Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 1 of 17 Regular Meeting: Planning Commission Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 515 2nd Avenue SW., City of Minot, N.D. Meeting Called to Order: Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Presiding Official: Charles DeMakis Members in Attendance: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast Members Absent: Barnett, Hochhalter, Koop, Lider City Staff Present: Principal Planner Van Dyke, Assistant Planner Peter Baumgartner, Assistant City Engineer Emily Huettl, City Attorney Kelly Hendershot Others Present: Sean Weeks, Representative for Item #9; Steve Eberle, Representative for Item #8; Fred Bentz, property owner of Item #8; Jennifer Cook, Representative of Item #10; Luis Cortez, Owner of Item #10; Jacquelyn Ortega and Ryan Lebron, Partners on Item #10; Alan Egeberg, Concerned Citizen on Item #9 Meeting Called to Order by Chairman DeMakis at 5:30 p.m. Item #1 Roll Call Item #2 Pledge of Allegiance Item #3 Planning Commission Intro and Public Hearing Decorum Item #4 Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Offerdahl to approve the August 03, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, second by Nesdahl, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Absent: Baumann Motion carries The following are the recommendations of the Planning Commission: Item #5 Case # 2021-09.04 Subdivision Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision plat to adjust the property boundary shared between the two lots. The resulting subdivision is to be known as Lots 1 & 2, The Bluffs 17th Addition. The properties are legally known as Lot 7, The Bluffs 7th Addition and Lot 8, The Bluffs 9th Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The properties are located at 3404 and 3408 21st St. SE. Planning Commission waived staff’s oral report on this item. Below is a summary of staff’s written report that is attached to the Planning Commission Agenda. Public hearing request on an application from Roscoe Streyle, owner for a subdivision plat to adjust the property boundary shared between the two lots. The resulting subdivision is to be known as Lots 1 & 2, The Bluffs 17th Addition. The properties are legally known as Lot 7, The Bluffs 7th Addition and Lot 8, The Bluffs 9th Addition to the City of Minot, 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 2 of 17 North Dakota. The properties are located at 3404 and 3408 21st St. SE. An aerial view of the property is provided in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The application revolves around the desire to adjust a shared property boundary between two residential lots. Both properties are owned by Roscoe Streyle. The preliminary plat for The Bluffs 17th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.6 for “R1” Single-Family Residential District. The zoning and future land use designation of the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 & 4 of staff’s written report respectively. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 5 of staff’s written report. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicant has submitted a complete application. 2) The subject area is currently depicted as Very Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the 2012 City of Minot Comprehensive Plan. 3) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 4) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4. Section 10.3-5 is not applicable to this plat application. 5) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the The Bluffs 17th Addition plat with the following condition: 1) No later than six months after a subdivision design has been approved by the City Council, the applicant for design approval may submit the final form of the instrument or document to the City Engineer which is to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order to accomplish the subdivision or to establish the necessary predicate for the later accomplishment of the subdivision. That is, the subdivider shall submit the final form of the original of the appropriate instrument of conveyance, auditor’s outlot plat, or plat, and the necessary copies thereof required by ordinance or by way of regulation. The City Engineer shall indicate his approval on the original by signing his name under a suitable statement or legend that expresses approval. However, if the documents or instrument for which approval is sought is a plat, then before the City Engineer approves it he shall first satisfy himself that the technical requirements of Section 10.2-5 have been complied with and that 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 3 of 17 monuments have been placed at all block corners, lot corners, angle points, points of curves in streets which are depicted in the plat, and at such intermediate points as may be required. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the item. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Baumann, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item #6 Case # 2021-09.05 Subdivision Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision plat to divide two lots into three. The resulting properties are to be known as Lots 1-3, Hilltop 6th Addition. The properties are legally known as Lots 1 & 2, Hilltop 5th Addition. The property is located at 905 30th Street, NW. Planning Commission waived staff’s oral report on this item. Below is a summary of staff’s written report that is attached to the Planning Commission Agenda. Public hearing request on an application from Mike Klimpel on behalf of M & D Hilltop Partners, LLC for a subdivision plat to divide two lots into three. The resulting properties are to be known as Lots 1 - 3, Hilltop 6th Addition. The properties are legally known as Lots 1 & 2, Hilltop 5th Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The properties are located at 801 and 905 30th St. NW. An aerial view of the property is provided in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The application revolves around the desire to divide one lot into two and establish a shared access easement on the third to serve one of the newly created lots. The properties are owned by M & D Hilltop Partners, LLC. The preliminary plat for Hilltop 6th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapter 2.19 for “M2” Heavy Industrial District. The zoning and future land use designation of the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 & 4 of staff’s written report respectively. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 5 of staff’s written report. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 4 of 17 FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicant has submitted a complete application. 2) The subject area is currently depicted as Office Business Park on the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the 2012 City of Minot Comprehensive Plan. 3) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 4) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4. Section 10.3-5 is not applicable to this plat application. 5) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the Hilltop 6th Addition plat with the following condition: 1) No later than six months after a subdivision design has been approved by the City Council, the applicant for design approval may submit the final form of the instrument or document to the City Engineer which is to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order to accomplish the subdivision or to establish the necessary predicate for the later accomplishment of the subdivision. That is, the subdivider shall submit the final form of the original of the appropriate instrument of conveyance, auditor’s outlot plat, or plat, and the necessary copies thereof required by ordinance or by way of regulation. The City Engineer shall indicate his approval on the original by signing his name under a suitable statement or legend that expresses approval. However, if the documents or instrument for which approval is sought is a plat, then before the City Engineer approves it he shall first satisfy himself that the technical requirements of Section 10.2-5 have been complied with and that monuments have been placed at all block corners, lot corners, angle points, points of curves in streets which are depicted in the plat, and at such intermediate points as may be required. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the proposed subdivision Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Offerdahl to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Nesdahl, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 5 of 17 Item #7 Case # 2021-09.02 Subdivision Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision plat to combine three lots into two to be known as Airport Industrial Park 6th Addition. The legal description for the property is Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Airport Industrial Park Addition. The properties are located at 3401, 3415, and 3425 Main Street N. Planning Commission waived staff’s oral report on this item. Below is a summary of staff’s written report that is attached to the Planning Commission Agenda. Public hearing request on an application from Rob Berard representing Lois Schmeichel and BAC Properties, LLC, owners for a subdivision plat to combine three lots into two to be known as Airport Industrial Park 6th Addition. The legal description for the property is Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Airport Industrial Park Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The properties are located at 3401, 3415, and 3425 Main St. N. An aerial view of the property is provided in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The application revolves around the desire to adjust a shared property boundary between two of the three existing lots. Further, the two of the lots owned by BAC Properties, LLC will be consolidated into one. The preliminary plat for the proposed Airport Industrial 6th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.18 for “M1” Light Industrial District. The zoning and future land use designation of the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 & 4 of staff’s written report respectively. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 5 of staff’s written report. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicants have submitted a complete application. 2) The subject area is currently depicted as Industrial on the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the 2012 City of Minot Comprehensive Plan. 3) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 4) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4. Section 10.3-5 is not applicable to this plat application. 5) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 6 of 17 hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the Airport Industrial 6th Addition plat with the following condition: 1) No later than six months after a subdivision design has been approved by the City Council, the applicant for design approval may submit the final form of the instrument or document to the City Engineer which is to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order to accomplish the subdivision or to establish the necessary predicate for the later accomplishment of the subdivision. That is, the subdivider shall submit the final form of the original of the appropriate instrument of conveyance, auditor’s outlot plat, or plat, and the necessary copies thereof required by ordinance or by way of regulation. The City Engineer shall indicate his approval on the original by signing his name under a suitable statement or legend that expresses approval. However, if the documents or instrument for which approval is sought is a plat, then before the City Engineer approves it he shall first satisfy himself that the technical requirements of Section 10.2-5 have been complied with and that monuments have been placed at all block corners, lot corners, angle points, points of curves in streets which are depicted in the plat, and at such intermediate points as may be required. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the item. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Baumann to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Sessions, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item #8 Case # 2021-09.07 Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, Annexation Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for open warehousing in “M1” Light Industrial District. Further, the Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance on first reading to annex into city limits and approve a subdivision to consolidate two lots into one to be known as Master Block 2nd Addition. The properties are presently unaddressed and located on the south side of 14th Avenue SW across the street from 1321 28th Street SW. Chairman DeMakis asked Principal Planner Van Dyke for his report. Public hearing request on an application from Steve Eberle representing Fred Bentz on behalf of Fred Bentz Investments, LLC requests a subdivision plat to consolidate two lots into one. The proposed subdivision is to be known as Master Block 2nd Addition. The properties are legally known as Lots 1 & 2, Master Block Addition, to the City of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 7 of 17 Minot, North Dakota. The properties are presently unaddressed and located on the south side of 14th Ave. SW across the street from 1321 28th St. SW. An aerial view of the property and 600-foot notification area is provided in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. Fred Bentz, owner wishes to create an open warehousing use on the property to store recreational vehicle (RV) inventory related to the sales lot northwest of the subject properties. The sales lot is the location of Capital RV Center of Minot. The proposed use requires a conditional use permit (CUP) in the “M1” Light Industrial District. The proposal includes consolidating two lots into one and annexation in the corporate limits of the City of Minot. A letter of intent is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report and the plat and associated site plan/building design are provided in Exhibits 3 and 4 of staff’s written report respectively. The proposed lot meets the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapter 2.18 for the “M1” Light Industrial District. Further, the zoning map, future land use map, and site photos are provided in Exhibits 5 thru 7 of staff’s written report respectively. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The property is located within an industrially zoned area of the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction of the City of Minot. 2) The City of Minot 2012 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map does not designate a future land use for the subject properties. 3) The applicants have submitted a complete application for annexation, a subdivision plat, and conditional use permit. 4) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 5) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4. Section 10.3-5 is not applicable to this plat application. 6) The use of open warehousing is a conditionally permitted use within the “M1” Light Industrial District. 7) The standards provided in Sections 9.1-4 F. 1. & 4. through 8. are met without additional conditions. 8) Conditions to address aesthetics, open storage uses, addressing, and platting to mitigate negative externalities will ensure Sections 9.1-4 F. 2. & 3. are affirmed. 9) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and decide whether it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 8 of 17 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the staff findings of fact and recommend approval of the subdivision plat subject to condition #1 through #3 below and the request for annexation. Further, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit for Warehousing (Open) subject to conditions #3 through #13 below: 1) A storm water management plan is required for future development. 2) A site plan is required for development. 3) No later than six months after a subdivision design has been approved by the City Council, the applicant for design approval may submit the final form of the instrument or document to the City Engineer which is to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order to accomplish the subdivision or to establish the necessary predicate for the later accomplishment of the subdivision. That is, the subdivider shall submit the final form of the original of the appropriate instrument of conveyance, auditor’s outlot plat, or plat, and the necessary copies thereof required by ordinance or by way of regulation. The City Engineer shall indicate his approval on the original by signing his name under a suitable statement or legend that expresses approval. However, if the documents or instrument for which approval is sought is a plat, then before the City Engineer approves it he shall first satisfy himself that the technical requirements of Section 10.2-5 have been complied with and that monuments have been placed at all block corners, lot corners, angle points, points of curves in streets which are depicted in the plat, and at such intermediate points as may be required. 4) An address shall be posted near the approach onto the property that is at least four (4) inches high with a minimum stroke of ½ inch using contrasting colors. 5) Onsite illumination, if any, shall be downward facing and shall not be directed offsite. 6) A 10’ landscape strip along 14th Ave. SW. shall be required and include street trees placed one for each 50 lineal feet of road frontage or, where across from a less intensive district, one for each 10 lineal feet of road frontage. Street trees shall be evergreen conifers. 