Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 1 of 11 Regular Meeting: Planning Commission Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 515 2nd Avenue SW, City of Minot, ND Meeting Called to Order: February 26, 2018 at 6:57 p.m. Presiding Official: Chairman, Tyler Neether Members in Attendance: Randy Bartsch, Jon Hanson, Pam Karpenko, Todd Koop, Jynette Larshus, Tyler Neether, Bob Wetzler Members Absent: Wallace Berning, Jody Bullinger, Charles DeMakis, Tim Keller, Todd Wegenast City Staff Present: Principal Planner, Assistant City Attorney, City Clerk, City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Building Official, Public Works Director, Assistant Public Works Director, Public Information Officer Others Present: Aldermen Jantzer, Podrygula, Sipma, Straight, Wolsky Meeting Called to order by Chairman Tyler Neether Approval of the January 29, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion by Commissioner Larshus, seconded by Commissioner Karpenko, to approve the January 29, 2018 regular meeting minutes and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Motion passed RECOMMENDATIONS Item #1 & 2: The City Council pass an ordinance on first reading to annex into city limits an unplatted portion of the SW¼SW¼ Section 15-155-83. This property is located north of 4th Ave NW and east of the Hwy 83 Bypass on ramp. The City Council approve an application by Merit Development, Phil Handley, to subdivide Bel Air Twinhomes 2nd Addition, Lot 1 and a portion of vacated 5th Ave NW and the remaining unplatted portion of the SW¼SW¼, Section 15-155-83 into 2 lots to be known as Bel Air Commons, Lots 1 & 2. The City Council pass an ordinance on first reading to change the zone from C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District and AG (Agricultural) District to C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District on proposed Bel Air Commons, Lot 2 and to P (Public) District on proposed Bel Air Commons, Lot 1. 1|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 11 The City Council adopt a resolution to amend the Future Land Use Map from the designation of Low Density Residential to Conceptual Greenway on proposed Bel Air Commons, Lot 1 and to Commercial on proposed Bel Air Commons, Lot 2. This property is located north of 4th Ave NW; between 27th St NW and the Hwy 83 Bypass on ramp. Finding of Facts: 1. A portion of the subject property is unplatted and needs to be platted and annexed into the corporate limits. 2. A two-lot subdivision to be known as Bel Air Commons, Lots 1 and 2 is proposed. 3. The northernmost lot, proposed as Lot 1, is not buildable and is therefore being rezoned to P, Public District and will be dedicated to the Minot Park District as a continuation of the greenway corridor that abuts to the north. 4. The southerly lot, proposed Lot 2, is to remain zoned C1, Neighborhood and will be reserved for future office type development. 5. The land use designations on the Future Land Use Plan shall be amended form “Low Density Residential” to “Conceptual Greenway” and “Commercial.” 6. An access easement across proposed Lot 2 to access Lot 1 will be required. 7. Vehicular access to proposed Lot 2 will be limited on 4th Avenue NW and must be approved by the Engineering Department. Recommendation and Conditions (if approved): 1. A twenty-foot (20’) wide access easement is required from 27th Street NW west and then north to provide access to proposed lot 1. This easement shall be designed to follow the configuration of the driveway serving the future office development. 2. Vehicular access location, width, and design entering and exiting the property from 4th Avenue NW and 27th Street NW shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 3. A ten-foot (10’) utility easement is required along 4th Avenue NW for the entire width of frontage. 4. Updated Storm Water Management Plans will be required and approved by the City Engineer. 5. Erosion Control practices will need to meet State of North Dakota requirements and approved by the City Engineer. 6. Developer’s Agreement will be in place prior to the plat being recorded. 7. Sidewalks will be required. 8. Public Utility Fees/connection fees will be required. 9. As separate agreement with the Minot Park District is required for the dedication of the greenway open space. Principal Planner, Lance Lang described the location and the staff findings. Rob Berard, from Ackerman Surveying came forward to say, the applicant is agreeable to the conditions. Upon questioning by Commissioner Neether regarding access to the property, Mr. Berard said, 5th Avenue is vacated and he is working with City staff to create access at 4th Avenue, depending how the offices are laid out. The access at 4th Avenue, if approved, will likely be “right-out only.” 2|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the request with staff findings of fact and conditions and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Motion Passed Item #3 The City Council adopt a resolution to approve an application by Jennifer and Greg Combs for a Conditional Use Permit to enlarge the daycare in their home from the allowed 18 children plus staff to 22 children plus staff on Bodien’s Subdivision of Lots 4-7, S½ Lot 8 & S½ Lot 3, Block 3, Homes Acres Addition, Block 2, Lot 3. This property is located at 1730 Main St S. Finding of Facts: 1. The applicant has operated a day care facility for the past 26 years in Minot. 2. The applicant would like to increase the number of children at the daycare from the present limit of 18 to 22. 3. The daycare business is located in a house at 1730 Main Street South and it is zoned R1, Single Family Residential. 4. Daycare facilities up to 18 children are permitted by right in R1 districts, more than 18 requires a CUP. 5. The applicant has requested a CUP for 22 children. 