Chair Mike Schell presided and called the meeting to order 4:00pm on Wednesday, May 12th, 2021. Committee Members present: Jim Wright, Jeff Erickson, Joe Faure, Bobby Koepplin, Mike Bishop and Bill Carlblom. 

     Others: City Attorney Carl Martineck, City Administrator Gwen Crawford, City Planner Joel Quanbeck, Acting Secretary Sandy Hansen, Building Inspectors Mike Blevins and Lance Coit. 

     Audience members: Chad Petersen (KLJ), Jan Reed, Bruce Hoyt, Arvid Winkler, Tracy Eslinger (Moore), John Hill, Jeff Nathan, and Wesley Wintsch (VCSU). Attending by Zoom: Mike Strom, Steve Nagle, Kelly Kohn, Jennifer Stainbrook, Lela & Ray Grim, Matt Pedersen.

     Jim Wright moved to approve the Minutes of the April 14th, 2021 regular meeting, seconded by Bill Carlblom, followed by roll call and approval.

Public Hearing for petition to vacate 15th Ave NE between East Main and 2nd St NE

            Chair Mike Schell opened the public hearing. Bruce Hoyt, the developer for the project, reported that property owners on both sides of the vacated street (Tim Durheim for Smith Lumber and George Gaukler for Valley Lumber) were in agreement that the project go forward. With no other public comments, Bobby Koepplin moved to close the public hearing with Joe Faure seconding and roll call approval. 

     Schell opened internal discussion. Koepplin asked Hoyt if plans are to keep the street a drive-through, and Hoyt replied that nothing will change. Commenting that this action would take that portion of the street off City hands, Koepplin moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of the vacation with Wright seconding and unanimous board approval.

Public Hearing for application to amend a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and replat for Outlot Y Harvest Valley Townhomes Subdivision

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. As there were no public comments, Mike Bishop moved to close the public hearing with Carlblom second and board approval.

     Schell opened internal discussion. City Planner Joel Quanbeck presented his findings to the board which were digitally shared prior to the meeting; he suggested if the board moves to approve, his list of housekeeping items should be included in the motion as follows: a) The items previously noted as “additional subdivision design requirements that are not needed to review and approve a preliminary plat” be provided for the record and meet city engineering standards, b) All infrastructure required to serve the proposed development have easements as required by Title 16 of the Valley City Municipal Code (VCMC) and city engineering standards, c) The applicant shall give satisfactory assurance of the provision of all site improvements for the proposed development as required by VCMC Section 16-01-06, d) The applicant shall ensure that all site improvements are consistent with all applicable design standards and infrastructure requirements, and e) There must be a Homeowners Association Agreement or something of a similar nature with required membership of all property owners within the PUD – this Agreement must address and ensure maintenance of the shared buildings and of the shared common spaces. Bishop moved to recommend to the City Commission approval with those added comments, with Wright seconding and unanimous roll call approval.

Public Hearing for plat, zoning and variance requests of undeveloped land located west of 8th Ave SE and south of 10th St SE, to be called MeadowView Estates 

     Chair Schell opened the public hearing, adding that there were four items to make decisions on and they included a sidewalk variance, a lot depth variance, a rezone request and a plat. Bruce Hoyt presented the plans to the board, asking that they address the plat first. He requested they approve the second plat submitted that had the street going up the middle, and the developer would put in the infrastructure (street, water, sewer, etc) himself as they did not know at this time what neighboring properties have planned for the future. Quanbeck said that regulations consider it not good practice to have double frontage streets for efficiency reasons and lower future costs to the property owners. He recommended the first plat that was not the developers’ preferred plan but acknowledged there were unusual circumstances. Wright moved to close the hearing with Bishop seconding and the board in agreement.

     Schell opened internal discussion. Wright asked Hoyt why they wanted the road down the middle; Hoyt said it was for more control of the situation and that it would allow them to proceed without delay. Koepplin said he understood the challenge and the board should approve the second plat and let them get it done. Bishop made a motion to recommend the City Commission approve the second plat, with Faure second; after Koepplin asked it be subject to the plat updated with utility easements added to the plat prior to sign-off, the board was in unanimous agreement.

     Leaving the hearing closed, the board addressed the rezone from agricultural to R-1 residential. Koepplin moved to recommend a do-pass to the City Commission with Bishop seconding, and unanimous board approval. Next, they reviewed the two variance requests. The first was to allow shorter lot depths from the required 100 feet for subdivisions to 97.5 feet to fit into the proposed development space. Bishop moved to approve the shortened lot variance with Wright second and board approval. The second variance was a request to remove the requirement for sidewalks in new subdivisions. Hoyt said that the property owner does not want sidewalks and as a developer, Hoyt understood why they are required but also feels these are special circumstances as the sidewalks would lead nowhere. Quanbeck agreed that this proposed development has a more rural, suburban character that would allow for and make more sense to bypass the sidewalk requirement. Koepplin moved to approve the variance for no sidewalks with Bishop seconding; the board split on approval with Erickson, Faure and Wright voting nay and Chair Schell breaking the tie with a ‘yes.’