7) Trees shall be placed one for each 20 lineal foot along the southwest property boundary. Trees shall be evergreen conifers. 8) A gravel surface is permitted and shall be maintained in such a manner so as to reduce dust leaving the site. 9) An application of a one-year soil sterilizer shall be applied on an annual basis to help prevent growth of weeds onsite, excluding any required landscaping. Additional treatments are required as needed to ensure the site maintains a neat appearance free from weeds. 10) No vehicle sales shall be conducted onsite. 11) No open storage of materials shall be allowed onsite; only operable recreational vehicles for sale offsite. 12) Buildings located onsite may only be used for storage, known as Warehousing (Enclosed) within the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 9 of 17 13) A site obscuring fence shall be installed along the northern and eastern property boundaries and may include chain link with slats. A fence shall be installed along the southwestern and southern boundaries of the site to securely enclose the site from potential encroachment by the public. Chairman DeMakis opened the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Offerdahl asked if staff had received any calls or complaints from the notification area to which Planner Van Dyke responded that staff did not. Commissioner Sessions asked where the access to the site would be. Van Dyke responded that it would be in the northwest corner of the property and that there would be a matching one across the street at Capital RV, both access will be subject to approval by the site plan. Sessions then asked if there was going to be a traffic study on 14th Avenue, to which Van Dyke responded that, given the nature of the development no traffic study is requested at this time and the site will be used as overflow with the business moving inventory back and forth as necessary to replenish their primary location. Sessions then followed up her question by asking whether there would be any back and forth of customers between the two locations to which the Principal Planner responded there shouldn’t be any sales or the signing of closing documents on the site, only the storage of overflow inventory. She then expressed her concerns for the golf course and the neighborhood to the north, Van Dyke responded that the neighborhood to the north was involved in ongoing negotiations for the flood buyout program, and would be eventually owned by the city or the Parks District. Sessions then asked if they were negotiation right now, to which Van Dyke responded that they are ongoing and he couldn’t speak to it. Commissioner Nesdahl then asked what the requirements for gravel are as she thought there were some specific rules related to it. Principal Planner Van Dyke referred to Assistant City Engineer Huettl who asked Nesdahl to clarify if it question was on when it can or cannot be graveled or if it was on the gravel itself. Nesdahl responded that it was on when it could be graveled siting a case that came before commission (the month prior) that could not be gravel. Huettl responded that that would depend on the zoning district that it is in, explaining that in “C2” General Commercial it is required to be hard surfaced with concrete or asphalt unless there is a variance and that in industrial zoning there is more leeway in some ways. Commissioner Baumann chimed in, asking Van Dyke if, knowing that the area to the north is flood buyout and the golf course may be moving, is putting a parking lot in there would be consistent with the overall vision of how these green spaces will be used for within the coming decades. Van Dyke responded that the property is “M1” Light Industrial, privately owned, and not part of the flood buyout, so it is separate and distinct from what may be planned for the area to the northeast. He then continued on by stating that as far as what they are entitled to do, that is the purpose of the application and that he didn’t think there would be interference, especially with the proposed screening, and it shouldn’t impact the area with it’s proposed use. Commissioner Sessions then asked several more questions, starting with the minimum height of the tree boundaries; Van Dyke responded that they had to be 6’ tall and 1.5” in caliper at a minimum. She then asked if the soil sterilizer had to be approved by the First District Health Unit, Planner Van Dyke responded that it was his understanding that it would be a residential grade sterilizer that you could pick up anywhere, it would just be bought in bulk to be applied to the wider area. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the item. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Iverson, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 10 of 17 Item #9 Case # 2021-09.03 Zoning Map Amendment Planning Commission recommends City Council approve an ordinance on first reading for a zoning map amendment from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District for the purpose of constructing Twinhomes. The property is legally known as on Lots 1 through 20, Bolton Heights 11th Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The property includes multiple addresses between 35th St. NW and 33rd St. NW on the south side of 20th Ave. NW. Chairman DeMakis asked Principal Planner Van Dyke for his report. Public hearing request on an application from Jennifer Cook representing Luis Cortez, owner for a zoning map amendment from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District for the purpose of constructing Twinhomes. The property is legally known as Lots 1 through 20, Bolton Heights 11th Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The property includes multiple addresses between 35th St. NW and 33rd St. NW on the south side of 20th Ave. NW. An aerial view of the property is provided