6. The State Department of Health and Human Services regulates daycares as the licensing agency and the current daycare is licensed, the proposed daycare will also be licensed appropriately. Recommendations and Conditions (if approved): 1. The applicant shall provide copies of licensing documentation for the State Department of Health and Human Services for the City file. 2. The total maximum number of children allowed at the facility will not exceed twenty-two (22) upon issuance of this CUP. 3. The hours of operation for this facility shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. in the morning to 6:00 p.m., seven days per week. 4. There shall be no expiration date for this permit, however if complaints are received from neighbors regarding the operations of this daycare, the City Council shall have the right to call a show-cause hearing with the applicant and take action to resolve any issue, up to and including, revocation of the permit. 5. This permit is non-transferable, and, if approved, is therefore issued only to the applicant of record and only for this location. Mr. Lang said, the zoning ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit to allow more than 18 children in a daycare facility in a residential district. The State sets regulations regarding the physical size of the facility and staff to child ratios and the City ordinance relates to the exterior such as drop off feasibility. The applicant has provided information about the business and said drop off and pick up times are staggered to help with parking. 3|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Karpenko asked for clarification on the staff report which states, “the number of children may be increased if authorized and licensed by the State Department of Health and Human Services.” Mr. Lang explained, the intention was that if the State authorized additional children at the facility, the Conditional Use Permit could be amended. Timothy Voeller, a neighbor of the applicant, spoke in opposition to the permit. He said there is not enough room on the street for cars to park during pick up and drop off times. He also said, his family has had problems with parents parking in their driveway and blocking them from getting out. He is concerned that 22 children is too many for a home daycare and suggested they find a commercial location. He also brought up concerns over the increased noise level and with the sanitation of the house. He mentioned the possibility of mold and said the paint on the house is falling off in chunks. Greg Combs, the applicant, came forward to address the comments by Mr. Voeller. He said, he was not aware of any issues and any problems that arose in the past have been taken care of. They have installed a privacy fence to separate their driveways. He also explained, there is no mold in the house and 90% of the building has been remodeled in the past couple years. There was some flooding in the basement and he is in the process of repainting the exterior. The other neighbors have never complained and he believes the issues brought up by Mr. Voeller are personal and do not have to do with the daycare. Mr. Combs continued by saying, they applied for the conditional use permit at the request of Ward County Social Services. They had originally approached the County to accommodate one additional child who occasionally needs care due to situations with his/her parents. The county suggested that they should request approval for 22 children since they need to add another staff person for the one child there would be enough for 22 if they ever wanted that many. The daycare is inspected four times per year by the State health department and food program as well as fire and safety. Commissioner Karpenko made a motion to approve the request with staff findings of fact and conditions with an amendment to condition #2 to read, ”the total maximum number of children allowed at the facility will not exceed twenty-two (22) upon issuance of this CUP,” The motion seconded by Commissioner Wetzler and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Motion Passed Item #4 The Planning Commission held an application by Mark Gagner to change the zone from R1 (Single Family Residential) District to C2 (General Commercial) District on Outlot 14, Section 21-155-83. The property is located on the north side of 11 Ave SW, approximately ¼ mile west of Hwy 83 Bypass Frontage Road and 1,000’ north of Hwy 2 & 52. Finding of Facts: 1. The current zoning of the subject property is R1, low density residential. 4|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 5 of 11 2. The applicant has requested rezoning to C2, General Commercial. 3. There was some abutting C2 zoning to the south of this property but it was recently rezoned to RA Agricultural Residential. 4. The access to this property is across a mostly unimproved section line road not designed for commercial traffic. Approximately one-quarter mile of road would need to be improved to support truck traffic. 5. This property is located in the 100-year floodplain of the Souris River. 6. Anticipated amendments to the FEMA hazard maps will designate the majority of this property as in the floodway. 7. The use the applicant is requesting is an industrial use, not a commercial use. 8. If commercial zoning is not appropriate at this location, or at least questionable at best, industrial zoning certainly should not be considered. 