Consider Hidden Pond Estate PUD Geotechnical Report and make recommendations regarding the Planned Unit Development and replat

     Chair Schell opened the discussion relating how he had walked thru the property in question with Ray & Lela Grim and Jennifer Stainbrook. Questions from the neighboring property owners had been referred to the developers and were answered; the developers had an extensive geotechnical survey done to further take care of concerns regarding stability of the land, underground spring locations and future water run-off issues. Speaking for the developers, Bruce Hoyt said they felt confident they were not going to cause any problems for neighbors as they move forward; he added that new construction would have its own bermed pond and that, instead of adding 12 feet of fill, they would be adding a walk-in basement to the future twinhome. The firm who did the geotechnical study would be on hand as the development moves forward to do any future borings and monitor for any concerns. The neighbors attending said they were happy with the answers to their questions and they were looking forward to the walking path through the wooded areas. Koepplin moved to recommend the City Commission approve the PUD and replat request with Quanbeck’s added conditions of: a) Stormwater runoff from the proposed development be addressed in a way consistent with stormwater management, b) Any potential walking paths are located at least 25-ft from adjacent property, c) The question of dedication of part of the proposed subdivision for public use be decided on the basis of historical precedent and any relevant changes to city policy, d) The four items previously noted as ‘additional subdivision preliminary plat required information that is not shown on the preliminary plat or as supplemental information’ be provided for the record, e) All infrastructure required to serve the proposed development have easements as required by Title 16 of the VCMC and city engineering standards, f) the applicant shall give satisfactory assurance of the provision of all site improvements for the proposed development as required by VCMC Section 16-01-06 and, g) The applicant shall ensure all site improvements are consistent with all applicable design standards and infrastructure requirements. Carlblom seconded the motion. Wright asked how this project qualifies as a PUD being that there’s only one structure plus one that’s already built, and there’s no plans for multiple structures. City Attorney Carl Martineck said that legally it qualifies as a PUD and he’s comfortable allowing the project to move forward. He added that without a PUD designation this development wouldn’t work because they would not be able to get the variances needed. Quanbeck added that, in his original report, he pointed out the use of a PUD was consistent as a creative & efficient use of the land available, and there was not a lot of buildable land on that site. It also saves the city money as the streets and maintenance in the PUD will be on the developer. Wright didn’t agree with the assessment. The vote moved forward with most of the board members approving – Wright & Erickson voted nay.

Public Hearing for application for a variance from the Valley City Floodplain Regulation in regards to the new VCSU Center for the Arts building.

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. Wesley Wintch, Vice President of Business Affairs for VCSU, requested a variance to allow construction of the new Center for the Arts Building to continue at the FEMA-regulation 1 foot above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) instead of the State-regulation 2 feet BFE. To meet North Dakota Century Code, the university would have to install slats & brackets at entrances, and with no history of flooding of nearby buildings and new flood walls under construction throughout the city, the project’s architects feel that this approximate $100,000 of water-proofing measures is unnecessary. After discussion, it was determined that because of concerns that the adjustment would affect the insurance class rating for the City of Valley City, more research needed to be completed to see if that would be the case. Wintch agreed the decision could wait a month so these questions could have more definitive answers. Wright moved to close the hearing with Bishop seconding and board approval. Koepplin moved to table the issue until the June 9th meeting with Faure a second and roll call approval.

Consider amendments to Titles 11 & 16 of VCMC, re: subdivision sidewalks, R-4 Multi-Family Residential District density, and off-street parking requirements. Discussion only.

      Chair Schell opened discussion. Because the sidewalk issue keeps coming up with each new subdivision, the board talked about the standard requiring sidewalks and if that should be changed or to keep considering variance requests. Martineck pointed out that if they keep the regulation, they need to determine how to refine and enforce it but he agreed the current regulation is too restrictive. Schell asked Quanbeck to research the issue for the board and make recommendations. In R-4 discussion, Martineck said that everything built since the current ordinance was adopted is out of compliance in regards to unit-limitations on apartments buildings. The board discussed lot size and height limitations; Schell asked Quanbeck to research the issue for the board and make recommendations to correct the ordinance. Quanbeck had requested the discussion on off-street parking for commercial properties because the current language is too restrictive and ‘overkill’; he suggested more flexibility and alternatives be added to the language. Martineck added another issue with the zoning map and the definition of public spaces; Quanbeck said that the term does not match up with the zoning ordinance and he would like to research a change to make map and text the same. He looked forward to these projects. Koepplin also asked for research on a better definition of ‘payment in lieu’ on public spaces in new developments. Quanbeck wrapped up with the need to address setbacks and decks, i.e. what to do when a deck encroaches on a front yard setback; inconsistencies need to be researched.

Building Inspector Report

     Interim Building Inspector Mike Blevins had sent the board an email outlining current building projects; he had nothing else to add and the board had no questions for him at this time.

Adjourn

     With no other items to discuss, Chair Schell called for the meeting to close at 5:59pm.