in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The application seeks to rezone twenty (20) lots from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District for the purpose of constructing twenty (20) twinhomes totaling forty (40) dwelling units. The dwelling units are planned to be divided at a point in the future to allow for individual sale. The lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapter 2.8 for the proposed “R2” Two-Family Residential District except for Lot 2. Presently, Lot 2 in conjunction with Lot 1 meet the requirements for “R2” for the purpose of constructing a twinhome at this location. This would result in allowing up to nineteen (19) twinhomes; not twenty (20) as desired by the applicant at this time. As noted above, a plat is intended to follow this application for a rezone and will amend property boundaries as needed to accommodate the twentieth (20th) twinhome. The zoning and future land use designation of the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 2 & 3 of staff’s written report respectively. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 4 of staff’s written report. Van Dyke also read into record the protest of Joshua King, a neighbor, which can be found below: Hello, I'm trying to submit a comment to the public comments portal and nothing loads on the page. In the meantime, here's my comment regarding the proposed rezoning for the Bolton Heights neighborhood. As owner of 3348 20th Ave NW, I am strongly against rezoning the area immediately surrounding my property from R1 to R2. When I first moved to Minot in 2018, I was struck with how many multi-family/attached properties the city has while severely lacking new(er) single family properties. What limited inventory of single family properties existed were mostly 1950s/1970s split-level types and early 20th century builds. I eventually gave up trying to find a newer single family home and just had one built. Obviously the owner of the land would like to make the most profit possible by adding attached homes, but it should be the responsiblilty of the city to recognize that the last thing Minot needs is more attached properties. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 11 of 17 FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicants have submitted a complete application. 2) The subject area is currently depicted as Medium Density Residential for nineteen and one-half of the lots (19 ½) and one-half (½) of one (1) lot is designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the 2012 City of Minot Comprehensive Plan. 3) A change in zoning from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District will be in alignment with the FLU map. 4) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance. 5) No additional public services will be required to support the request and Section 9.1-7 H. 2 is satisfied. 6) Staff finds no evidence that the proposed development substantially diminish the condition or value of property in the vicinity per Section 9.1-7 H. 3. 7) Per Section 9.1-7 H. 4., the zoning change is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and other adopted policies of the City and will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 8) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of a zoning map amendment from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District for Lots 1 thru 20, Bolton Heights 11th Addition with the following condition: 1) Connection fees are required for future development. 2) Sidewalks are required for future development. 3) Developer Agreement prior to the second and final consideration of the ordinance for a zoning map amendment. Requirements including but not limited to: a. Excess water lines in the event of single-family residential construction. b. Address the sole use of Lot 1 and 2 to facilitate a Twinhome or require a plat to adjust property boundaries to accommodate stand-alone development on Lot 2 due to lot size. Chairman DeMakis opened the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Sessions asked if the multiple connections to city utilities on the lots was one that was born by the city. Van Dyke responded that it was a cost born by the developer, not the city. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 12 of 17 No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the development. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Offerdahl. Chairman DeMakis opened the floor up to discussion by the commissioners. Commissioner Baumann stated that he wanted to look at the macro picture with a project like this, that he was very supportive of encouraging density in the community, making sure that (the city) can get ahead of sprawl, that (the city) responsible with the resources that we have, and that he liked the project and is excited to support it. He continued by explaining that as things move west past the bypass, he gets weary of sprawl in the community and that the government is working to infill and developing properties within the heart of the community and then moving outward, for both commercial and residential purposes, before we go for building out on the edge. Baumann concluded by saying that this wasn’t a pro or a con, just something that as a person who is entrusted with looking at the overall land use of the community, he is aware of, and was stating this for the purpose of public discourse. With no further discussion, Chairman DeMakis called the vote and the motion was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item #10 Case # 2021-09.08 Subdivision, Zoning Map Amendment, Future Land Use Amendment, Annexation Planning Commission recommends City Council pass an ordinance on first reading to approve annexation and for a zoning map amendment from “AG” Agricultural District to “M1” Light Industrial District. Further, the Planning Commission recommends adoption of a resolution for a Future Land Use Amendment from