Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 1 of 23 Regular Meeting: Planning Commission Location: City Hall, Council Chambers, 515 2nd Avenue SW., City of Minot, N.D. Meeting Called to Order: Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Presiding Official: Vice-Chairman Dustin Offerdahl Members in Attendance: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Baumann, Commissioner Faken, Commissioner Gates, Commissioner Iverson, Commissioner Koop, Commissioner Nesdahl, Vice-Chairman Offerdahl, Commissioner Sessions, Commissioner Wegenast Members Absent: Chairman Charles DeMakis, Commissioner Hochhalter, Commissioner Lider City Staff Present: Principal Planner John Van Dyke, Assistant Planner Peter Baumgartner, Assistant City Attorney Stefanie Stalheim, Assistant City Engineer Emily Huettl Others Present: Jeff Luedke, Bruce Vangsness, George Franklin, Greg Tonini, Larry Entzel, Mary Kasper Meeting Called to Order by Vice-Chairman Offerdahl 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 Wegenast to approve the October 05, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, second by Koop, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion carries The following are the recommendations of the Planning Commission: Item #5 Case # 2021-11.01 Subdivision Plat Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a proposed subdivision to be known as Trestle Ridge 6th Addition. This property is located southeast of the intersection of Ward County Road 2 and Ward County Road 17. 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 Rolly Ackerman representing Two Track Acres, LLC, owners, to subdivide one lot into two lots. The proposed subdivision will be known as Trestle Ridge 6th Addition. The legal description of the subject property is known as Lot 1, Trestle Ridge 5th Addition, City of Minot, North Dakota. The property is located southeast of the intersection of Ward County Road 2 and Ward County Road 17. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 2 of 23 The application revolves around the desire to the split Lot 1 of Trestle Ridge 5th Addition into two lots. One of these lots, proposed Lot 1, is going to have a non-access control line added to its street fronting property line to restrict access to its existing non-residential access point on County Road 17, resulting from communications between the property owners and Dana Larsen, Ward County Engineer, that were facilitated by staff. An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The preliminary plat for the proposed Trestle Ridge 6th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. Shown on the northern edge of proposed lot 1 is a non-access control line and an existing 24’ non-residential access point providing access to the property. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.4 to stay zoned as “AG” Agricultural District. The zoning designation of the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibit 3 of staff’s written report. The future land use map designation is not shown in an exhibit as it does not have one at this time. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 4 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) No Future Land Use Map designation is assigned to the subject property. 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 10.3-5, with the inclusion of a Developer’s Agreement to limit the uses of the property to farming and ranching activities as specified in Table 2.2 Table of Uses in the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot. 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 Trestle Ridge 6th Addition plat with the following condition: 1) A Developer’s Agreement is required prior to the recording of the plat, with requirements including but not limited to: a. The use of the property is to be limited to farming and ranching activities as specified in Table 2.2 Table of uses in the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot. 2) 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 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 3 of 23 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 atsuch intermediate points as may be required. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against this item. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Koop 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: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item #6 Case # 2021-11.02 Outlot Plat Planning Commission recommends City Council approve an Outlot Plat to create Outlot 6 lying in the SW1/4 of the SW1/4, Section 34, Township 156 North, Range 83 West. This property address is unassigned, being east of 4903 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 Clarice Granzotto, owner for an Outlot Plat to create Outlot 6 lying in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 34, Township 156 North, Range 83 West. The property is legally known as the South ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 34, Township 156 North, Range 83 West. The property is address is unassigned, being east of 4903 30th St. NW. The application revolves around the applicant’s desire to split off a 10-acre portion of their land for the purpose of giving it to one of her relatives to start a “microfarm.” An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. A copy of the outlot plat is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. The proposed outlot meets the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.4 to stay zoned as “AG” Agricultural District. The zoning and future land use map designations of the subject property and surrounding area are 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. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 4 of 23 2) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance to stay zoned “AG” Agricultural District. 3) The subdivision meets the requirements of Section 10.2-6 with the City Engineer not having any comment on the proposed outlot. 4) 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 outlot plat for the proposed Outlot 6, subject to 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. Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to speak either for or against this item. Vice-Chair Offerdahl 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. Commissioner Baumann commented that he was excited about the proposed microfarm and was glad that the zoning code allowed for this, With no further discussion the motion was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item # 7 Case # 2021-11.03 Subdivision Plat Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision to rearrange the property boundaries between two existing lots. The proposed subdivision is to be known as Roosevelt Heights 4th Addition. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 5 of 23 The property addresses are 300 and 304 18th Avenue SW. 