman. nays: none Motion passed The Chairman noted that the application from Dakota Carrier Network for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless communications monopoles has been withdrawn. Item #2: The City Council approve a request by Vegas Capital Funding represented by Sean Weeks, Ackerman- Estvold Engineering, to subdivide Highlands at North Hill 2nd Addition, Block 3, Lots 1A-4B, Block 4, Lots 10A-18B, and Block 5, Lots 2A-8B into 29 lots to be known as Highlands at North Hill 3rd Addition, Block 1, Lots 1-6, Block 2, Lots 1-10, Block 3, Lots 1-7 and Lots 8A-10B. Also, the City Council pass an ordinance on first reading to change the zone from R-4 (Planned Residential) District to R2 (Two-family Residential) District with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay on proposed Highlands at North Hill 3rd Addition, Block 1, Lots 1-6, Block 2, Lots 1-10, Block 3, Lots 1-7 and Lots 8A-10B. This property is located at the intersection of Granite Drive and Ivory Street NW. 1|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 7 The Principal Planner presented a summary of the project based on the Staff Report. Mr. Lang stated this project was held from the January 30, 2017, meeting to allow the applicant and staff more time to work on issues pertaining to the Planned Unit Development application. The applicant is here today requesting rezoning from R-4 to R2 with a PUD overlay for 25 acres at the City’s request, and also a residential subdivision. The subdivision features twenty-three (23) single- family housing lots and six (6) duplex lots on 5.57 acres plus some adjacent lots identified and reserved for community open space. The 5.57 acres is at the north end of the original 25 acres. The Future Land Use map depicts this property as “High Density Residential” so above average density as shown is to be expected. The change to single-family lots, albeit small lots, is a step towards decreasing the density and deemed favorable by staff over the townhouse density. The current submittal depicts 1.58 acres of community open space which is a little less than 6.% of the 25 acre tract. The submittal lists seven (7) total picnic tables and seven (7) total BBQ pits along with 1,100 lineal feet of five-foot wide pedestrian paths constructed of asphalt millings or alternative material within the community open space. The submittal also includes a conceptual Landscape Plan and a commitment from the developer to provide twenty-four (24) trees within the common open space lots. In terms of timing of improvements, the applicant is proposing that all open space and amenity improvements will be in place after fifty percent (50%) occupancy of the 29 lots shown on the plat for Highlands at North Hill 3rd Addition. Eight-foot (8’) wide enhanced pedestrian walks are distributed through the 25-acre subdivision as opposed to the normal five-foot (5’) sidewalk to provide connectivity to the open space. The developer plans to remove street pavement panels as necessary to provide proper curb stop locations to each lot. This work will be coordinated with the Public Works Department. This issue will also be addressed in the Developer’s Agreement. As for the PUD application, the applicant is requesting smaller lots and reduced setbacks for the rear yard through the flexibility of the PUD approach. The applicant has presented information regarding the architectural style, construction materials, color palate, and finishes for both the single-family and duplex units. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning, the subdivision, and the PUD application subject to seven (7) conditions as follows: Conditions: 1. Developer’s Agreement with the City of Minot is required to be approved and recorded before the plat can be recorded. 2. The information provided on the plans for the proposed open space areas and associated amenity package shall be made part of the agreement. 2|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 7 3. Proposed building elevations depicting architectural style and construction materials, finishes and colors shall be made part of the plan. 4. Homeowner’s association must be created, recorded, and in place for the maintenance of all open space and storm water management areas before plat can be recorded. 5. All amenities for the open space areas including the trail, picnic tables, grills, trees and seeding shall be completed at such time as fifty percent (50%) of the homes are occupied in Lots 1-6, Block 1 and Lots 1-10, Block 2, and Lots 1-7, 8A-10B, Block 3. 6. New water and sewer services must be installed to the proposed lots at locations identified per city specifications. The old water and sewer services must be removed back to the water and sewer mains and properly capped. 