Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 1 of 14 Regular Meeting: Planning Commission Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 515 2nd Avenue SW, City of Minot, ND Meeting Called to Order: Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. Presiding Official: Chairman, Jon Hanson Members in Attendance: Randy Bartsch, Jody Bullinger, Charles DeMakis, Jon Hanson, Justin Hochhalter, Tim Keller, Dustin Offerdahl, Boyd Sivertson, Todd Wegenast, Bob Wetzler Members Absent: Wallace Berning, Todd Koop City Staff Present: Principal Planner, City Attorney, Planning Assistant, Finance Director, Building Official, Public Information Officer, Assistant Public Works Director Others Present: Aldermen Jantzer, Podrygula & Wolsky Meeting Called to Order by Chairman Jon Hanson Approval of the August 27, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion by Commissioner Keller, seconded by Commissioner Wegenast, to approve the August 27, 2018 regular meeting minutes and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast, Wetzler. nays: none Motion passed Item #1: The City Council approve an application by Richard D. Johnson to subdivide Belmont Addition Lot 23 & S 5’ of West 60’ of Lot 24 to be known as Belmont 2nd Addition, Lots 1 and 2. This property is located at 720 12th Street NE and 1200 8th Avenue NE. The applicant is requesting approval of a two-lot subdivision to clean up a situation with the interior lot line. The properties included in this subdivision are addressed as 720 12th Street NE and 1200 8th Avenue NE. These properties are zoned R1 Single-Family Residential to the north and the south lot is R1G. The zoning will remain unchanged. Finding of Facts: 1. The applicant and his neighbor would like to straighten the common lot line between them that currently has a five foot (5’) jog in it. 2. They have submitted a subdivision plat that adjusts the line appropriately. Staff Recommendations and Conditions: 1|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 2 of 14 Staff recommends approval of this two-lot subdivision to be known as Belmont 2nd Addition, Lots 1 and 2. The Principal Planner, Lance Lang, described the location of the property. He explained that this is basically a housekeeping issue. For some reason there is a five foot (5’) wide jog in the property line between these two properties. The two property owners would like to straighten it out. The way the properties are actually used based on topography is such that the five feet belongs with the south lot, proposed Lot 2, more than it does with proposed Lot 1 which is how it is currently existing. By extending the lot line between the two lots along the alignment of the westerly portion of the line all the way to the east the five foot (5’) is absorbed into proposed Lot 2. Nothing else changes. Mr. Johnson appeared before the committee and stated that no one that he has spoken to has had any objection to the proposal. No one appeared in opposition to the proposal. Commissioner DeMakis move to approve the request. Motion seconded by Mr. Offerdahl and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast, Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis. nays: none Motion Passed Item #2: The Planning Commission denied a request by Souris Basin Transportation for a variance on Kemper Addition, Lot 1 to allow an existing building to be enlarged over 75% of its’ original size in M1 (Light Industrial District). This property is located at 805 31st Street, SE. Finding of Facts: 1. Souris Basin Transportation is losing one of their facilities to flood control buyout. 2. They have elected to expand the facilities at 805 31st Street SE instead of building a new building. 3. The proposed building addition exceeds 75% of the floor area of the existing building. 4. In 2013 the City Council adopted design and building construction materials for commercial and industrial projects in the City’s jurisdiction. For building additions, the extent of applicability is based on the size of the addition as a percentage of the existing facility. 5. The building addition proposed by Souris Basin exceeds 75% of the existing floor area. 6. Section 14-8 of the zoning ordinance establishes that the existing building and the building addition must be designed to meet the enhanced standards required in the section. 7. The section requires enhanced architectural elements and construction materials for street facing facades wrapping at least ten (10) feet around the corners. 8. Souris Basin Transportation has applied for a variance seeking relief from these requirements. The applicant is requesting a variance seeking relief from construction materials and design elements required for building additions in M1 zoning districts. The building, located at 805 31st Street SE, is 2|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 3 of 14 proposed for expansion with a substantial building addition that will exceed 75% of the original size of the building. (The exact square footages are not included in the submittal materials.) Code requires enhanced design elements and construction materials on street facing facades to insure the building is more aesthetic than an all-metal building, which have historically been prominent in M1 and M2 zoning districts. These requirements were added to the zoning ordinance in 2013 when it was updated to address the appearance concerns of new construction and major building addition/remodel projects. Staff recommends denial of the variance to Section 14-8 requested by Souris Basin Transportation due to lack of a demonstrable hardship. The Principal Planner, Lance Lang, added that this is not only a request to add a building addition exceeding 75% of