9. If commercial rezoning were granted the applicant will require several variances to make this property acceptable for the proposed use. Commercial zoning requires the following standards which the applicant would like to seek variances for: a. Shall have a principal structure on the lot where the open storage area is located. It is staff’s understanding the applicant does not want to construct a building. b. All open storage shall be one hundred percent (100%) screened, at a minimum of six (6) feet in height, or to the height of storage racking, (up to a maximum of ten (10) feet), at the time of installation. The screening must be from ground level view from public streets, along any property line abutting a residential district, or in the event the storage faces the abutting lot’s front yard or the entrance area of an adjoining building. It is staff’s understanding the applicant is willing to fence the perimeter of the site for security purposes but chain link fencing does not qualify for 100% screening. c. All open storage shall be paved with concrete or bituminous surface (no recycled materials permitted) It is staff’s understanding the applicant does not want to hard surface the property. d. Commercial Landscaping required as set forth in Chapter 24. It is staff’s understanding the applicant does not intend to install commercial landscaping. Staff Recommendation and Conditions Staff recommends denial of this rezoning request for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is an industrial use type, not a commercial use type. Whether commercial or industrial rezoning is pursued, staff finds the following consideration make this site unsuitable for the proposal regardless: a. The site is in the 100-year floodplain and soon will be in the floodway of the Souris River. b. There is no other commercial zoning except for that along the Highway 2 and 52 frontage. c. The abutting parcel to the south is currently in process to rezone from C2 to a residential district. d. The other nearby parcels in the floodplain are zoned AG, RA, R1 or MH. e. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Development Plan depicts this area 5|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 6 of 11 as “Conceptual Greenway.” The proposed use is not compatible. f. The roads leading to this parcel are unimproved and not compatible with truck traffic. Mr. Lang said, the applicant visited with staff at DRT to discuss the storage of roll-off boxes on the property. Staff concluded, that use is not in alignment with C2 zoning. It would be appropriate in an M1 zone which does not fit in that area. Looking at the map, Mr. Lang pointed out, the neighboring lot is in the process of rezoning from C2 to RA. He further explained, the site will be in the floodway, which is not preferred for C2, or really any development. There are certain development requirements for commercial zoning including, a primary structure, landscaping, paving and an improved road surfacing that are consistent for commercial use. Several variances would be required to accomplish the applicant’s goal and staff recommends denial of the application. Commissioner Wetzler commented that, if approved, the area would be spot zoned, which the City is trying to avoid. Mr. Lang agreed. The applicant, Mark Gagner, provided a letter pointing out the errors he believes are listed in the staff report. He emphasized that an ordinance cannot be applied fairly and sensibly over an entire community and asked the Commission to apply logic to approve what is reasonable. He said the FEMA flood map is in the process of being amended so it is too early to say whether the property will be located in the floodway. He explained why each item listed under the “Finding of Facts” were inaccurate. He highlighted the variances that would be required to make the proposed use acceptable and said they did not refuse any suggestions necessary to become compliant so only two variances would be needed. The report addresses signing and drainage but neither of those aspects were requested. He stated, the current zoning of R1 is less viable in a floodplain than the requested zoning and said his proposed use would store containers that could be moved easily in the instance of a flood event. He said, he received documentation claiming the road was inadequate but at this time no one has not been provided any reports proving the claim. He drew attention to the application in which the first question regarding this request asks, “Does the property fit in C2 zoning based upon the location and intended use?” He read the general description from Section 11-2 of the Zoning ordinance, which states, “The parcels within the district should be developed either within other commercial spheres adjacent to arterial traffic routes or as well buffered areas adjacent to major streets.” He believes the area meets the definition described in the ordinance based on the fact it is a well buffered area adjacent to major streets. He then provided a list of properties that are a similar distance to or much further from major streets. He stated, the subject property should be considered “adjacent” based on rights enjoyed by other property owners. He also provided a list of properties in Minot zoned C2 with similar or more industrial uses than what he is proposing. He included locations that handle the storage of roll-off containers like he is requesting. He said, it would be a fundamental unfairness to allow those property owners but to deny his company. He also mentioned, the properties are contained by a chain link fence and while he has not refused to install another type of fencing, it was listed in the staff report that chain link fencing was not acceptable. Mr. Gagner brought up the potential for variances required for the property. He said, the land falls under the reasoning of “extraordinary or exceptional situation.” He said the reasonable use of the property is not possible because a building should not be constructed in the floodway. Due to 6|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 7 of 11 circumstances unique to the property, the location and speculative future land use plan, pavement would require an unrealistic investment that would never be recoupable by the owner. The denial of the request would demonstrate a denial to a property owner of a property right enjoyed by others. He concluded by saying, if the zone change is denied, the lot will remain empty with low tax value. If the request is approved, it would be a usable, fenced, landscaped lot which creates a taxable value benefitting the area. Mark Larson, owner of neighboring properties came forward to oppose Mr. Gagner’s request. He is in the process of rezoning Outlot 5 from C2 to RA to be used as pasture. He pointed out an easement which goes into