DRAFT MINUTES – Planning Commission

November 10, 2014 – 8:00 a.m.

Present: Hillerud, Bensch, Rhinehart, Trautman, Rath

Others Present: Fuchs, Klundt, Reuther, Wollan, Harty, Schwartzkopf, Sad, Buchanan, Wiles, Mayor Andersen

Absent: Ritter, Frye, Bayer

1. Chairman Hillerud called the meeting to order. Commission member Trautman moved to approve the minutes from the October 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Rath. Motion Carried.

2. Public Hearing: Future Land Use Plan Amendment Request

Hearing on an application requesting a future land use plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial on Lot 1, Block 61, Klaus Second Addition (503 2nd Avenue SE).

Stephanie Falkers, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. gave the staff report explaining the need for a land use plan amendment and a recommendation for approval.

Chairman Hillerud opened the public hearing.

Ron Hemmer, 1712 7th Ave NE, owner of adjacent property to the south, feels the proposed land use amendment is inconsistent with its’ current zoning. He stated that there are signatures from property owners who are opposed to the land use amendment change. He is also concerned about commercial setbacks that would allow a building to be built on the lot lines. Chairman Hillerud explained that the C-2 setbacks require a 6-foot interior side yard and a 15-foot rear yard setback, so any building cannot be placed on a lot line adjacent to other lots. Mr. Hemmer noted that signatures were obtained from five property owners within 150-feet of the subject lot objecting to the zone change

Bernie Satrom, 8352 31 ½ St SE Unit 3, owns two properties adjacent to property in question. He is opposition to the land use amendment and the zone change.

Kevin Reuther, 714 7th St NW, owner of property in question, states that this property has not been taxed in the past years and is willing to make the property conform to proper use, and explained that as a business owner, he wants the City to grow and make the property look good. He is not asking for a free handout, and would make the area look nice.

Ron Hemmer, 1712 7th Ave NE, conveyed there is no objection of current use; the concern is that the lot being re-zoned to commercial could be sold and used in a different manner.

Chairman Hillerud closed the public hearing.

Commission member Bensch made a motion to accept the findings of staff and recommend approval of the land use plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial for Lot 1, Block 61, Klaus Second Addition to the City Council. Seconded by Trautman. Roll Call. Unanimous aye vote. Motion Carried.

3. Public Hearing: Zone Change Request

Hearing on an application requesting a zone change from R-2-A, One- to Six-Family Residential to C-2, General Commercial on Lot 1, Block 61, Klaus Second Addition (503 2nd Avenue SE).

Stephanie Falkers, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. gave the staff report explaining the recommendation for approval, subject to approval of the land use plan amendment, and referring to graphics in the staff report that illustrate the setbacks according to the zoning district dimensional standards and the parking requirements. Two letters of protest were received with acreage of 23.78% of the notification area protesting the zone change.

Chairman Hillerud asked if there is some sort of special parking requirement because of the downtown area. Discussion among members and City staff concluded that some parking requirements were grandfathered in years ago.

Chairman Hillerud opened the public hearing.

Ron Hemmer, 1712 7th Ave NE, owner of Canary apartments south of the proposed zone change, is concerned that the zone change could be developed into something that the residents’ would not want and that variances can always be applied for to modify the C-2 regulations. He noted that this or any other development would impact existing infrastructure and increase noise and light pollution in the area.

Bernie Satrom, 8352 31 ½ St SE Unit 3, adjacent property owner, is concerned that if commercial business goes in, the traffic would increase and families’ nearby with young children could be impacted. He stated that while development of this property would increase the taxable value of Lot 1, it would decrease the value of his properties.

Kevin Reuther, 714 17th St NW, owner of property requesting the zone change, responded with the fact that the City is growing and the traffic will increase. He spoke of people who keep trying to stop progress, but must realize Jamestown is growing and things will change in the future. Mr. Reuther noted that Jamestown is headed in a great direction and we need to continue to make forward progress.

Chairman Hillerud closed the public hearing, noted the sensitivity of the issue and reminded everyone that the Planning Commission is here to do the best job for the City of Jamestown. Commission member Trautman stated that this zone change would not be out of character because of the adjacent uses, and the size of lot would limit the type of use that would fit.