the original building, but it is also a request to not meet architectural design and building materials requirements in the M1 zoning district. Souris Basin Transportation currently owns two buildings, this one and another located at 309 1st Avenue NE that will be purchased by the City as part of the flood control buyout. The building space that will be lost in the buyout property is proposed to be added to the 31st Street location resulting in an addition exceeding 75% of the existing square footage. In such cases the ordinance reads: “When an existing building is completely refaced or the building is remodeled over 75 percent of the existing square footage of the building, the addition plus the existing building area shall meet the standards of this section.” The standards that are referred to are Design Elements of which three (3) different elements are required from a list of seven (7), such as; accent materials, horizontal and vertical design features, and front entry enhancements. The second construction requirement is for Exterior Building Finishes wherein two (2) different materials choices are require from a list of nine (9), such as; brick, EFIS, stucco, split-face concrete block, etc. These standards apply to street facing facades and are to wrap around the sides a minimum of ten feet. Since these requirements were adopted by the City Council in 2013, Staff has required developers to meet these criteria during the design process. Even City projects in the Public zoning district have to meet building design and materials standards. Additions to the Public Works Building just down the street from Souris Basin Transportation had to meet these requirements. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow all metal construction, proposed metal wall panel and a standing seam metal roof to match the existing building. The zoning ordinance requires more than this for both the addition and the existing building. Elevations of the proposed buildings are included in the packet. There are two versions, one based on the base bid and another labeled as Alternate # 1. In either case, relief from the building design and materials requirements has been requested. Staff does not believe that the building design and materials requirements are subject to a variance. A variance requires a demonstrable hardship, some extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the owner. A hardship is not to be based on convenience, cost savings, profit margins, or similar factors. Souris Basin Transportation claims that the flood control measures require them to add to the building to maintain the current service level to the community and that these matters are outside the owner’s 3|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 4 of 14 control. The buyout is out of the owners control but that does not mean the alternatives for relocationare exempt from code requirements. Souris Basin could build a new facility. It would have to comply with the design and materials requirements. Instead, they are going to add on to the existing building with a major addition exceeding 75% of existing floor area. The design and materials requirements should be met just like any commercial or industrial project in the City of Minot. In the variance application the applicant also states: “Additionally, it should be pointed out that, as is, the property is very well cared for. It has adequate landscaping and curb appeal and the building exterior is in excellent condition; furthermore, the above mentioned property is definitely the most appealing if compared to the adjacent buildings. The building has two ‘public’ fronts, one on the Burdick Expressway East and one on 31st Street SE, which means that two sides will have to be upgraded; the Burdick Expressway side comprises mostly garage doors on to the vehicle parking lot area, and any design element/finish suggested in the ordinance is not appropriate to this type of building.” Staff does not disagree that the property is maintained well. If other buildings in the area are constructed or remodeled they will be subject to the same requirements as this one. A Landscape Plan is provided. It is interesting to note that twenty-four (24) trees are to be removed and only four (4) new trees and seven (7) new shrubs added. Mr. Darrell Francis, Executive Director for Souris Basin Transportation came forward to comment on the proposal. Mr. Francis believes that the decision to deny the variance is unfair. One of his issues is with the trees. Mr. Francis stated that the existing trees were planted by themselves when they built the building 3 years ago after the flood in 2011, so in fact, they added trees. The building was built on a gravel pit. The building was purchased from MADC and they are using ARRA funds from the federal government to build this building. SBT provides 90,000 rides to 10 counties. Mr. Francis believes the hardship stems from the 2011 flood, including the subsequent rebuilding and the fact that there was no flood insurance. SBT put $175,000 into the building behind the Ice Box. An agreement was signed with CDM Smith and it took 10 months to receive an appraisal. It took 2 months to receive federal approval and approval from state DOT. Bids were opened last week. Bids are approximately $2.1 million dollars. Original building cost approximately $1.03 million during the flood. He said, they built that building on that lot because they have an agreement with the City of Minot for fuel and it’s very accessible. They lost 9,000 square feet from the old building and want to recoup that, and they can add another 3,000 square feet for $300,000.00. They are looking forward to the future. No other transits run after 