Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

CITY OF MINOT ZONING ORDINANCE STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes August 07, 2019 8:00am – 10:00am City Council Chambers City Hall I. ATTENDANCE AND ROLL CALL Committee: Rolly Ackerman, Josh Wolsky, Pat Graner, Rusten Roteliuk, Gloria Larsgaard, Tyler Neether Absent: Tim Baumann, Staff: Brian Billingsley, Community & Economic Development Director Lance Lang, Principal Planner Stefanie Stalheim, Assistant City Attorney Glenda Sorensen, Planning Assistant Consultant: Scott Harmstead - SRF Consulting Guests: Josh Galloway, 2nd Vice President – Visit Minot Paul ? - Ackerman Estvold Rolly Ackerman called the meeting to order at 8:00 am. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Neether to approve the July 24, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Graner. Ayes: all, nays: none Motion passes III. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Ackerman acknowledged Mr. Galloway, 2nd Vice President from the Visit Minot organization. He attended the last meet as well. Paul ? an architect with Ackerman Estvold was also invited to provide input especially on the architectural treatment of buildings and the materials palate. IV. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA The review and approval of the Agenda was unanimous. Ayes: all, nays: none Motion passes V. CONVERTING HOTELS/MOTELS INTO APARTMENTS Mr. Billingsley presented a draft of the proposed text amendment. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes August 7, 2019 q) Residential units (rental or owner-occupied) use on the same lot and mixed in the same building, except in hotels and motels, with the residential use located in the floor(s) above the commercial use. All off-street parking and loading requirements are met for both uses. The height, area and yard requirements of the C2 district must also be met. Any residential units cannot exceed RM densities. Billingsley explained the concerns the City has with hotels/motels being used as apartments. Several properties in Minot are using the premises this way. The owners say they cannot afford to operate the facilities as legitimate hotels/motels for overnight lodging. The City has been in contact with the owners of these facilities and they are on notice to close these facilities by the end of August. Ackerman asked if this issue is more of an enforcement issue than a zoning issue? Wolsky asked if this amendment will cause problems for Air BnB properties? Billingsley replied that BnB uses are typically single-family residential. Current zoning does not allow hotels/motels in downtown in C3 zoning. Lang stated that the committee should add this use back into the use matrix when the time comes. Neether expressed concern of being overly restrictive to these businesses. He noted that there have been conversions of motels to condos in the past. These conversions included remodeling to residential use with kitchens etc. Billingsley said this is not the same as allowing a motel room to be used as an apartment. Neether said we have 18-20 year-old students living in dorm rooms without full residential amenities. Lang said dorm rooms come with ancillary support, like meal plans, cafeteria access, etc. To convert an entire facility from motel to apartments will require rezoning to RM, Medium Density Residential. To be a legitimate extended stay facility the building must be staffed. Long term leases with no staff present is an apartment. Stalheim suggested changing the lead word “Residential” to “Dwelling.” The term “Dwelling Unit” is defined in the definition chapter, “Residential Unit” is not, neither is “Extended Stay.” Do we need to add these definitions? Roteluik stated converting a hotel to apartments without renovation won’t meet ICC Codes. Wolsky said some of these places offer a unit to an on-site manager as part of their compensation. He suggested language be included to allow one residential unit for an on-site manager as part of the hotel/motel configuration. This language should be added to the definition of hotel/motel in the definitions chapter. Motion by Wolsky to approve the proposed text amendment with the additional changes discussed,  Replace residential with dwelling  Add language to allow a residential unit for an on-site manager. second by Ackerman. 2 Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes August 7, 2019 Ackerman stated that there are also impacts in using a facility as a full-time residence compared to overnight stays. Parking and traffic for example. Graner asked if there are not already sufficient rules to regulate these concerns? Perhaps the best way to approach the mix of long-term and overnight stays in the same building may be to authorize the use under a PUD. Billingsley stated that the PUD option will require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. Is this direction the group wants to pursue? Billingsley stated he would pork on the amendments we discussed and bring them to the next meeting. The Planning Commission hearing will be August 26. VI. BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Mr. Billingsley introduced the next topic. Discussion was held on “Demonstration of Compliance”, B regarding the percentages and the terminology of building remodel versus complete refacing. Roteluik asked if