Office Business Park and Medium Density Residential to Industrial and approve a subdivision to be known as Don’s 2nd Addition, being a portion of the SE1/4 & SW1/4 of Section 35, township 156 North, Range 83 West. The property is presently unaddressed and located on the north side of 46th Ave. NW across the street from 515 46TH Ave. NW. Chairman DeMakis asked Principal Planner Van Dyke for his report. Public hearing request on an application from 42 Minot, LLP, representative on behalf of Jared L Lochthowe, owner for an annexation, zoning map amendment from “AG” Agricultural District to “M1” Light Industrial District, a Future Land Use Map amendment from Office Business Park and Medium Density Residential to Industrial, and subdivision plat. The proposed plat is to be known as Don’s 2nd Addition. The property is legally known as a portion of the SE1/4 & SW1/4 of Section 35, Township 156 North, Range 83 West, Ward County, North Dakota. The property is presently unaddressed and located on the north side of 46th Ave. NW across the street from 515 46TH Ave. NW. An aerial view of the property and 600-foot notification area is provided in Exhibit 1 in staff’s written report. During his presentation, Van Dyke took the time to go over the Office Business Park future land use map and zoning code designations, noting that there was 35.6 acres of Office Business Park FLU land designated within the proposed subdivision, 653.65 acres across Minot’s jurisdiction, and that there was 0 acres of land zoned to take advantage of it. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 13 of 17 He also explained the purpose of both the zoning district and the future land use map designation and that staff may explore moving on from them altogether during the comprehensive plan update. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The property is located within an agriculturally zoned area of the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction of the City of Minot. 2) The City of Minot 2012 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as Office Business Park for the subject properties. 3) The applicants have submitted a complete application for annexation, a subdivision plat, zoning map amendment, and future land use map amendment. 4) The use of a truck terminal is a permitted use within the “M1” Light Industrial District. 5) Section 9.1-7 H. 1. is satisfied, as a change in conditions exists due to the proposed subdivision plat to create two lots. Further, the Office Business Park future land use designation has not been utilized since adoption of the City of Minot 2012 Comprehensive Plan and it is likely that the designation will be abandoned or moved to an alternative location following an update to the City’s comprehensive plan slated to be completed in early 2023. 6) Section 9.1-7 H. 2 is satisfied, as the City and other public agencies will be able to provide services to support the request. 7) Section 9.1-7 H. 3 is satisfied, as there exists no evidence that the proposed development will substantially diminish the condition or value of property in the vicinity. 8) The zoning map amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Minot Land Development Ordinance and other adopted policies of the City, and will be consistent with the City of Minot 2012 Comprehensive Plan, subject to amendment of the Future Land Use Map per Section 9.1-7 H. 4. 9) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance related to “M1” Light Industrial zoning. 10) The technical requirements of the subdivision plat per Sections 10.3-1 thru 5 are met following additional right- of-way dedication to meet the minimum sixty-six foot (66’) width for a minor street. 11) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and decide whether it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council for annexation, future land use map amendment to Industrial, zoning map amendment to “M1” Light Industrial District, and subdivision plat subject to the following conditions: 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 14 of 17 1. No later than six months after a subdivision design has been approved by the City Council, the applicant for design approval may submit the final form of the instrument or document to the City Engineer which is to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order to accomplish the subdivision or to establish the necessary predicate for the later accomplishment of the subdivision. That is, the subdivider shall submit the final form of the original of the appropriate instrument of conveyance, auditor’s outlot plat, or plat, and the necessary copies thereof required by ordinance or by way of regulation. The City Engineer shall indicate his approval on the original by signing his name under a suitable statement or legend that expresses approval. However, if the documents or instrument for which approval is sought is a plat, then before the City Engineer approves it he shall first satisfy himself that the technical requirements of Section 10.2-5 have been complied with and that monuments have been placed at all block corners, lot corners, angle points, points of curves in streets which are depicted in the plat, and at such intermediate points as may be required. 2. Right of Way Requirements a. 80’ ROW 8th Street b. 66’ ROW 47th Avenue 3. Developer Agreement prior to plat being recorded. Requirements including but not limited to: a. Construction of 3 lane concrete road b. Storm Water Management Plan c. Water Model review and future sizing study d. Sewer Model review and future sizing study e. Traffic study with City/NDDOT approval required Chairman DeMakis opened the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Baumann stated that this item peaked his interest and asked if it was a new company to the area or if it was a relocation from a current site within the Minot community. Van Dyke responded that it is an existing establishment that would be relocating and expanding. Baumann also asked about traffic on the bypass and if Van Dyke felt that this would impact speed, travel, and safety on the bypass for other travelers. Planner Van Dyke responded that that was why a traffic study would be required and that NDDOT would want to look at this, and the city would want some input as well, all of it would be evaluated during the traffic study. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. Alan Egeberg, a neighbor of the property voiced his concerns over water and the drainage of the site, and wanted to make sure that the site would have a good water plan. Chairman DeMakis asked if there would be a stormwater study conducted, to which Van Dyke responded that there would be one required as part of the development agreement. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Sessions to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Offerdahl, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 15 of 17 Item #11 Case # 2021-09.06 Zoning Text Amendment Planning Commission recommends City Council approve an ordinance on first reading for a Zoning Text Amendment. The proposed changes affect Table 5.1-6(b) and Table 5.1-6(c) related to sign regulations and Section 9.2-1 C. related to written notice to neighboring property owners. Chairman DeMakis asked Principal Planner Van Dyke for his report. Public hearing request on an application from Harold Stewart on behalf of the City of Minot for a Zoning Text Amendment. The proposed changes affect Table 5.1-6(b) and Table 5.1-6(c) related to sign regulations and Section 9.2- 1 C. related to written notice to neighboring property owners. The proposed changes are provided in Exhibits 1 thru 3 in staff’s written report. The proposed changes in Exhibits 1 & 2 in staff’s written report reflect ongoing discussions with local sign companies that have encountered problems with the sign code since its adoption on April 5, 2021 that would prohibit some projects from moving forward without a variance. Exhibit 3 in staff’s written report provides changes to reflect a desired notification process that is expected to be more effective at securing input than the current process. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicants have submitted a complete application. 2) Per Section 9.1-8 I. 1., the proposed changes will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. 3) Per Section 9.1-8 I. 2., the proposed changes in Table 5.1-6(b). specifically related to pylon signs is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Aesthetics Goal #2 and Policy #2 of the same goal. This same criterium is not applicable to the other proposed changes. 4) The criterium provided in Section 9.1-8 I. 3. is not applicable to the proposed zoning text amendments. 5) Per Section 9.1-8 I. 4., the ordinance will be improved by introducing best practice and make the ordinance easier to understand and use by the public. 6) The Minot Planning Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met, the hearing was legally noticed and posted and the hearing was held and conducted under the requirements of North Dakota Century Code and Minot City ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 16 of 17 Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the zoning text amendment to Table 5.1-6(b) and Table 5.1-6(c) related to sign regulations and Section 9.2-1 C. related to written notice to neighboring property owners. Chairman DeMakis opened the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Sessions opened by saying that she thought the proposed changes to the certified mail requirements were fantastic and would save the city time and the applicants money, she then asked if there was a difference in the time of delivery between the two. The Principal Planner responded by saying that it depends on how quickly (the property owner) signs for certified mail. He further explained that it was “kind of a black box” with how the process works, he knows how it’s supposed to work and what staff’s experiences are with it, and sometimes staff doesn’t receive the signature cards back until two months after the public hearing. It all depends on when the property owner can be tracked down and provide a signature, making it a big unknown. Van Dyke continued on stating that as far as sending letters from Minot to Minot, staff allows for upwards of three (3) weeks before the public hearing, so if the letter is not able make it to the property owner during that time then there is something else wrong and staff will have to add that much more time into the process. He also took the time to show off the changes that were made to the envelopes that planning staff uses for noticing and explained the stigma around getting certified mail from the city. Sessions said that the changes were awesome and that she did not know that staff had three (3) weeks of lead-time on the mailings. Commissioner Sessions then asked several questions on the proposed changes to the sign code, starting with how it would work with the Community Development Director having first and final approval (on moving out of the 10-15’ sign band in the CBD districts), or would the (planning) commission have any input on it. The Principal Planner responded that the Community and Economic Development Director would be able to approve the requests, but that denials would be able to be appealed to the Planning Commission. Otherwise, the applicant would be able to adjust their application to conform with the requirements. Sessions followed up her initial question by asking if there would be many that the Planning Commission would not see, just the denials. Van Dyke said that she was correct. Commissioner Sessions then postulated that it used to be left up to the business for how many signs they would like, that it has changed from that, that there will be many, many different opinions on where people