7 pm like they do, and they run on the weekends as well. They are non-profit and rely on federal, state or county funds for this development. He said, they hope the Planning Commission will reconsider and give them the vote so they can move forward. CDM Smith is looking for them to be out sometime around spring or summer, and they don’t know if they will be out by then. No other facility was comparable; therefore, the property was bought so it could be added to on the south side. Commission Keller asked is SBT has in its bid alternates for the materials to meet the ordinance. Mr. Francis replied yes, $45,000 for the 25’ addition and $50,000 for the 50’ addition. Commission Keller stated that the overall budget of the building is $2.1 million addition and that $45,000 or $50,000 in comparison is not much to meet the ordinance. Mr. Francis did not agree and 4|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 5 of 14 reiterated the request for the variance. Commission Wetzler noted that there were two different sketches of two different size buildings, and asked what the difference in cost was. Mr. Francis stated the difference in price is $400,000.00. Commissioner Wetzler asked which building would SBT like to build, and Mr. Francis indicated the larger structure. Commissioner Keller moved to deny the request based on the cost of meeting the variance not being a large portion of the overall budget. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Bartsch and carried with the following roll call votes: ayes: none, nays: Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wetzler, Bartsch, DeMakis, Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, abstained: Wegenast, Bullinger. Motion Passed Item #3: The City Council pass an ordinance approving a request by Northdale Villa Condominiums, LLC to change existing zone from C2 (General Commercial) to RM (Medium Density Residential) on Northdale 3rd Addition, Lot 3 & 4. This address of this property is 2717 to 2835 North Broadway. The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning request from District C2 to District RM for twenty (20) condominium units housed in a single building at 2717 to 2835 North Broadway, just north of Jerome’s Collision Center and Body Shop. The owners of these condominium units would like to insure that the condos can be rebuilt at this location if they were to be damaged for some reason in the future. The property is currently zoned C2 General Commercial and residential uses were permitted in C2 Districts until the last ordinance update in 2013. At that time, the City Council decided to remove residential uses from commercial zoning districts and these uses became legal non-conforming, meaning that they could remain, but could not be enlarged. No new residential projects can be built in commercial zoning districts. If the non-conforming uses, such as these condominium units, were to be damaged to an extent of sixty percent (60%) or greater of reconstruction value, they cannot be rebuilt. Only uses that are permitted in C2 zoning districts could be built here. The only exception to the restriction on residential uses in commercial zones is for upper floor housing located over retail businesses in C2 and C3 zones. Finding of Facts: 1. The subject property is zoned C2 and occupied by a residential condominium building, Northdale Villas. 2. It became a nonconforming use in 2013 because residential land uses are no longer allowed in commercial zoning districts. 3. The applicant, representing all of the condominium owners in Northdale Villas, approached the City about rezoning the property from a commercial to a residential zoning district to avoid any complications with non-conforming use regulations 4. The applicant gathered the necessary signatures from all twenty (20) condo owners to rezone from C2 to RM. 5|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 6 of 14 5. The applicant has applied for the rezoning as requested. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from C2 to RM. The Principal Planner, Lance Lang, noted that back in 2013 the council make a conscious decision to not allow residential uses in commercial zoning districts. Mr. Lang noted that there is quite a bit of these properties around Minot. These properties are non-conforming (grandfathered use) and the caveat to that is if something happens to the buildings, i.e. fire, and the damage if over 60%, the structure cannot to rebuilt as residential but must be rebuilt for commercial use. The 20+ owners in Northdale Villas have agreed to request rezoning to match the current use to the proposed zone change (RM). Commissioner Wetzler raised a question regarding whether the rezoning would add land to the west. It does not appear to be contiguous. Mr. Abrahamson, member of the Board of Directors for the condo association, noted there was a 20’ strip at the back to provide access between the lot to the north of the condos and the lot to the south of the condos. He also thanked Mr. Lang for putting this together for the association. In the past, when he spoke with City staff they were rude and not helpful. He gave further background that the association was advised by their lender and insurers that they would not be able to rebuild if the property was damaged more than 60%. Commissioner Hochhalter moved to approve the request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wegenast and carried with the following roll call votes: ayes: Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson Wegenast, Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson, Hochhalter Motion Passed Item #4 The Planning Commission denied a request by Dr. Nordell for a variance on Southdale 8th Addition, Lot 