7. The developer shall be responsible for installation of the eight-foot wide public sidewalks at all locations shown on the plat in coordination with the Engineering and Public Works Departments of the City. Chairman Zimmerman opened the floor to public comment. Sean Weeks came forward to represent Ackerman-Estvold Engineering and Vegas Capital Funding. He stated, the applicant was agreeable to all conditions except for Condition 7. While the applicant was agreeable to assuming responsibility for installing sidewalks in the proposed common areas, they requested that installation of all sidewalks fronting individual lots occur when each lot is developed, as is common practice, and be exempt from responsibility of the cost of laying sidewalks in front of lots that may not be built on for a number of years. This could be accomplished through a homeowner’s association and the developer’s agreement, in coordination with City staff. Chairman Zimmerman asked Principal Planner, Lance Lang whether Condition 7 as worded would commit the applicant to installing all sidewalks at once as opposed to when each individual lot is developed. Mr. Lang answered that he had intended Condition 7 to be open-ended and not compel the applicant to install all sidewalks at the outset, so that the Commission and applicant could come to a compromise. Chairman Zimmerman stated, the Commission wanted to ensure the applicant would follow through on Condition 5 and asked Mr. Weeks to clarify that the applicant’s concern was in regard to installing sidewalks. Mr. Weeks reiterated, the applicant was willing to provide sidewalks in the common areas, which would be completed once half the residences within the replat are occupied as required by Condition 5. The remaining sidewalks would be constructed by the property owners, as is done with the normal five-foot wide sidewalks. Chairman Zimmerman then asked whether Condition 1 as worded requiring a developer’s agreement could satisfy the applicant’s concerns with Condition 7. Mr. Weeks answered, the applicant would want language addressing their concerns in the developer’s agreement. Commissioner Wetzler asked whether there may be gaps in the sidewalks. Mr. Weeks answered, that is possible if someone buys a corner lot separated from developed lots, but is no different from other residential developments. The faster the lots are developed, the sooner the sidewalks would be completed. Commissioner Wetzler then asked whether the sidewalks would be constructed as each individual lot is developed, or one block at a time. Mr. Weeks answered, sidewalks would be constructed as each individual lot is developed and landscaped. It is more difficult for construction equipment to cope with an existing sidewalk when building a house. 3|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Wegengast asked for clarification on whether the applicant wished to be responsible for the eight-foot sidewalk. Mr. Weeks again reiterated, the applicant was willing to provide sidewalks in the common areas while upon purchase, it would be disclosed that each property owner would be responsible for constructing an eight-foot sidewalk at the front of their respective lot rather than the normal five-foot. He estimated that it would cost an average of $3,500 per lot for an eight-foot wide sidewalk based on a fifty-two foot (52’) wide lot. Mr. Lang stated, in discussions with the applicant, he had been under the impression that the applicant was willing to install all the sidewalks and asked Mr. Weeks whether he had been mistaken. Mr. Weeks answered, Mr. Lang was not mistaken, however in the days leading up to the hearing, the applicant had concluded that it would be financially beneficial to request the Commission for relief from installing sidewalks in front of the individual lots. Chairman Zimmerman asked Mr. Weeks whether the applicant was requesting for the Commission to strike Condition 7. Mr. Weeks answered, the applicant requested Condition 7 to be modified so that the developer would be responsible for the installation of eight-foot wide public sidewalks only in the common areas, with the rest of the sidewalks being the responsibility of the respective property owners. Commissioner Neether asked how wide the lots to the south with duplexes were. Mr. Weeks answered, they are 36 feet wide. The proposed single-family lots are 52 feet, with a 3-car garage duplex being 55 feet. Commissioner Neether then asked what the setbacks on the interior lots of the duplexes would be. Mr. Weeks answered, 25 feet in front, 20 feet in back, and 6 feet on the sides. Commissioner Neether then asked whether the side setbacks on the single-family lots would be the same. Mr. Weeks answered, they would be. He believed that those residences would be 36 feet wide and 50 feet long. Commissioner Neether then asked how many fewer residences would be in this replat from what was previously platted. Mr. Weeks was unable to provide an exact number but replied, there were now 149 lots down from 160. Commissioner Karpenko stated, she was under the impression that property owners had always been responsible for installing sidewalks and asked for further clarification on the applicant’s concerns with Condition 7. Mr. Lang answered, the applicant’s primary concern was the cost of installing one eight- foot wide sidewalk