Flying J Truck Stop to benefit members of the Behm family to cross Outlot 5. The easement is specific to say, if it is used for anything other than residential personal vehicles, it is voided. Another concern he has is regarding a ditch the applicant dug along the common property line which created an immediate drop off between the properties. He does not believe the property will have any greater value by installing a fence. The area is primarily residential and farmland. He encouraged the Planning Commission not to approve the request. Roger Behm spoke in opposition to the request. He shared his concerns that the road is too soft for heavy traffic. He also worried that changing the zone to commercial would increase his tax valuation. Todd Behm, who also lives in the area said he would like for it stay the hidden neighborhood he is used to. They do not need a commercial property with storage containers to ruin their view and spread garbage. He said he would buy the property at a cheap price so he could enjoy the land. He also said he installed the private drive himself for $3,000 and does not want it destroyed by traffic. Mr. Gagner said, he is looking to park steel containers, not dumpsters or garbage. He explained that he leveled the property to improve the drainage. He also provided a handout to demonstrate there would be no damage to the roadway. Even the heaviest truck with the heaviest container, travelling at the most restrictive time during the spring thaw would be no threat to the roadway. Commissioner Koop asked if the neighbors would be agreeable if the applicant was required to pave the road. Roger Behm said he does not want the property zoned commercial. Mr. Larson said he does not want to encourage access and believes drug deals are taking place there. Mr. Gagner said there is no reason for him to use that (north-south) road and he would rather use the section line road accessing the Bypass. Commissioner Karpenko asked about the surface requirement in a commercial zone, to which Mr. Lang responded by saying, concrete or asphalt surfacing is required. He continued by saying, they discussed the requirements with the applicant and informed him, he cannot use the property for storage in a commercial zone without building a structure. He said, he cannot speak for Mr. Gagner on his intentions to comply with the requirements or request variances. He reminded the Commission, the true question at hand here is they need to decide if the property should be zoned C2 and if it would be appropriate for any C2 use. If it is rezoned, the applicant must comply with the ordinance requirements for C2. 7|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Karpenko moved to hold the item. Motion seconded by Commissioner Larshus and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Item #5 The City Council adopt a resolution for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an open sales lot displaying boats, ATVs, and UTVs on Lots 11-16, Subdivision of Outlot 22, Section 27-155-83. This property is located at 2125 Elk Dr. Finding of Facts: 1. The subject property was previously developed for the display and sales of boats and recreational vehicles. 2. In the summer of 2017 a devastating fire destroyed the site. 3. The current ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for display and sales of boats and recreational vehicles. 4. The applicant has submitted an application for a CUP. Recommendations and Conditions (if approved): Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the display and sales of boats, recreational vehicles and associated items at 2125 Elk Drive subject to the following conditions. 1. Storm Water Management Plans will be required and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Erosion Control practices will need to meet State of North Dakota requirements and approved by the City Engineer. 3. A cost estimate for the total cost of installing the landscaping as depicted on the Landscape Plan and escrow money in that amount plus ten percent (10%) shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit application. Mr. Lang stated, the property was involved in a fire last year and the Zoning Code has been updated since the original building was constructed. The C2 zoning now requires a conditional use permit in order to display vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles, and the like on outdoor display areas. The applicant provided the site plan and the building elevations meet higher standards than required. There have been updates to the landscape chapter and plans now require a cost estimate and escrow money to ensure the landscaping will be done when weather allows or if the developer defaults the escrow money can be used to install the landscaping. Commissioner Neether asked about the escrow conditions. Mr. Lang said it can be in any form acceptable by the Finance Department. Sean Weeks, of Ackerman Estvold, representing the applicant, stated, the applicant concurs with staff recommendations. Motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Koop to approve the request with staff findings of fact and conditions and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none 8|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Motion Passed Item #6 The Planning Commission denied an application by Southwest Crossing Partners, Jerome Kuechle, for a variance to the paving requirement to allow approximately 350 lineal feet of asphalt milling, as an interim parking lot surfacing until permanent paving can be installed, on Southwest Crossing Addition, Block 1, Lot 2. This property is located on the east side of the garages for 3819-3823 Crossing ST SW. Finding of Facts: 1. The applicant received Certificates of Occupancy in April 2015 for all the apartment buildings in this phase of Southwest Crossing with the exception of one – 12-plex building due to lack of sufficient off-street parking. 2. The required parking could have been installed in 2015, in 2016 or in 2017. 