14 for a new deck within the 10’ setback. This property is located at 1825 Tammy Drive, SW. The applicant is requesting a variance for a rear deck that is constructed too close to the rear property line at 1825 Tammy Drive SW. The required rear yard is twenty feet (20’) and a deck can extend ten feet (10’) into the rear yard. The deck is six feet (6’) from the rear property line which is four feet (4’) encroachment into the rear yard. The applicant is therefore requesting a four foot (4’) variance to the rear yard setback. There was an existing deck that encroached even further into the required setback approximately three and one-half feet (3 ½’) from the property line. There is no record of a variance for this deck in the past. The new deck setback at six feet (6’) encroaches two and one-half feet (2 ½’) less than the original deck. When the contractor submitted plans for a Building Permit for the replacement deck the Chief Building Official reviewed the plans and did not issue the permit due to the encroachment. The building official 6|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 7 of 14 contacted the contractor and told him he would need to shorten the length of the deck to comply with the setback or get a variance approved for the encroachment. The contractor built the deck without a valid building permit and is now requesting a variance after the fact (see Exploded View with Old Deck exhibit). Finding of Facts: 1. An existing nonconforming deck has been replaced with a new deck, still not conforming to setbacks but less of a nonconformance than the original deck. Both decks extend into the rear yard setback too close to the rear property line. 2. The contractor was aware that the replacement deck did not meet setbacks and a building permit could not be issued unless the deck was redesigned to meet setbacks or a variance for the encroachment into the rear yard was obtained. 3. The contractor constructed the deck anyway encroaching into the rear setback without a valid building permit being issued. 4. The contractor has applied for a variance to allow the deck to encroach for feet (4’) into the required ten foot (10’) rear yard. 5. The contractor has not submitted an explanation or reasoning for the deck variance. Staff recommends denial of this variance request because there is no demonstrable hardship. The deck was constructed without a valid building permit when the applicant was aware that the setback issue needed to be addressed. Principal Planner, Lance Lang, noted that before granting a variance, the Planning Commission must specifically find that it can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without actually impairing the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan as established by the regulations and provisions contained in the ordinance. The impact to the community, to the public good, and to the comprehensive plan is negligible in this case, but finding grounds for a justifiable hardship is not possible. The applicant offered no justification for the request. The issue could have been avoided by reducing the size of the deck to comply with the setback requirements. Jay Hight, of Hight Construction, came forward and gave his justification for approval of the variance and to give some background information. He was approached by Dr. Nordell because the first contractor, who had removed the original deck, was unable to complete the project due to family reasons. Mr. Hight indicated that he had come to the City and had a conversation with Mitch Flanagan, Building Official. He acknowledged that without receiving the building permit he was taking a calculated risk, but decided to go forward with the project. Mr. Hight presented a letter to the Planning Commission from one of Dr. Nordell’s neighbors who stated that they did not have an issue with the deck. Commission Hanson asked if it would be considered a hardship for the deck to be 10’ wide to be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Hight considered that the deck being rebuilt from 18’ to 14’ was the hardship. 7|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Dr. Nordell came forward to talk to the Planning Commission about the aesthetics and privacy aspects of the deck. Commissioner Wetzler asked if the 20’ was part of the utility easement and Lance indicated that it was not. The twenty feet is the setback for structures, like the house. The deck can extend ten feet into the setback. There could be easements within a setback. Commissioner Keller moved to grant the variance based on the neighbor’s letter, and that a garden shed encroaches much closer to the property line, and also for Dr. Nordell’s enjoyment of her property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Sivertson. Commissioner Hanson asked the City Attorney, if a hardship needed to be identified to grant the variance. Attorney Hendershot recited the zoning code regarding hardships. Commissioner Keller stated that the narrowness of the backyard could be considered the hardship. Commissioner Wetzler asked if a variance would be needed if the deck had been rebuilt to the original specifications. Mr. Lang advised that there was no record of a variance that they could find regarding the original deck, but that since the original deck had been taken down, the new deck would have been built in conformance with the current code. Whereupon a vote was taken on the above motion by Commissioner Keller, seconded by Commissioner Sivertson and failed by the following roll call vote: ayes: Keller, Sivertson, Offerdahl, Wegenast, Hochhalter. nays: Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson. Motion Failed Commissioner Hanson called for a second vote. Commissioner