would like there sign, and that it wouldn’t be very standard anymore. She continued by stating that she didn’t know if that would be strong ordinances, if it would benefit the city if every business determined where they would like their signs, and that if you go down Broadway that there’s hundreds of signs and it’s all you see, and that many of them are tall. Sessions then clarified that that was not her point; her point was that, for those businesses that wanted go into something different, would they have to apply for an exception to the ordinance. She then asked how many do we see that want a change. Van Dyke responded that staff sees enough of them that it is a headache for staff and brought up the example of Papa Johns, in which their proposed signage doesn’t exceed the 200 square foot threshold that would have been afforded to them prior to the new code adoption, leaving them stuck with their non-conforming awning signs. He further explained that the Papa John’s want’s to come into compliance but they also don’t want to lose overall signage, that it’s a corner business in the “CBD” Central Business District, and that there is a big difference between the Papa John’s building and the more typical buildings in the downtown that are 25-50’ wide and go up three floors. He concluded by stating that, pending the upcoming comprehensive planning process, it would be more appropriate to establish a downtown overlay district that establishes unique standards that apply to specific areas, but for now the central business district is comprised of many different structure types, such as Westlie’s and the M building, that don’t conform to the “urbanist downtown feel” that Main Street provides. If (the structure) is part of that character, then it’s important to uphold, if it’s completely outside of that character then the only recourse it to apply for a variance. Sessions then stated that (the variance) would be the way to go. Van Dyke then asked if there was a question for staff and Commissioner Sessions clarified that she was uncomfortable with giving every business carte blanch to put their signs wherever they wanted as she thinks (the city’s) standards and uniformity would slide immensely. The Principal Planner responded that it isn’t carte blanch everywhere, it’s evaluated by the Community and Economic Development Director, to which Sessions responded that it would be without the input of the Planning Commission, the Principal Planner said she was correct. She replied by stating that she herself was uncomfortable with these changes. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 08, 2021 Page 17 of 17 Commissioner Sessions then referred to the staff’s exhibit that had multiple signs and asked if the code changes would be encroaching on the property owner’s contracts with the businesses that rent or lease from when the city allows businesses to put their signs elsewhere. Van Dyke responded that he believed that the city was more pushing against the property owners established contracts when signs are restricted to a particular location and that he didn’t see how reigning it into a finite location would be a betterment of the property owner, especially when the building has insets that have been architecturally designed to accommodate signage. Sessions clarified that she was referring to the signs that list all of the businesses, which Van Dyke clarified with her was pole and pylon signs. The principal planner then explained that this was just applicable to wall signs, not pole/pylon signs. Chairman DeMakis then asked “as the ordinance is currently written, the bottom square is (limited) to 200 square feet, and the third sign in the exhibit (the Legacy Design Strategies) wouldn’t be allowable in that square because of too much space, which was why it was moved to the top, what (staff) is allowing is the flexibility to fill the sign spot with signs?” Planner Van Dyke responded that DeMakis was in-part right, the 200 square foot component was a different component that was separate from the sign band and that the two existing signs on the building were legal non-conforming, so if they were pulled down, they would have to be relocated. Van Dyke continued by explaining that there was a sign there (to the right of the two existing signs), it was removed, and a new application came in under the new code. Rather than the sign being allowed to collocate in an orderly fashion, it was required to go into the 10-15’ sign band. DeMakis then stated that what you’re gaining is flexibility with buildings that have multiple potential issues related to signage, rather than denying a sign, providing flexibility to where they can be put is being gained. Van Dyke agreed that that was the case. Commissioner Baumann wanted to publicly thank the Principal Planner and the Planning Department for reviewing, acting, and being a flexible and responsible government. He then stated that he was part of the team that put (the ordinance together), and he was proud of what was produced, but he is also thankful that staff is continuing to work with local businesses and make sure that (the ordinance) is an effective and living document. Baumann also thanked staff for removing the barrier of certified mail, as it can seem intimidating, he is happy that the Planning Department is removing barriers being involved in democracy and our government in general, and the findings of efficiencies and cost savings is an added bonus. Chairman DeMakis asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against the proposed text amendments. Chairman DeMakis asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Baumann to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Offerdahl, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Baumann, DeMakis, Faken, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Adjournment With no further business, Chairman DeMakis adjourned the meeting at 6:41 PM. 17