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 Jeff Luedke on behalf of Luedke-Murphy, LLP representing Kenneth and Delilah Jundt, owners to rearrange the property boundaries between two existing lots. The proposed subdivision will neither be creating nor reducing the total number of lots through this request. The proposed subdivision is to be known as Roosevelt Heights 4th Addition. The legal description of the subject property is known as Lots 1 & 2, Roosevelt Heights 3rd Addition to the City of Minot, ND. The property addresses are 300 and 304 18th Ave. SW. The subject properties are currently contracted through a contract for deed to Jeff Luedke, representative, who wishes to redraw the lot lines of the existing Roosevelt Heights 3rd Addition for the purpose of moving the access point of the flag lot from the East side to the West side of existing Lot 2. Roosevelt Heights 3rd Addition was platted as existing in June of 2019. An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The preliminary plat for the proposed Roosevelt Heights 4th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.15 “C2” General Commercial District. The zoning and future land use map 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 property was subdivided into its current state in June of 2019 3) The Future Land Use Map designation of the subject properties is Commercial. 4) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance for “C2” General Commercial zoning. 5) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4 with 10.3-5 not being applicable. 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: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the Roosevelt Heights 4th Addition plat, subject to the following conditions: 1) The access to proposed Lot 2 should be increased to 18’ to 20’. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 6 of 23 2) A shared parking and access agreement is needed if one does not already exist. 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. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. Jeff Luedke, the applicant, came forward to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Mr. Luedke also noted that condition #2 from the recommendations, relating to a shared parking and access agreement, should be struck from the Planning Commission’s recommendation following a conversation with the Assistant City Engineer on how it wasn’t applicable. Principal Planner Van Dyke confirmed that this was indeed the case and it could be struck if that was amenable to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Offerdahl then asked if it was staff’ recommendation to strike that condition to which Van Dyke responded that it was. With no further public input, Vice-Chair Offerdahl closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Baumann to recommend approval based on staff findings of fact and recommendations one (1) and three (3), second by Commissioner Koop, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item # 8 Case # 2021-11.06 Subdivision Plat Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision plat to adjust the shared property boundary. The proposed subdivision is to be known as Hilltop 7th Addition. The property address is 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 representing M & D Hilltop Partners, LLC and Doug Thompson, owner for a subdivision plat to adjust the shared property boundary. The proposed subdivision will neither be creating nor reducing the total number of lots through this request. The proposed subdivision is to be known as Hilltop 7th Addition. The legal description for the property is Lot 2, Hilltop 6th Addition and Lot 2, Hilltop 4th Addition. The property address is 905 30th St. NW. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 7 of 23 This application is a continuation of the lot adjustments being made within the Hilltop Subdivisions, with this one following Hilltop 6th Addition, which went before Planning Commission in September. An aerial photo of the subject properties can be found in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The preliminary plat for the proposed Hilltop 7th Addition is provided in Exhibit 2 of staff’s written report. Lot 1 will consist of all of Hilltop 6th Addition Lot 2 and an approximately one (1) acre portion of Hilltop 4th Addition, Lot 2 property. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.19,“M2” Heavy Industrial District. The zoning and future land use map 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 proposed subdivision is a furtherance of the lot adjustments that started with Hilltop 6th Addition. 3) The Future Land Use map designation for the subject properties is Office Business Park. 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, with 10.3-5 not being applicable. 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: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the Hilltop 7th 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. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to comment either for or against the item. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 8 of 23 Vice-Chair Offerdahl 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 Barnett, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item # 9 Case # 2021-11.07 Subdivision Plat Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a subdivision plat to adjust property boundaries shared with several neighboring property owners. The proposed plat is to be known as The Bluffs 18th Addition. The property address is 1912 Valley Bluffs Drive 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 Rob Berard representing Golf Minot Inc. (Minot Country Club) for a subdivision plat to adjust property boundaries shared with several neighboring property owners. The proposed plat is to be known as The Bluffs 18th Addition. The legal description of the property is Lots 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 1, The Bluffs Addition, Lot 21, Block 1, The Bluffs Second Addition, Lot 1, The Bluffs 11th Addition, and Lots 1 and 2, The Bluffs 16th Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The property address is 1912 Valley Bluffs Dr. SE. This application is the latest in a long series of subdivisions that adjusts the lot lines between the Minot Country Club and the surrounding properties. Overall, there will still be ten (10) lots going into the subdivision and ten (10) lots coming out of it with the applicable residential lots getting bigger and the golf course getting marginally smaller. An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1 of staff’s written report. The preliminary plat for the proposed The Bluffs 18th 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 to stay zoned as ““R1”” Single-Family Residential District. The zoning and future land use map designations of the subject properties and the surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 and 4 of staff’s written report, respectively. 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 property is currently depicted as both Low and Very Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 3) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance to remain zoned as ““R1”” Single-Family Residential District. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 9 of 23 4) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Section 10.3-1 thru 10.3-4. with 10.3-5 not being applicable. 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 Bluffs 18th 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 sough tis 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. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. No one from the public came forward to comment either for or against this item. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Commissioner Baumann asked staff if most of these changes are the golf course giving the property owners at the proposed addresses a bit more land for their lot, Planner Baumgartner responded that was indeed correct, that the golf course is essentially selling off little bits of its property to the neighbors, and that he believed that this is the sixth (6th) time that this has happened now. Motion by Commissioner Baumann to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Koop, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Sessions, Wegenast nays: none Motion Carries Item # 13 Case # 2021-11.10 Zoning Map Amendment Planning Commission tabled the above zoning map amendment request to the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission meeting date at 5:30pm per the applicant’s request. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 10 of 23 Item # 10 Case # 2021-11.05 Variance Planning Commission denies a variance to the side yard setback requirements of 6.5 feet to 5 feet and the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing an attached two-stall garage. The legal description for the property is Parkland Addition West 80’ Lot 7, Block 6. The property address is 204 8th Street NW. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked Planner Baumgartner for staff’s report. Public hearing request on an application from Bruce Vangsness, owner, for a variance to the side yard setback requirements of 6.5 feet to 5 feet and the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing an attached garage. The legal description for the property is Parkland Addition West 80’ Lot 7, Block 6. The property address is 204 8th St. NW. An aerial view of the property and 300-foot notification area is provided in Exhibit 1. Bruce Vangsness, the owner, desires to build a new attached, two-stall garage on his property where a one-stall garage and an adjoining parking pad once stood before it was demolished following the 2011 flood, leaving only the concrete driveway behind. The regulatory setbacks for an attached garage are the same as those for the primary structure, which would be a 20’ setback from the rear property line and a 6.5’ setback from the interior side yard setback in accordance with Section 2.6-3. Under Section 13.1-4 of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot there is a path forward for the applicant to rebuild the previously existing one-stall garage to its original footprint, height, design and roof style; however, having been made aware of this prior to application, the property owner has chosen to pursue a variance in order to build a 2-stall garage. The applicant’s letter of intent and proposed site plan is provided within Exhibit 2 outlining the basis for the request. The zoning district and future land use designation for the subject property and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 & 4 respectively. A photo of the site is shown in Exhibit 5. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The property is located within the “R1” Single-Family Residential District within the City of Minot. 2) The City of Minot 2012 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this property as Low Density Residential. 3) Lot 7, of Block 6, Parkland Addition was subdivided at some point between 1910 and 1928 when homes were built on the resulting lots. 4) The property originally had a one-stall garage that was demolished after the 2011 flood. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 11 of 23 5) There is a path forward to rebuild the one-stall garage under Section 13.1-4. 6) The applicants have submitted a complete application for a variance per Section 9.1-3 C. 7) The proposed variance request does not meet all applicable variance criteria from Section 9.1-3 G, specifically: a. Section 9.1-3 G. 1, relating to the shape and shallowness of the property is not met due to the property not being exceptionally small in the context of the neighborhood that it is within; b. Section 9.1-3 G. 3 relating to the reasonable use of the property not being possible without the variance is not met as there is a path forward for a garage under Section 13.1-4; c. Section 9.1-3 G. 4, which requires there to be a unique hardship that is not created by the applicant, is not met by due to there being a path forward for a garage to be rebuild, just not one that is the size that the applicant wants it to be, making it a hardship created by the applicant. 8) The criteria from Section 9.1-3 G. 5, referring the rights of neighboring property owners and the character of the neighborhood is met by the applicant’s request as the proposed garage that would result from this request would not be out of place in the existing neighborhood. 9) Sections 9.1-3 G. 2 & 6 are not applicable. 10) 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 deny the requested variance to Section 2.6-3 to reduce the rear yard setback from 20’ to 5’ and the side yard setback from 6.5’ to 5’. Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened up the meeting for comments from the commissioners. None of the commissioners had any questions or comments for staff on the item. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. Bruce Vangsness, the applicant came forward to speak on behalf of his variance application, stating that he wants to put a garage up, there already was a garage there, and he wants to make it a bit bigger. Speaking about the (previously) existing garage, he said it was already two feet (2’) from the property line, and that when he went to get a permit for a new garage that he couldn’t and he that was why he applied for the variance. Mr. Vangsness continued on by stating that he didn’t know why his proposed garage would be an issue, especially considering that there was a double-wide put in next- door. He concluded by stating that it was going to look better than anything else that would be in the area and instead of putting in a flattop garage, which would be hard to keep from leaking, which caused the previous one to rot before the 2011 flood caused it to come down. All he wants to do is have room to put his tools in the garage because the neighborhood has changed and he was worried about theft. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked Mr. Vangsness to clarify what his name was and if he owned the home in question, to which he responded his name and that he did own the home. The applicant then went on to state that the unique hardship was that the (setback) issue wasn’t created by him, that no one at the meeting was alive when the subdivision was (platted), and that he didn’t understand why this was an issue. He continued on stating that it’s just a garage and he wants to put his tools in there and not worry about theft. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 12 of 23 Commissioner Wegenast stated that the hardest part of this was that he has to determine a hardship and that he didn’t see one there. Mr. Vangsness replied that he addressed five (5) of the six (6) criteria for the (variance) and that the only one that was denied was the fact that he was told that he could put a single garage up, claiming that he wasn’t told that until he had already done all of the work and put in for the variance, having been told by the Building Inspector that there was no way that he could go to two feet (2’) from the property line. He concluded by stating that if he has to put in a single-stall garage, then that is what he will do, but what he is proposing would look better and it’s already paved there, so why can’t he have a covering. With no one else to comment on the item, Vice-Chair Offerdahl closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baumann then asked staff if the setbacks were altered as a result of this variance and a two-stall garage were build; would there be issues with water flowing onto other people’s property? Planner Baumgartner responded that the property is already covered with paving and that what he is proposing would be a reduction in the overall lot coverage. Commissioner Wegenast then asked staff if it was true that the applicant would have to have a flat roof. Planner Baumgartner responded that is correct, with the existing path forward the applicant would have to rebuild the garage, as it existed previously, including the flat roof. Commissioner Barnett then asked staff if there other examples of garages in that neighborhood that encroach on setback? Planner Baumgartner said that while he hasn’t specifically looked at that, most of the garages in that area probably do encroach upon the setbacks, and he clarified that this is an older neighborhood so many of them would probably not be able to meet modern setbacks. Barnett then asked if the applicant were to build the one-stall garage that he is entitled to, would it encroach into the setbacks. Baumgartner responded that it would encroach upon the setbacks, as the garage would be able to be rebuilt where it was prior to the flood, regardless of the modern setback requirements. Commissioner Sessions stated that the flat roof would not be very conducive for the applicant in the winter and asked staff if they had received any comment on the application from the neighbor. Planner Baumgartner then said that staff had received a phone call from one of the neighbors asking about where the case was and what was going on, and that the neighbor that called seemed fine with what was being proposed. Commissioner Sessions then said if the neighbor doesn’t have a problem with it and if we’re saying that applicant has to build a flat roof, then she isn’t for that and he needs to build something that will help him in the future. Baumgartner then specified that the neighbor he spoke to wasn’t the neighbor to the east, but instead one of the ones across the street to the south. Commissioner Iverson then asked if another property owner lost their garage and there was a setback issue, would they be allowed to rebuild it in the same location? Baumgartner responded that that was correct. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to deny the variance request based off staff findings of fact and recommendations. Commissioner Barnett seconded the motion. Commissioner Sessions then asked if the applicant would be mandated to build a garage/replace a garage with one that has a flat roof? Vice-Chair Offerdahl stated that based off staff’s findings he would. Planner Baumgartner interjected stating that the applicant would not be required to build anything regardless of the results of the vote, explaining that the vote would just be determining what he can or can’t build on the property. Sessions then asked that if the applicant did choose to build the garage he was entitled to, would it have to have a flat roof? Baumgartner responded that the applicant would have to either build the garage as it was initially or he would have to get a variance to the requirements of (Section 13.1-4). Commissioner Sessions responded that she can’t support mandating the applicant to build a flat roof. Principal Planer Van Dyke responded that no one is mandating that anyone do anything, it is whether he is granted a variance to construct a two-stall garage vs the one-stall with the flat roof that he is entitled to. Additionally Van Dyke said that the applicant is welcome to come back and apply for a variance to the flat roof requirement for the one-stall garage, but no one is mandating that anyone do anything. Sessions then asked for clarification that if the variance is denied, the applicant would not be able to build a two-stall garage; Baumgartner responded that that was correct. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 13 of 23 Commissioner Baumann then referred to Housing Goal # 2 relating to the provision of housing choices and stated that he supports granting the variance in this case due to how things have changed since the subject property was platted. Commissioner Gates then stated that if the applicant is trying to improve the way home looks and how it functions in the wintertime, then she supports this variance as well. The motion failed on the following rollcall vote: ayes: Barnett, Iverson, Offerdahl, Wegenast nays: Baumann, Faken, Gates, Koop, Nesdahl, Sessions. Motion Fails With the failure of the first motion, Planner Baumgartner provided some guidance to the Planning Commission, requesting that they go back through the findings of fact, eliminate the ones that they don’t think are being met and suggest new ones in their place, so that the approval of the variance request can be tied to those new findings of fact. Commissioner Wegenast asked if what the Planning Commission was trying to do was determine what the hardship was, Planner Baumgartner responded that that was correct. Commissioner Sessions stated that relating to Finding of Fact 7c., that there was a unique hardship if the applicant were to build a single stall garage as there would have to be a flat roof like the one he was replacing. Vice-Chair Offerdahl responded that he was not seeing the hardship there himself. Commissioner Sessions then asked if staff could help them out. Planner Van Dyke responded that the flat roof would likely apply to 7b. related to the reasonable use of the property, as the path forward involved building the flat roof and the issues created in conjunction with the North Dakota climate, then he could see it applying to 7b. as well. He continued that that would leave 7a. relating to the exceptional shape and shallowness of the lot, and that the lot in question is less than half the minimum size of required for a corner lot in the “R1” Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Wegenast provided comment that if the issue is the flat roof, then the applicant can come back to the Commission and ask for a variance to that requirement as well. He continued on that that could create another variance request but not a hardship under the current code. Vice-Chair Offerdahl agreed. Wegenast concluded that you have to be pretty buttoned down on a variance with the hardships, otherwise they won’t stand. Commissioner Koop then asked if the applicant would have to pay more fees if he applied for another variance on the flat roof, Van Dyke responded that it would be a separate application which would have it’s own notifications and staff time associated with it, so more fees would be associated with a new variance request. Commissioner Nesdahl asked how much of a difference there was between the proposed encroachments into the setbacks and what there was with the previous garage, stating that if the garage was already encroaching upon them, then