Wetzler moved to deny the request. Motion seconded by Bartsch and failed by the following roll call votes: ayes: Bartsch, Wetzler, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson. nays: Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast. Kelly Hendershot noted that there was no action by the Planning Commission and that the request can go to the City Council. Motion Failed Item #5 The City Council pass an ordinance approving a request by David Mayer to rezone Section 26-155-83, Outlot 50 from AG (Agricultural) to R2 (Two-Family Residential District) to make land current with the comprehensive plan for future development. This property is located at 1425 18th Street, SW. The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning request from AG, Agricultural to R2, Two-Family Residential District for an outlot containing approximately 4.42 acres located at 1425 18th Street SW. Staff has met with the applicant several times to discuss development potential for this parcel. There is 8|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 9 of 14 an old farm house on-site. It will need to be demolished to accommodate new development. The property will likely be subdivided in the future and will no longer be an outlot. The first step in the process however, is the rezoning. The rezoning boundary can be based on the legal description of the outlot. Finding of Facts: 1. The applicant owns a parcel of land that is currently an outlot containing an old farmstead on 4.42 acres. 2. The property is currently zoned AG, Agricultural. 3. The applicant would like to rezone the property to R2, Two-Family Residential District to market it for duplex or two-family townhome development in the future. It is likely that the outlot will be resubdivided into multiple lots with a subdivision plat in the future 4. The applicant has applied for the rezoning to R2. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from AG to R2 as presented. Lance Lang, City Planner, provided some background on the property. It is an old farmstead and about 4 ½ acres. The house is not livable. Staff has met with the owner several times. There are townhouses to the east and the developer is thinking along those lines, but first the property needs to be rezoned. The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The planning commissioners did not have any question for Mr. Lang, and no one came forward as opposed or in favor of the request. Commissioner Wegenast moved to approve the request. Motion seconded by DeMakis and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast. Nays: none Motion Passed Item #6 The City Council approve an amendment to Resolution no. 3585 for a Conditional Use Permit on Hanover Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2. The applicant has worked with staff through several aspects of zoning regulations over the past several months to rebuild the Vallely Marine Center after the fire last summer. These code requirements were not in place when the original building was first occupied many years ago, but the most current regulations apply to the new construction at this site. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for open sales lots. A CUP was issued in March 2018 for this purpose. After the CUP was approved the applicant decided to subdivide the property into two individual lots by consolidating several outlots to create Hanover Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 in August 2018. The proposed subdivision was problematic because of a specific code requirement in C2 zoning that states for outdoor sales and display a primary building is required on the same lot where the display and sales occur. One of the lots in Hanover Subdivision was to contain the sales building while the other 9|Page PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 10 of 14 lot was to be an open sales lot with no building. Splitting the property in this manner would be a violation of the ordinance. The applicant did not want to build another building on Lot 2 as it will be used for construction staging and then for an interim period it will have inventory parked on it, but will likely be sold in the near future. Staff proposed an amendment to the text in the C2 chapter of the zoning ordinance that would allow outdoor inventory and display under certain conditions. The paragraph that lists requirements for outdoor sales was amended to read as follows: “Shall have a principal structure on the lot. In cases where multiple lots are proposed for open sales, only one of the lots is required to have a principal structure on the lot if all lots are contiguous to one another, under common ownership and used for the same business operating from the principal structure.” This text amendment was approved in August 2018 and Hanover Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 was also approved. Now that the subdivision has been approved, the CUP approved as Resolution 3585 must be amended to describe the property properly as it is described by the subdivision plat as Lots 1 and 2 of Hanover Subdivision. The zoning ordinance states in Section 30-3, paragraph f) “Amended Conditional Use Permits”; “An amended conditional use permit may be applied for and administered in a manner similar to that required of a new conditional use permit.” Therefore, Staff is requiring full review at public hearings for this amended CUP before both Planning Commission and City Council. With this amended CUP, the approved text amendment and approved Subdivision Plat known as Hanover Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, this project will meet all zoning requirements to operate as an outdoor display and sales facility for boats, recreational vehicles and associated products at this location. Finding of Facts: 1. The subject property was previously developed for the display and sales of boats, recreational vehicles, and related products. 