Commission member Trautman made a motion to accept the findings of staff and recommend approval of the zone change from R-2-A to C-2 on Lot 1, Block 61, Klaus Second Addition to the City Council. Seconded by Rath. Roll Call. Unanimous aye vote. Motion Carried.

4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Request

Hearing on an application requesting preliminary plat approval of Dabill Addition, a replat of Lot 19, Beverly Hills 3rd Addition and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Beverly Hills 6th Addition within the City of Jamestown North Dakota (701 and 703 12th Street SW and 1210 7th Avenue SW).

Stephanie Falkers, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. gave the staff report explaining a recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat.

Chairman Hillerud opened the public hearing. No one appeared. Chairman Hillerud closed the public hearing.

Commission member Trautman made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Dabill Addition, a replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Beverly Hills 6th Addition and Lot 19, Beverly Hills 3rd Addition. Seconded by Rath. Roll Call. Unanimous aye vote.

5. Discussion regarding potential regulations requiring traffic impact studies.

Stephanie Falkers, SRF Consulting Group, talked about the process of establishing requirements for traffic impact studies and how this has come up during meetings about the LUTP and involvement with the NDDOT as to how the City’s fringe growth areas will impact traffic on NDDOT facilities. Steph described where a development traffic impact study fits into the overall range of transportation planning. She showed graphics that compare trip generation for a single family dwelling versus a multiple family dwelling and examples of graphics from a school traffic impact study that was recently completed for the City of Fargo. She explained that traffic impact studies show how a development will impact the roadway network and traffic operations surrounding a development.

Cindy Gray, Principal with SRF Consulting Group, spoke about the need for setting parameters within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations or city policies (such as development applications submittal requirements) for traffic impact studies. She explained different options for development thresholds that could trigger the requirement for a traffic impact study. She explained that a significant land use plan amendment that previously wasn’t analyzed by the city’s transportation plan is an example of a development related proposal that could trigger a land use plan amendment. Zoning changes and subdivisions with a certain number of residential lots or units, certain square footage thresholds for commercial developments, and schools with student enrollment projections above a certain size are examples of thresholds that could be established. She explained that it is important to provide some level of flexibility within the requirements, to allow the requirement for a study to be waived if a proposed development has already been addressed in another format, such as a city-wide plan, sub-area study or corridor study. She added that it is also important to include that the city can request a study in situations that aren’t specifically identified, but that warrant a study for some reason. She explained that it’s easier to set more stringent requirements and waive the need for a study rather than setting less stringent requirements and asking for something the developer was not anticipating. Cindy also emphasized that the purpose of a traffic impact study is to identify investments needed in the roadway network, such as traffic signals, turn lanes, and other needs generated by either a single development, or an area of developments, so the city is not left in a situation of having to make unplanned investments to resolve issues.

Chairman Hillerud asked if this would be required by the developer or initiated by the City. Cindy explained some different ways the developer and the City could work together to develop an agreement. In some instances, such as a sub-area study, the city may initiate the study, while in other cases the applicant would be responsible for paying for a study as part of their submittal documents. She emphasized that the main objective is to work with the applicant to set up an agreement about paying for improvements, or to know in advance of improvements that need to be included in the city’s CIP.

City Engineer Schwartzkopf spoke of the LUTP consultants and said they would likely be interested in weighing in on the recommendations as well. The purpose is to discuss the generics and to consider how & where we need to start this process. There is no process right now, but could be done as a policy change.

Chairman Hillerud asked if other cities have traffic impact study requirements. Cindy has worked with other cities that have these regulations. There are different ways to look at policies, set some thresholds, etc.

A motion was made by Commission member Trautman to have SRF Consulting Group draft a recommendation to the Planning Commission, provide examples of traffic impact study ordinances and policies used by other cities that would be applicable to Jamestown for review & recommendation. Motion was seconded by Bensch. Roll Call. Unanimous aye vote. Motion Carried.

6. City Engineer Schwartzkopf stated he had been trying to get an NDDOT management meeting set up with the NDDOT & LUTP Consultants. They will be meeting on December 18, 2014 and it is anticipated that they will extend their contract beyond the end of the year.

7. Chairman Hillerud asked if there had been any applicants for the open seat on the Planning Commission. There were no applications received at this time.

8. Commission member Rath made a motion to adjourn. Second by Bensch. Meeting adjourne