rather than two five-foot sidewalks on each street. Planning Director, Robert Davis, stated, the Planning staff was concerned about gaps and uneven sidewalks and was preferable to language providing for the sidewalks to be installed in phases. He asked Mr. Weeks whether he would agree. Mr. Weeks answered, he thought the applicant would be open to discussing that idea. Chairman Zimmerman stated, he believed Condition 7 was sufficiently open-ended for the applicant and City staff to arrive at a beneficial and workable agreement. Commissioner Geinert asked whether any thought had been given to the possibility of setting a precedent for spot zoning clusters of lots with Planned Unit Development overlay in this request, and provided an example of a developer buying 10 lots with the intent of replatting them into 12 lots with a 4|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 7 PUD overlay. Mr. Davis answered, the Planning department intends to utilize PUDs to aid in eliminating defunct zones such as R-4 while providing amenities to the residents. Chairman Zimmerman responded, in Commissioner Geinert’s example, a PUD would not be workable without amenities provided by the developer. This request was a reflection of new zoning regulations and changing market conditions. Mr. Lang responded, in this case, the streets and other infrastructure are already in place, leaving the developer with few options beyond redrawing the lot lines. He viewed the addition of single-family residences and open space as a welcome change. Commissioner Geinert then asked whether requests for PUDs would be granted on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lang answered, that is the intent. Commissioner Karpenko asked Mr. Weeks whether the $3,500 cost to install a sidewalk would be between the developer and the buyer. Mr. Weeks answered, it would. Commissioner Karpenko then stated, she saw no reason to modify Condition 7 when it included the words “in coordination with”. Mr. Weeks reiterated the applicant’s concern for being obligated to install all the sidewalks. Commissioner Karpenko asked whether City staff would be agreeable to relieve the applicant of being responsible for sidewalks once 50% of the residences are occupied. Mr. Lang answered, the solution may be so simple as to reword Condition 7 to read “coordination of installation” of the sidewalks. Chairman Zimmerman agreed with that solution, and stated, responsibilities for installing the sidewalks could be addressed in the developer’s agreement. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Zimmerman closed the floor and brought the issue to the Commission for discussion. Hearing none, Chairman Zimmerman called for a motion. Commissioner Karpenko moved to approve the item based on staff’s findings of fact and the seven conditions listed above with an amendment to the language in condition number seven “based on agreement of percentage of completion” as follows: The developer shall be responsible for installation of the eight-foot wide public sidewalks at all locations shown on the plat based on agreement of percentage of completion of the development, in coordination with the Engineering and Public Works Departments of the City. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wegengast and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Berning, Bullinger, Geinert, Holbach, Karpenko, Koop, Neether, Wegengast, Wetzler, Zimmerman. nays: none Motion Passed Item #3: The City Council pass an ordinance on first reading approving an application by Jay Lundeen, TJR LLC, represented by Michael Oakleaf, Hight Construction, to change the zone from AG (Agricultural) District to C2 (General Commercial) District on Jacks 3rd Addition, the south 323.95’ of Lot 6 and all of Lot 8, for the purpose of accommodating an auto body business. 5|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Also, the City Council adopt an resolution to amend the Future Land Use plan from Low Density Residential, Public/Semi-Public, and Industrial to Commercial on Jacks 3rd Addition, the south 323.95’ of Lot 6 and all of Lot 8. This property is located at 400 36th Avenue NW. The Principal Planner presented a summary of the proposal based on the Staff Report. Mr. Lang stated that the owner is requesting rezoning of this 13.74 acre tract because he contends that the current zoning does not fit the overall master plan for the City. The petitioner states that the property size is too small (at under 20 acres) to qualify for its current AG zoning status, and the owner feels that the recent paving improvements to 36th Avenue NW creates the need for additional service and land use options that come with a change in zoning. This property is the site of a former tree farm and there are still many trees located on the site. The owner plans to use the existing metal building at the east end of the site for auto body prep, more specifically sandblasting. “Automobile Repair Shops-Major” is an allowable use type in C2 zones as long as there is no outside service operations and