2. In the summer of 2017 a devastating fire destroyed the site. 3. As the Owner began the rebuilding process City staff informed him that the current ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for display and sales of boats and recreational vehicles which the Owner obtained. 4. The Owner then expressed a desire to subdivide the land into two lots which could not be done for this type of business without amending the zoning ordinance. 5. The ordinance was successfully amended and a two-lot subdivision was approved, but the original CUP needed amendment after the lot split. 6. Lot 1 has a principal structure on the lot where the open storage area is located. 7. Lot 2 is contiguous to Lot 1; Lots 1 and 2 are under common ownership; and Lot 2 is used for the same business operating from the principal structure on Lot 1. 8. The CUP is being amended to recognize Lots 1 and 2 of Hanover Subdivision as the lots that are authorized by the CUP for outdoor display and sales of boats, recreational vehicles and related products. 10 | P a g e PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 11 of 14 Staff recommends approval of the amendment to Resolution No. 3585 for a conditional use permit for the display and sales of boats, recreational vehicles and associated items on Lots 1 and 2 of Hanover Subdivision (2125 Elk Drive) subject to the following conditions (same as before): 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 provided background on this request. Vallely had suffered a fire last summer and the main structure needed to be rebuilt. The rebuild is near completion. When the rebuild occurred, a Conditional Use Permit was issued for open sales. The lot was subsequently subdivided, which is Hanover Lots 1 & 2. There is a principal structure on Lot 1, but not on Lot 2, which is a violation of the code. This caused an issue because the CUP requires that any lots used for open sales requires a principal structure on that lot. There was an amendment to the code because the lots are contiguous. Now the Conditional Use Permit must be amended. No one came forward for or against the request. Commissioner DeMakis moved to approve the request based on staff findings and recommendations. Motion seconded by Offerdahl and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast, Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis. nays: none Item #7 The City Council pass an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance Chapters 2, “Definitions,” Section 2-1,” Definitions”, and Chapter 16, “P, Public Zone”, in its entirety, and Chapter 30, “Administrative Procedures”, Section 30-5, “Text Amendments and Zoning District Changes. Finding of Facts: 1. The City Council has asked City Staff to prepare proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance to address discrepancies with a recent rezone application for “P”, Public zoning district. 2. With assistance from the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee, staff has prepared text amendments to portions of Chapters 2, 16 and 30. 3. The proposed amendments modify the current language to more directly meet the accepted practices in the land development process. Staff recommends approval of the text amendments as presented. Principal Planner, Lance Lang, explained at the request of City Council, The Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee has been working on revisions to two chapters in the ordinance, 16 and 30, related to rezoning applications which in turn created a need to add a definition into Chapter 2 as well. 11 | P a g e PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 12 of 14 When the rezoning application for Family Recreation Addition came to Planning Commission in July it was recommended for approval. After the meeting the application was deemed to be incomplete by City Council because it does not address all the submittal requirements in these sections of the code. The motion from City Council contained two components; 1) Remand the rezoning hearing for Family Recreation Addition back to Planning Commission to be heard at the November Planning Commission meeting. 2) Staff was directed to prepare amendments to the appropriate sections of the zoning ordinance to revise the submittal requirements in the ordinance in line with the way these applications are brought through the development process. There are three parts of the code to be addressed. Starting with Section 30-5, submittal requirements for rezoning, staff and the steering committee had recognized that this section is problematic over a year ago. The committee planned to make changes to this section, but there are other sections within Chapter 30 that also need to be addressed, so the committee was going to approach the revisions holistically. That has not happened to date, and now it is important, as the Council recognized, that 30-5 be amended to bring this section into alignment with the way development applications are processed through the system. The submittal requirements in 30-5 are unreasonable in terms of expectations and cost. Fully developed site plans including such information as all proposed buildings, parking layout, landscape plans, stormwater management calculations and other detailed information are required by this section. In Minot, oftentimes developers are seeking rezoning of a property without any specific plans for development other than generalizations. If a rezoning request is for C2, commercial, then the developer is contemplating some type of commercial