she didn’t see the harm in allowing the variance. Planner Baumgartner responded that he did not have that information on hand and Vice-Chair Offerdahl suggested that that was information that the applicant could provide. Mr. Vangsness approached the podium and responded that both garages were within the setback, stating that the new garage would be five feet (5’) from the side yard property line where it was two feet (2’) and that he didn’t mind going with the five feet (5’). Principal Planner Van Dyke then asked Vice-Chair Offerdahl to give him a few minutes to write alternative findings of fact based off what he was hearing from the Planning Commissions Discussion so that one of the Commissioners may present them. Offerdahl asked if there was a motion on the floor to which Van Dyke said that that was correct. Commissioner Wegenast then asked staff why the findings of fact weren’t rewritten before the meeting if staff was willing to do it now. Planner Van Dyke responded that what he was writing was not staff’s recommendation but the recommendation of the Planning Commission’s and that he was trying to assist them by consolidating what was being 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 14 of 23 discussed into findings of fact so that staff would have direction next time a case like the one before them came up. He concluded that it is ultimately their recommendation, and in this case final decision at the Planning Commission level and that staff defers to them. Wegenast responded that if that is the case, when the findings of fact are written, (staff) will present them as the City’s findings of fact? Van Dyke responded that when a report is given to City Council it is the Planning Commission’s recommendation, not staff’s. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked if they were to make a motion to approve the requested variance that they would have to find a hardship. Van Dyke responded that that was the case and that he summarized what he had heard up to that point and gave it to Commissioner Baumann to read off if he concurs with the proposed new findings of fact. He then summarized the proposed findings of fact for the Planning Commissions stating that criteria 9.1-3 G. 1, 3, & 4 were actually applicable due to the size of the lot and the issues with the flat roof respectively. Commissioner Koop said that he agrees with the path they are trying to go on, with building the flat roof, but that he didn’t disagree with the idea of denying the building of the two-stall garage through the reduction of the setbacks as he felt there should be more room there. He concluded that he liked the idea of allowing the applicant to build the one-stall garage to modern standards and attaching it to the roof with a matching roofline. Commissioner Baumann then stated that he agreed with Commissioner Koop and asked staff if they had a way of approving a variance to the roofline requirement at this meeting. Planner Van Dyke responded that they had to evaluate the application before them related to the setback. He went on to say that if the applicant were able to reign in his design in relation to the side yard setback, then the Planning Commission wouldn’t have to grant a variance on it. The Principal Planner concluded that the applicant could have as close to a two-stall garage as possible while meeting the 6.5’ side yard setback, deferring to the applicant as to whether or not that would work for him. Commissioner Baumann then asked if the applicant were to design a one-stall garage with a bunch of extra space that would meet the east setback, then they wouldn’t need to have the variance at all. Van Dyke responded that that was not correct, they would have to build within the existing footprint per Section 13.1-4, plus the requirement for the roof. The applicant was looking at getting a new entitlement instead. At Commissioner Barnett’s request, Planner Baumgartner read off Section 13.1-4 D. 1. for the Commissions consideration again. Barnett then commented on the role of the Planning Commission being to “follow the plan set forth” which in this case was that there needed to be a hardship for the variance request, which she stated did not exist based off of the information provided to them at that time, there is a path forward, and the applicant can come back to (get a variance to) modify the roofline. She concluded by stating that the Planning Commission needed to stay in “their lane.” Commissioner Wegenast reintroduced his motion to deny the requested variance based on staff’s findings of fact and recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnett. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Lider, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Wegenast nays: Sessions. Motion Carries Item # 11 Case # 2021-11.08 Subdivision Plat and Zoning Map Amendment Planning Commission recommends City Council pass an ordinance on first reading for a zoning map amendment from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District and approve a subdivision to be known as St. Johns Third Addition. The property addresses are 8, 12, 20, 100, 104, and 200 27th Street NW and an unassigned portion of property to the east and south of 2611 4th Avenue NW. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 15 of 23 Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked Planner Baumgartner for staff’s report. Public hearing request on an application from David Gowan representing Noark Partners, LLP for a subdivision plat and zoning map amendment from “R1” Single-Family Residential District to “R2” Two-Family Residential District. The subdivision is to be known as St Johns Third Addition. The legal description of the subject property is Lots 1 thru 6, Rowan Addition and Lot 2, St Johns Second Addition to the City of Minot, North Dakota. The property addresses are 8, 12, 20, 100, 104, and 200 27th St. NW and an unassigned portion of property to the east and south of 2611 4th Ave. NW. The applicant, David Gowan, representing Noark Partners, LLP recently purchased the subject properties for the purpose of subdividing them and building a fifteen (15) twin homes. The applicant has also had a Development Review Team (DRT) meeting with the city staff prior to their application. An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1. The preliminary plat for the proposed St Johns Third Addition is provided in Exhibit 2. As part of the plat, the applicant is shifting the existing drainage easement from its current location, going through the middle of lots 12-14B, to having it go around the edges of those lots. The proposed lots meet the bulk lot and area requirements per Chapters 2.8 to have its zoning designation changed to “R2” Single-Family Residential District. The zoning and future land use map designation of the subject properties and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 3 & 4, respectively . Site photos are provided in Exhibit 5. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicants have submitted a complete application. 2) The property is designated as “Low Density Residential” on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 3) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot to be rezoned to “R2” Two-Family Residential. 