refacing a building downtown might ruin the historical integrity of the building? Rolly said the historical preservation standards would not allow compliance with the Minot ordinance. He is concerned that the rules applied downtown will drive up cost and run development out of town. Ackerman asked if Paul or Gloria have any comments as architects? The both agreed this is a very subjective matter. Who and how determines if a building is attractive? The group discussed Architectural Review Boards, Historical Preservation Commissions, and design standards in Bismarck and Fargo. Harmstead added that what we are trying to achieve is some written standards to assure reasonable expectations in the text without the extra layers of review and time expended on special review boards. Billingsley suggested that the group move on to Industrial Standards. Harmstead stated that the M2 and I2 districts have been removed for the design standards section. Also, the prohibition on concealed metal fasteners has been removed. Percentage of glass was discussed. There are other options to choose from to provide flexibility. Ackerman asked if MADC has been contacted in regard to I-1 district? No, they are not aware. Discussion on landscaping requirements in industrial zones continued. The I-1 should be removed from this section as well. Graner questioned why the provision for employee parking to the rear or side of the building? Back to the beginning… Flexibility built in for staff to consider alternative materials. 3 Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes August 7, 2019 Lang stated his primary concern is the truly large industrial buildings. Does it make sense to require enhanced materials and architectural design for these types of facilities? What about Bismarck, Mandan, Fargo? No, they do not have these kinds of requirements for industrial. Discussion on the corridor overlay approach. The is long-term, really tied to comp plan update. Page Two- Trash Handling and Recycling. Neether expressed concern on the prohibition of chain-link fencing in industrial settings. This reference shall be removed as applied to industrial, add “except in M1 and M2 zoning districts.” Also, in 1. replace “suitable” with “approved.” Page one – Additions, Alterations to Existing Buildings. Discussion on the 75% threshold for additions requiring upgrade of old and new. Language says “building remodeled 75% or more.” Remodeling could be 100% interior. This language should be changed to “building addition or exterior remodel.” Wolsky state there are three different and inconsistent wordings in this section:  One time building addition  Existing building expanded  Completely refaced or remodeled Harmstead suggested reducing the requirement to one threshold, like 50%. Two categories. Above 50% architectural design standards apply to addition only, and “completely refacing” 100% of building subject to architectural design standards. Revised language for B. 2. “When an existing building is expanded fifty percent or more the building addition shall meet the standards of this section.” Revised B. 3. “When an existing building is completely refaced the entire building shall meet the standards of this section.” Section A. Single-Family Home Development Requirements Add “Ward” county Townhomes and Multi-Family Decks and Porches. Ackerman expressed concern about setbacks. This will be covered in the new Chapter “Supplemental Development Regulations.” Amenities Lang suggested tying the amenities required to density. If a multi-family development exceeds a certain density it is considered a “planned” district and plans for the amenities go to PC and CC. 4 Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes August 7, 2019 Ackerman suggests, based on Cindy Snay’s past comments, the developer decides the amenities. Some people may not want to live in a complex with plush amenities, some may. Commercial and Office Park Roteluik; what about refacing required because of a natural disaster? Pick 3 enhanced materials form the list? Can’t the building be replaced as it was? Graner added the insurance company will not pay for upgraded materials. This issue is best handled in the non-conforming section under “routine maintenance”. Accent Materials Lang asked why there are a few select materials called out when it then reads “The use of other accent materials is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department.” Remove “Use of architectural metal, fiber cement trim, soffit and fascia shall be allowed as accent materials.” Exterior Building Finishes 26-gauge metal requirement questioned. Common in other ordinances. As an accent you can use any gauge, but for exterior finish it must meet standards? Will consult with CBO Mitch Flanagan. Discussion on curtain walls? EIFS is mis-spelled. (shown as EFIS, should be EIFS) Wolsky requested update on expenditures to the consultant and how that compares to schedule. Billingsley stated it looks like the money should stretch to about February, but he will take a closer look at it for next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be on August 21st, 2019, 8:00am – 10:00am, Council Chambers, City Hall. Topic of Discussion:  Final review of building design standards  First review of PUD chapter. VII. ADJOURNMENT Brian Billingsley called the meeting adjourned at 10:00am. 5