3. In late 2017 the applicant did install some black top and later found that it was not sufficient to meet the required amount of parking to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building. 4. The blacktop asphalt that was installed does not meet City standards. 5. The applicant then used asphalt millings for the remainder of the area which do not meet City standards. 6. The applicant is now requesting a variance asking the City to accept asphalt millings as an interim allowable surfacing until the parking can be properly constructed. The applicant cannot provide a date when the proper paving will be installed. Staff Recommendation and Conditions (if approved): Staff recommends denial of this variance request due to the following reasons: 1. There is no hardship other than a claim of financial hardship. 2. The work that was done does not meet City standards. 3. The work could have been completed over the course of three construction season dating back to 2015. 4. There is no timeline or completion deadline associated with this variance request. Mr. Lang explained, five apartment buildings were constructed with completing in spring 2015. At that time there was only enough parking provided to allow four buildings to receive a certificate of occupancy. In November, 2017 the company moved forward to pave additional spaces and open the remaining building. Due to a misunderstanding, the applicant built eleven stalls but did not install enough paving to meet the parking requirement. Before they could correct the error, the paving plants closed for the year and they were unable to complete the blacktop. He provided photos of the lot which does not have curb and gutter or sidewalks completed. The applicant is requesting a variance so they can receive the certificate of occupancy and complete the requirements to City standards at a later date. City staff is concerned because theapplicant does not have a target completion date. He suggested the possibility for the applicant to post a bond and agree to a completion date, staff might be agreeable if the work is completed this construction year under the provisions of the bond. Staff recommends denial of the application as there is no hardship other than financial and they have had three years to complete the requirements. 9|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 10 of 11 The applicant, Jerome Kuechle, said he can guarantee completion by June 15th, depending on when the asphalt plant opens. He said he would also be agreeable to a bond. The City Engineer came forward to explain, the entire parking lot need to be completed up to City code including curb and gutter, landscaping sidewalks and striping. He cautioned against setting a precedence for other developers to leave projects unfinished when they run into financial hardships. What’s being requested is a temporary certificate of occupancy. The building has met all of the building codes but we are waiting for the site to be brought into compliance with zoning ordinances. If a bond is provided, a certificate of occupancy could be issued up to a certain date as long as the improvements are done a full certificate could be granted. However, if the conditions are not met by a certain date and there are occupants in the building, technically, they would be required to leave. Temporary certificates of occupancy are occasionally done for landscaping during the winter but not for anything on a large scale such as this. Mr. Kuechle said, the reason this hasn’t been done over the last three years is because the occupancy was not high enough to justify opening another building. They reached their occupancy last fall and decided to proceed with expanding. from The manager of Ubiquity Property Management, came forward to say, there are more than enough spaces for the number of vehicles who occupy the buildings. She pointed out a location on the map that is completed with blacktop and could be used for on-street parking. She also said, the additional income from having more residents would help pay to finish the property. Motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Motion Passed Item #7 The City Council pass an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 30 (Administrative Procedures) Subsections 30-5(j) (Text Amendments and Zoning District Changes) of the City of Minot Zoning Code of Ordinances Mr. Lang explained, this is a housekeeping issue. As a result of the reduction in the size of the Council there were several sections of the Zoning Code that needed to be updated to reflect appropriate number of votes required for certain actions. This amendment updates a section that was missed in previous amendments. Motion by Commissioner Karpenko, seconded by Commissioner Koop to approve the amendment to the Zoning Code of Ordinances and carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Hanson, Karpenko, Koop, Larshus, Neether, Wetzler. nays: none Motion Passed 10 | P a g e PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 Page 11 of 11 Other Business Alderman Wolsky addressed the Planning Commission to inform them of some ideas he has for the future. He said, after attending the Governor’s Main Street Summit, he would like to be more conscious of future development. He wants to focus on smart efficient infrastructure and incentivize different types of development in the current footprint of Minot rather than expanding further. He said, the Planning Commission is vital in overseeing expansion. He emphasized the financial consideration in expansion and said it is difficult to sustain financially. Upon questioning by Commissioner Neether, Alderman Wolsky said, the next steps have not been discussed yet, but there will be a conversation on the Main Street Summit at the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 27th. Mr. Lang said a comprehensive plan update needs to take place in the future and the Zoning Ordinance implements those policies established in the plan. With no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 pm. 11 | P a g e