no outside storage of parts, equipment, and inoperable vehicles. The existing trees may provide screening of vehicles and equipment outside the building depending on where the trees are and where the equipment is. If not, the owners will be required to keep everything inside the building or erect a solid screening fence, wall or landscaping. The future vision for this property as stated in the Property Owner’s Intent document and reads as follows; “The intent for the property is to partition it into a five acre unit and a nine acre unit. Initially the five acres on the west side of the property, hereby known as Unit A, will be sold. This leaves nine acres on the east side (Unit B) which will be developed into a strip mall with either retail as an anchor or a movie theater.” Staff met with the owner to discuss the possibility of reducing the intensity of the commercial rezoning from the requested C2, General Commercial District to C1, Neighborhood Commercial District for the five acres on the western end of the property. This end of the property sits diagonal across the street from Ramsted School and the land uses to the west and south are almost entirely residential in nature. (See map below.) Staff feels that the western most end of the site should encourage pedestrian activity and be designed to promote walkability first and automobile access second. Although staff discussed a C1 District at the western end, staff acknowledges that it will be located at an intersection of two minor collectors, i.e., 8th St NW and 36th Ave NW and would become an attractive site for many C2 zoned uses. The remainder of the property to the east is suitable for rezoning to C2, given its proximity to existing C2 zoning and the North Broadway commercial strip. The owner felt that reducing the zoning from C2 to C1 would impact his ability to market and sell the five acre parcel on the west end. Two protest letters have been received in opposition to rezoning this land. In both letters, the citizens speak of the beauty of the tree farm as a last stronghold of green space in this neighborhood and they state they would like the trees and open space to remain. They do not want commercial activity at this location. Unfortunately, this green space is privately owned, it is not part of the Park District’s property and therefore can be developed to some other use by the owner based on zoning and other city regulations. 36th Avenue will be extended west to the Bypass and will carry significant traffic in the 6|Page PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 2017 Page 7 of 7 future. As this area continues to develop there will be an interest in commercial development along the corridor. The only way to preserve the existing trees and open space is to purchase it from the current owner and the current owner plans to rezone it to commercial and sell or develop it commercially. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. No outside storage of parts, equipment, or inoperable vehicles in association with the use of this site for major vehicle repair, OR alternatively, the applicant must provide a solid fence or wall or dense landscaping to screen the entire area to be used for outside storage, the location and design of said fence, wall, or landscaping to be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. The following conditions will apply at the time of future replatting or prior to development of the property: 1. Traffic impact study is required and improvements must be constructed by the developer. 2. Storm water management plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Utility connection fees must be paid. 4. Sidewalks are required along all platted right-of-ways. 5. Developer’s agreement with the City of Minot is required to be approved and recorded when future replatting occurs or prior to development of the property. Chairman Zimmerman opened the floor to public comment. Hearing none, Chairman Zimmerman closed the floor to public comment and brought the issue to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Karpenko moved the City Council approve the item based on staff conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wegenast. Chairman Zimmerman called for discussion. Commissioner Neether asked whether Jay Lundeen had given any indication of when he would subdivide the western five acres. Mr. Davis answered, Mr. Lundeen had no specific timeframe. The Planning staff was favorable to a use that would encourage walkability at the corner of 8th Street and 36th Avenue, as was Mr. Lundeen. Commissioner Neether asked whether there were any potential buyers. Mr. Lundeen answered, he had no buyer at present. Chairman Zimmerman then called for a vote. Whereupon a vote was taken on the motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Wegenast and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Berning, Bullinger, Geinert, Karpenko, Koop, Neether, Wegengast, Wetzler, Zimmerman. nays: Holbach. Motion Passed Meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm. 7|Page