Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

CITY OF MINOT ZONING ORDINANCE STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 8:00am – 10:00am City Council Chambers City Hall I. ATTENDANCE AND ROLL CALL Committee: Rolly Ackerman, Josh Wolsky, Rusten Roteliuk, Gloria Larsgaard, Tyler Neether, Gloria Larsgaard, Tim Baumann Absent: Pat Graner Staff: Lance Lang, Principal Planner Stefanie Stalheim, Assistant City Attorney Glenda Sorensen, Planning Assistant Consultant: Scott Harmstead – SRF Consulting (via conference call) Tim Magnusson – SRF Consulting (via conference call) Guests: No guests were present at this meeting Rolly Ackerman called the meeting to order at 8:00 am. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Wolsky to approve the August 21, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Neether. Ayes: all, nays: none Motion passes III. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Baumann to approve the agenda, seconded by Larsgaard. Ayes: all, Nays, none. Motion passes IV. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS There were no guests in attendance. V. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Principal Planner, Lance Lang stated that the Blu on Broadway hearing at the City Council meeting last night is a good lead-in to continued discussion on Planned Unit Developments. Wolsky agreed and provided an update to the committee from City Council. There was pushback from some members of the public at the meeting regarding perceived exceptions to Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes September 4, 2019 code requirements for Blu on Broadway, and Wolsky explained the “variances” that the public perceives, are not technically variances. Some of the people in opposition referred to “variances” for density and parking and the fact that the Council should not approve these variances. Both Wolsky and Lang spoke to the fact that this project is a PUD and the deviations from code requirements are allowable if approved by Commission and Council as part of the overall development concept, not as traditional variances that require hardships. Each PUD proposal is different and taken on a case-by-case basis on its own merit, so there are no hard and fast numbers for setbacks, or density, or parking, until these numbers are established as part of the PUD plan. Lang noted that “old school” people have trouble understanding the concept of PUD’s and mixed-use development, which is a primary component of most PUD proposals. Parking is also an issue of concern raised by the public, and this was addressed by both Wolsky and Lang. The concern is that the numbers required by code and the numbers provided don’t match. Because this project is a mixed-use project there will be shared use of the parking. Also, because the residential component is 100 percent Low and Moderate income (LMI) the parking numbers can be reduced. 32 of the 42 proposed residential units are studio or one- bedroom apartments. City code requires two (2) spaces per unit plus .25 spaces per unit for visitors. This requirement is excessive for one-bedroom units. The number of parking spaces for Blu on Broadway is based on the PUD plan, however Lang pointed out that the entire parking chapter in the zoning ordinance will be before this committee in the future for revisions. There was discussion regarding the CDBG-NDR grant money for the project and Lang noted that the developer has more private equity committed to this project than grant dollars, and the LMI rates have to be maintained for a minimum of twenty years. The developer has major “skin in the game” on this project. Lang further noted that, per John Zakian, National Disaster Resilience Program Manager, grant monies are based on number of units approved in the application, not a lump sum. Lang asked Zakian how many units could be removed from the proposal before the project became a no-go. Zakian responded this is a question for the developer because it is based on cash flow. Neether added that this PUD is different due to the fact that a PUD is usually larger parcels with several buildings, however this project is just one parcel. Neether asked the SRF consultants if they have seen PUDs that were just one parcel, and they indicated that they had. Lang added that this project may not follow a typical PUD but it does propose a mix of land uses and a public benefit of 42 units of LMI affordable housing. Some of the people that spoke at the hearing were in the apartment business and they stated that the multi-family market is overbuilt and one man said there are over 1,000 vacant units available 80 to 90 percent of which are affordable rates. Zakian explained to the Council that these units are “apples and oranges” to the CDBG-NDR units. There are something like 260 people on the wait list for affordable housing at Minot Housing Authority. If these other apartments were affordable, people would not be on the wait list, they would rent them. Ackerman asked why the project was not GMU (General Mixed Use) and Lang stated that the PC Committee jumped on the PUD concept instead of GMU due to the deviations required for parking and density. Lang further noted that Epic Management also developed Beaver Ridge, which is just across from MSU and it has proven to be a very successful project as has Park South, which is basically 100 percent occupied. 2 Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes September 4, 2019 Harmstead updated the committee on revisions to Chapter 13. Section 13-6 – PUD Procedures, E – Post Approval. Lang stated that he did not believe this section should be in the ordinance because a Developer Agreement is routinely required for many projects, not just PUD’s and further the language regarding special assessment, again, is just one method of financing infrastructure and it is not exclusive to PUD’s. Alernative text was presented by Rolly Ackerman as follows: “A written agreement between the developer and the City of Minot detailing the improvements set forth in the PUD plan, must be completed prior to the initiation of the construction. A performance bond, as determined by the agreement, will be required prior to the issuance of the building permit.” Lang stated the Engineering Department is supposed to provide comments. Planning Director is being universally replaced by “Planning Department”. Section 13-7, paragraph 1. Replace the word “indenture” with “agreement.” Ackerman asked SRF to check this section against Section 5-8, b for any conflicts. Paragraph 3. Need definition in Chapter 2 for “common open space.” The statement; “No open area may be approved as common open space…unless it meets the following standards” might be troublesome wording as features like drives and parking lots can be commonly held but would not meet these requirements. The committee likes that this sentence says “may” as opposed to “shall.” Ackerman asked SRF to check this section against Chapter 4 for conflicts. Section 13-8, A and B. Revise all references to minor and major changes to capitalized “Minor Changes” and “Major Changes” to be consistent with established text elsewhere. Section 13-9. Remove A, “Time Limit” and the first paragraph. Retitle 13-9 as “Vested Property Right. Do we need to add a definition to Chapter 2 for “Substantial Construction” and /or “Substantial Completion”? Section 13-10 – Revocation, A. Process. There was discussion as to whether this section is necessary. Wolsky noted that the revocation process should be used with caution, but believes that it is a necessary tool in some cases and that if we need it in the future, it would be good to have it in place. Lang suggested adding the following language to begin the paragraph under A. Process. “In addition to other established penalties and relief from noncompliance with the zoning ordinance,” the Planning Department… Wolsky made a motion to leave in the section 13-10 – Revocation to be used with reservation, and to add the additional language, seconded by Neether. Ayes: all, Nays: none. 3 Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Minutes September 4, 2019 Motion passes VI. NEXT MEETING Lang noted that marching orders from the Director were to complete the PUD Chapter in its entirety during this meeting, however, the committee decided that 15 minutes of the next meeting would be dedicated to reviewing the changes discussed today after SRF makes the revisions and there will be comments from Engineering for consideration as well. The next meeting of the Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee will meet from 8:00am – 10:00am on September 18, 2019 at Minot City Hall, 515 2nd Avenue SW, in the City Council Chambers. Topics of Discussion:  Chapter 13 – Planned Unit Development (PUD)  First review of individual Zoning District Chapters  Use Matrix Table VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Wolsky to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Roteliuk. Ayes: all, Nays: none Motion passes Lang called the meeting adjourned at 10:03 am. 4