development, but the details may not be forthcoming so early in the process. There are many possibilities for commercial development projects such as banks, hotels, convenience stores, retail strip malls, restaurants, etc., etc. This section of the code requires a developer to pick some type of use and then pay design professionals to develop a full set of plans before the question of rezoning is resolved. In some case, such as franchise developers, more information may be available up front. When a McDonalds, or a Caribou Coffee, or a Dollar Store come to town they have been building prototypes of their facilities all over the country and they will have more information available to share early in the process than a speculative developer. The important thing to emphasize is that all of the development standards are going to be required through the land development process at the City, just later in the process. The checks and balances remain. A site plan is required for a building permit. A landscape plan is required for a building permit. All projects are subject to sediment and erosion control and stormwater management by the engineering department because of state and federal laws. To require this information upfront is overbearing and unnecessarily costly. Staff has revised the submittal requirements in 30-5 to provide base information such as a boundary survey, an aerial photograph, zoning and land use designations for the subject property and all surrounding adjacent properties, indication of any easements or encumbrances, and a written general 12 | P a g e PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 13 of 14 description of the intent for the property. If more information is available in the form of finished drawings, exhibits and maps, that is great, but not required. These submittal requirements will give Staff a good representation of the site to be developed with enough information about the surrounding properties to make a recommendation on the rezoning request without requiring the time and expense of finished plans. Also, the steering committee felt that a definition of “boundary survey” should be provided in Chapter 2, Definitions, since it is listed as a requirement above in paragraph 4. The following definition is proposed to be added to Chapter 2. Boundary Survey: The map, plat, or statement of the result of a survey, by which a parcel of land is measured on the ground and the courses and distances of its boundaries, area, and contents are ascertained. Chapter 16 “P”, Public Zone. In similar fashion to the submittal requirements currently listed in 30-5, Chapter 16 requires submittal and review of very detailed information for projects proposed in P zones. Staff agrees that projects that are proposed by public agencies or on publicly held land should be subject to reasonable submittal and review requirements just as private development projects are. The steering committee drafted language that includes checks and balance to the review process by adding two persons to the DRT roster for public projects. This was done because DRT is comprised of city staff who are public sector employees. Therefore, public employees are reviewing public plans as in the city, for example, is the applicant and the reviewer. There may be a potential conflict of interest. The proposal adds one person each from the Planning Commission and City Council to the DRT mix as appointed by the Mayor to address this issue. The applicant must develop a conceptual master plan for new projects, change in use, or expansion of projects on “P” zoned properties. The concept plan goes to DRT and then on to Planning Commission and City Council. Detailed development requirements happen later and in accordance with the same development procedure as private sector projects. Landscape plans, drainage plans, stormwater studies, building elevations, and other detailed info are developed in accordance with the approved concept plan and submitted at the appropriate time in the development timeline for staff review and approval. Most of the detailed submittal and review requirements have been stricken from the chapter since they are covered elsewhere in the development process. For example, the ten line items in the current ordinance under Section 16-10 are all related to site plan and stormwater management. The Engineering Department requires a full stormwater study and drainage plan be prepared for all developments in accordance with Chapters 28 and 28.1. There is no need to specify compliance in this chapter. Commission Bartsch asked a question regarding all the revisions and exclusions not being on the front end of the process, will the items be addressed somewhere else? Principal Planner Lance Lang responded that there will be checks and balances addressed as the project moves forward. 13 | P a g e PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 24, 2018 Page 14 of 14 Rolly Ackerman, a member of the Steering Committee, came forward and offered an amendment for Chapter 30-5, paragraph #4, second sentence, strike the word “proposed.” He also noted that this process has been ongoing for 3-4 years and he cited two occasions where projects fell through because of these requirements and that he supports the amendments. Commissioner Wegenast moved to approve the ordinance revisions as presented with one amendment to the request cited for Chapter 30-5, striking the word “proposed”. Motion seconded by Sivertson and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Wetzler, Bartsch, Bullinger, DeMakis, Hanson, Hochhalter, Keller, Offerdahl, Sivertson, Wegenast. nays: none. Motion Passed With no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. 14 | P a g e