4) The subdivision meets the technical requirements of Sections 10.3-1 thru 10.3-3, Section 10.3-4 B. thru D., and Section 10.3-5 without modification. Section 10.3-4 A. is met with the condition to include a plat note specifying that Lot 12 shall be owned as undivided interest by Lots 1A thru 11B and Lots 13A thru 16B and the establishment of a homeowners association to maintain said Lot. 5) Section 9.1-7 H. 1. is applicable due to the request to replat the subject properties as a twin home subdivision. 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. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 16 of 23 8) Section 9.1-7 H. 4. is satisfied, as the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot, the Future Land Use Map and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and other adopted policies of the City. 9) 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 St Johns Third Addition plat and the request to rezone the subsequent lots from “R1” Single-Family Residential to “R2” Two- Family Residential District, subject to the following condition: 1) A Developers Agreement is required prior to recording the plat with requirements including but not limited to: a. A storm water management plan is required for future development. b. A subdivision plan is required for development. c. Connection fees are required for future development ($3,787/acre). d. Sidewalks are required. e. 27th St NW shall be urbanized from Central Ave to the north property line. f. Need a separate utility easement to connect to utilities from St. John Church g. Final easement locations and widths are subject to final design 2) Final plat shall show current floodplain. 3) Final plat shall show all existing easements 4) Final plat shall include language to hold the Lot 12, the proposed greenspace in the subdivision, in common ownership with all of other lots included in the subdivision. 5) A homeowners association shall be established that will, at a minimum, provide for maintenance of proposed Lot 12. 6) 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. Planner Baumgartner read into the record a Public Comment from Kathryn, who lives at 211 27th Street NW: I am opposed to changing this area to “R2”. The proposed plan is too dense for the area it’s to be built in. This neighborhood is mostly a modest single family home dwelling area. To add 31 homes is this space will increase traffic, noise, on street parking, etc. 27th St is a busy street already with the intersection of 27th and 4th Ave dangerous as there have been several accidents at this corner in the past several years. With the street drop off, I’m having trouble 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 17 of 23 envisioning how these homes will be built with entrance off 27th St. Entrance to these homes other than 27th St would make more sense. Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened up the meeting for comments from the commissioners. None of the Commissioners had any questions or comments for staff at that time. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. George Franklin, 401 26th Street NW, came forward in opposition. He believes that this will be an unwelcome change to the character of the neighborhood and would not like to see so many people assembled in the area, creating an unwelcome social change. He reiterated his disapproval and stated that he hopes this does not pass. Mary Kasper, 2504 2nd Avenue NW, came forward in opposition. She stated that her property is east of the ditch. Her main concern is water that comes under 4th Avenue and hits that property. Ms. Kasper stated that the city has been running water under that ditch for 50 years and she has personally been flooded twice. With the water issue in mind, she wonders how putting all of these homes in that area is going to work. Planner Baumgartner addressed the issue of the ditch by stating that the easement is being moved over to the property line. When asked for more information, Planner Baumgartner deferred the answer to the applicant, who was not present. Assistant City Engineer Emily Huettl addressed the issue stating that there will be in place a storm water management plan and any additional run off will be addressed by rerouting the ditch. The City Engineering department will review the plans when the applicant’s engineers submit their designs. Greg Tonini, 209 27th Street NW, came forward in opposition to changing the zoning from “R1” to “R2”. Mr. Tonini thanked Planner Baumgartner for his email responses, but stated that he does not understand the justification for changing the zoning from “R1” to “R2”. Mr. Tonini has been a resident of Minot for 10 years and referred back to a previous motion from a few years ago (no specific dates), to zone this area to high density, and noted that the motion was rejected. Tonini noted that the community maintains the desire to remain “R1” Single-Family Residential. Mr. Tonini is also concerned about the work that would need to be completed regarding the 10’ – 15’ elevation and the inconvenience it may cause in the community. Larry Entzel, 211 27th Street NW, came forward in opposition to changing the zoning from “R1” to “R2”. He believes that it will make the area significantly denser, and that it will change the nature of the whole neighborhood and affect property values. Mr. Entzel also noted that changing the zoning would significantly increase traffic in the area. He noted that in the criteria that changing the zoning should not affect the neighboring residents Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened up the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Wegenast asked is a traffic study is in the conditions. Planner Baumgartner that there is not currently a traffic study included. Commissioner Baumann asked if there were going to be any roadway changes or movement accessibility to 27th Street NW and Baumgartner responded that yes, there would be changes. Essentially, they would be finishing the street, which is currently a rural road. The road would be brought up to the current urban standards, which includes curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. Baumann further asked if this would improve storm water management. Baumgartner indicated that it would. Commissioner Wegenast had a follow up question. He asked if a traffic study was conducted, would it answer many of the questions being asked. Principal Planner Van Dyke responded that a traffic study would determine necessary infrastructure, such as lighting and turn lanes, however, this case does not warrant a traffic study due to the low level of travel. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 18 of 23 Commissioner Barnett had two questions for the Planning Staff. The first question is regarding the current use of the land. Planner Baumgartner responded that the area is currently vacant and that any building added will change the character of that area. Commissioner Barnett’s second question is regarding the city staff’s comfort level that the proposed storm water management plan is sufficient for a development of this kind. Assistant City Engineer Huettl responded that staff has seen preliminary plans and that city staff does have the requirement for a full storm water management plan to be submitted, but that staff is waiting for the full storm water management plans. Commissioner Baumann stated that he is concerned about the dedication of Lot 12 being dedicated to green space to be maintained by the home ownership group. The developer was not present to address his question, so Baumann asked the Planning Staff if they thought the developer would be open to moving that green space to another area, such as a busier street, so that it could be more thoroughly and safely enjoyed by residents in the area and in the new subdivision. Principal Planner Van Dyke responded that staff would need to defer that to the applicant if they were here, and noted that if there are additional questions that need to be answered the item can be tabled until December and staff would encourage the applicant to attend. Commissioner Sessions asked Principal Planner Van Dyke about the Fire Departments comments regarding their concern about water drainage, and if their concerns had been addressed. Principal Planner Van Dyke responded that Fire Chief Kronschnabel wanted to make sure that the subdivision would not interfere with the planned First Station #5 and that both developers would need to work together. Commissioner Sessions is also curious about a traffic study on 4th Avenue, which is a busy street, and 27th Street, which has been addressed and is a rural road right now. Commissioner Sessions referred back to an earlier comment from another public participant regarding a variance for a high-density change that was denied. Her concern is around storm water management and traffic, which will change the landscape there. Sessions further noted that quite a few of the homes on 27th are at a higher elevation than the twin homes to be built. Planner Baumgartner noted that yes; the twin homes will be at a lower elevation based off the current elevations of the property. Vice-Chair Offerdahl 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. Prior to the roll call vote Commissioner Sessions stated that she believes that the density will be too much for that area with the fire department being there and that the item should be tabled until we have some more answers or denied out- right. Commissioner Barnett asked for the proposed motion to be restated and inquired if that included the traffic study. Commissioner Baumann commented that the city’s growth in terms of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan and looking at our community as a whole, he is in favor of twin homes. Baumann states that he lives in R1 zoning and the properties across from him are R2 zoning, and that he appreciates the age diversity and that this project meets that goal. Commissioner Wegenast stated that he did not include the traffic study in his motion and he is satisfied with the staff’s earlier responses. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to recommend approval per staff current recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, which does not include a traffic study, second by Commissioner Baumann, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Wegenast, nays: Sessions Motion Carries 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 19 of 23 Item # 12 Case # 2021-11.04 Zoning Map Amendment Planning Commission recommends City Council pass an ordinance on first reading for a zoning map amendment from “CBD” Central Business District to “M1” Light Industrial District. The property address is 200 4th Street SE. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked Principal Planner Van Dyke for staff’s report. Public hearing request on an application from Jay Hight representing Gaylin Schmidt, owner for a zoning map amendment from “CBD” Central Business District to “M1” Light Industrial District. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 3, Cenex 5th Addition to the City of Minot, Ward County, North Dakota. The property address is 200 3rd St. SE. The applicant, Jay Hight, representing Gaylin Schmidt, owner, is currently renting the subject property and is using it to store some of his businesses trucks and equipment on it. Mr. Hight hopes to buy the property, subject to the approval of his rezoning request and he has no plans of changing the use of the property, classified as a construction yard by planning staff, in the near future. An aerial photo of the subject property can be found in Exhibit 1. The property was rezoned from “M1” Light Industrial District to “CBD” Central Business District back in 2018 to accommodate an existing mixed use development on one of the other lots. At that time the designation of Industrial on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan was left unchanged under the notion that it would be changed during the eventual Comprehensive Plan update.. The zoning and future land use map designation of the subject properties and surrounding area is provided in Exhibits 2 & 3, respectively. The property currently meets the bulk requirements of the “M1” Light Industrial District. Site photos are provided in Exhibit 4. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Minot Planning Commission should accept the following findings of facts: 1) The applicants have submitted a complete application. 2) The property was rezoned from “M1” Light Industrial to “CBD” Central Business District in 2018 to accommodate an existing mixed use development on one of the other lots when it was replatted. At that time the designation of Industrial on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan was left unchanged under the notion that it would be changed during the eventual Comprehensive Plan update. 3) The property is designated as “Industrial” on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 4) The applicant’s request is consistent with the bulk requirements of the Minot Land Development Ordinance to be rezoned to “M1” Light Industrial District. 5) Section 9.1-7 H. 1. is applicable due to the necessity of having to resolve a discretion between the official zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 20 of 23 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. Additionally, the property owner is amenable to a Developer’s agreement to restrict the uses of the property to prohibit things such as Cargo Container Yards and Recycling Centers. 8) Section 9.1-7 H. 4. is satisfied, as the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Minot Land Development Ordinance, the Future Land Use Map and Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and other adopted policies of the City. This includes Land Use Goal #2, Commercial/Industrial Land Use Goal #2, and Land Use Goal #2, Policy #2. 9) 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 rezoning of Cenex 5th Addition, Lot 3 from “CBD” Central Business District to “M1” Light Industrial District, subject to the following conditions: 1) A Developers Agreement is required prior to the second reading of the ordinance approving this rezoning request with requirements including but not limited to: a. To allow only for the following uses: i. Small Animal Veterinary Clinic ii. ii. Religious/Public Assembly iii. Administration Offices iv. Postal Facilities v. Public Safety and Emergency Response Services vi. Vocational School vii. Business Incubator viii. Indoor Commercial Recreation ix. Brew Pub, Cocktail Lounge, Bar, Winery x. Corporate Offices, Financial Offices, General Offices, and Medical Offices xi. Non-commercial Off-street Parking xii. Laundry Services xiii. Furniture Stores and Showrooms xiv. Accessory Storage or Garage (primary use required) xv. Rooftop Solar Installation xvi. Construction Yard b. Installation of a site obscuring fence by the end of May, 2022, with that portion of the fence along i. 3rd St SE being of wood or vinyl material. The remainder may be comprised of wood, vinyl, or chain link with slats. c. Street trees within a 10’ landscape buffer along 3rd St SE at a rate of 1 street tree per 50 lineal feet to be included with the landscape plan at the time of site plan review. Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened up the meeting for comments from the commissioners. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 21 of 23 Commissioner Sessions addressed Principal Planner Van Dyke and stated that the City Engineer does not support this zone change because it is seems out of place since this area is transitioning to commercial uses, and asked why staff went forward with this. Principal Planner Van Dyke stated that he appreciates Engineering’s perspective on this item and noted there might be a shock value with the application, however, ultimately Planning are the experts in regards with what complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Engineering’s comments typically are related to the infrastructure on a development, and Van Dyke personally agrees with their comments, however this is the community’s plan, not Engineer’s plan or my plan or the Planning Commission’s plan, which is why it is so important that the Comprehensive Plan is kept up to date. Commissioner Sessions further stated that the applicant is in violation of the current zoning, to which Planner Van Dyke responded is not correct. It is a legal non-conforming use that has been going on for quite some time. Sessions agrees that the surrounding properties are Ebeneezers and Val Cyclery and that this sets the city backwards in trying to clean up areas, but had no further comments. Commissioner Barnett asked if there was some type of affidavit from the city Engineering Department or an inclusion stating their opposition. Barnett is asking how the Planning Department came about that information. Principal Planner Van Dyke responded that it is in the comments section of the Staff Report on page three. Van Dyke read back the comment section. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. There were no comments either for or against from the public. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Prior to the roll call Commission Baumann noted that he is glad we are moving in the direction of the Comprehensive Plan even if that is coming up for change. Baumann noted that this area has been up for discussion recently in connection to the Gathering Space, which was near this area. Also, if the applicant if going to continue to use this lot as it is currently being used, it would be great if they screened in the area and planted some trees and maybe bring an improvement in lieu of someone building in CBD there, and he will be in support of this item. Motion by Commissioner Wegenast to recommend approval per staff recommendations with conditions based on findings of fact, second by Commissioner Koop, and was carried by the following roll call vote: ayes: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Nesdahl, Offerdahl, Wegenast, nays: Sessions Motion Carries Item # 14 Case # 2021-11.09 Zoning Text Amendment Planning Commission recommends City Council pass an ordinance on first reading a zoning text amendment to repeal and adopt Article 10 Subdivisions of the land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot relating to the subdivision of land. The request will also update corresponding references to Article 10 in other Articles of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked Planner Baumgartner for staff’s report. Public hearing request on an application from Harold Stewart on behalf of the City of Minot to repeal and adopt Article 10 Subdivisions of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot relating to the subdivision of land. The request will also update corresponding references to Article 10 in other Articles of the Land 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 22 of 23 Development Ordinance of the City of Minot. The proposed changes are provided in Exhibit 1. The proposed changes in Exhibit 1 reflect the continuation of the broader text rewrite of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot (LDO) that was accomplished over approximately two years and adopted on April 5, 2021. Consultant funding for the LDO was depleted and the consensus by the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee and multiple City departments was that the subdivision portion of the code would be handled “in-house” during the summer 2021. The Planning Division and Engineering Department met with the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee five times beginning June 9, 2021 and received a recommendation of approval on September 27, 2021. 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 to Article 10: Subdivisions are supported by the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Land Use Goal 1, Land Use Goal 3/Transportation Goal 1, and Land Use Goal 5) Transportation Goal 3. 4) The criterium provided in Section 9.1-8 I. 3. is not applicable to the proposed amendments to the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot. 5) Per Section 9.1-8 I. 4., the changes both improve the ordinance by introducing best practices 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: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt staff findings of fact and recommend approval to City Council of the amendment to Article 10: Subdivisions of the Land Development Ordinance of the City of Minot as provided in Exhibit 1. Vice-Chair Offerdahl opened up the meeting for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Baumann, who is a member of the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee thanked all of the staff who worked on this for their professionalism, promptness, laser-like focus and for the considering and adding the 5 year clause for developers which he deemed to be very fair. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for comments from the public. No comments from the public either in support opposition. Vice-Chair Offerdahl asked for a motion from the commissioners. Prior to the roll call Commissioner Baumann, who is a member of the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee, stated that he was originally hesitant on giving up some review control on passing minor subdivisions to the City Council, but noted that in looking at the reality of construction in Minot, it makes sense that the smaller subdivisions can go directly to City Council. Baumann appreciates this small but noticeable change. In regards to the sidewalk ordinance, he is very pleased that the movement toward active transit. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 02, 2021 Page 23 of 23 Motion by Commissioner Baumann 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: Barnett, Baumann, Faken, Gates, Iverson, Koop, Offerdahl, Nesdahl, Sessions, Wegenast, nays: none Motion Carries Adjournment With no further business, Vice-Chairman Offerdahl adjourned the meeting at 7:52 PM. 23