Submitted by: City Assessor Sandy Hansen, Acting Secretary

     Chair Mike Schell presided and called the meeting to order 4:00pm on Wednesday, April 14^th, 2021. Committee Members present: Jim Wright, Jeff Erickson, Joe Faure, Bobby Koepplin, Mike Bishop and Bill Carlblom.

     Others: City Attorney Carl Martineck, City Administrator Gwen Crawford, City Planner Joel Quanbeck, City Assessor/Acting Secretary Sandy Hansen, and Building Inspector Mike Blevins.

     Audience members: Chad Petersen (KLJ) and Clyde Williamson. Attending by Zoom: Mike Strom, Cory Ravnaas, Kirk Olson, Chester Flath, Kevin Rohde, Todd Ingstad and other family members, Tammy Jacobson, Dan Larson.

     Jim Wright moved to approve the Minutes of the March 10^th, 2021 regular meeting, seconded by Bill Carlblom, followed by roll call and approval.

     Chair Mike Schell called for Agenda Item 7 to be moved up to 4^th position and other agenda items to shift down for better time management.

Public Hearing for replat request of Lot 1 Block 3 Waterfront Meadows Addition

      Chair Mike Schell opened the public hearing. Clyde Williamson, who has property that shares a fence line with the Waterfront Meadows properties, expressed some concern about whether he would be able to continue mowing on the outside of the fence to discourage his horses from reaching through; Schell recommended that he talk to property owner Don Eberle about that issue. As there were no other public concerns Mike Bishop moved to close the public hearing with Carlblom seconding and board approval.

     Schell opened internal discussion. City Planner Joel Quanbeck recommended that the right of way on the west side of the replatted, expanded property be moved down to the southern edge of Lot 1. Bobby Koepplin moved to recommend the city commission approve the replat with the recommended revision of changing that right of way; Carlblom seconded with the board in unanimous approval.

Public Hearing for platting request of undeveloped land located west of 117^th Ave SE and north of BNSF Railroad, to be called Ingstad North Valley Subdivision

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. Todd Ingstad explained the family was creating three residential lots of substantial size; no development plans were ready at this time. Cory Ravnaas of Hylalite Engineers, representing the Ingstad family, added it was a straightforward application that meets Valley City’s zoning requirements, asking for fewer lots than what it there now with limited impacts. As there were no other public comments, Wright moved to close the public hearing with Joe Faure seconding and board approval.

     Schell opened internal discussion. Koepplin asked how the property was currently zoned. After some discussion it was determined that the city zoning map showed it would be R-1. Bishop moved to recommend the city commission approve the platting request with Wright seconding and the board in unanimous approval.

Public Hearing for petition to vacate an undeveloped portion of 11^th St SE adjacent to Outlot A and Replat of Black 4 Granger’s Addition

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. Kirk Olson had a question on if the vacation was for the full 11^th Avenue or just a portion; Schell said the application was for just a portion. Olson asked if the alleyway would still be city property; Schell confirmed the petition was just for the street. It was also verified that owners on each side of the vacation would get half ownership with the city paying to replat to show the even split. As there were no other questions, Bishop moved to close the public hearing with Carlblom seconding and approval.

     Schell opened internal discussion. Koepplin asked if it should be all the street instead of just a portion and Schell pointed out that was not the request at this time. With no other discussion, Bishop moved to recommend the city commission approve the request with Wright a second, followed by unanimous approval.

Public Hearing for replat, street vacation and variance requests of undeveloped land located between 8th & 9^th Ave NW and north of 10^th St NW – includes Lots 4-8 and part of Lot 3 Block 1 Hyland Park Addition, plus Lots 3-7 & part of Lot 2 Block 2 Replat of Hyland Park Addition

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. He noted that a petition had been submitted from homeowners in this area objecting to the plans; he added that citizens can affect changes in most instances but it won’t affect this property at this stage since it is zoned correctly for what the developer wants to do. Schell also said the petitioners asked for changes to the R-4 designation but that could not be done for just one property without affecting all R-4 properties. He said the petition has value but there are other proceedings that need to be done before anything can be done regarding their concerns. Kevin Rohde had questions about what he heard might be a substantial increase in special assessments for neighboring homeowners because of this project. He was also worried about the construction equipment having impacts on the residential streets. Mike Strom of KLJ, representing the developer, explained it was a private development fully-funded by the developer – there should be no extra special assessments to the neighbors, and the storm water would be managed on site. Koepplin said that if there was any damage to the streets on his property frontage, that would be a matter for the property owner and the city to take up. Rohde asked about sidewalks on his property and that the plans were too vague; Schell said that no sidewalks would be added outside of the development property lines. Chad Petersen pointed out the city ordinances state that the most direct truck routes should be used for a haul road and suggested a conversation with the developer should be had regarding that issue. Koepplin moved to close the public hearing with Wright a second and board approval.

     Schell opened internal discussion. It was decided to take up the request in three different parts regarding the separate issues, starting with the street vacation. Koepplin moved to recommend approval of the vacation of the street with Wright a second and unanimous board approval. Variance discussion on sidewalks was next. City Attorney Carl Martineck said that the developer had not met the conditions of proving that sidewalks weren’t necessary, and that he was going to recommend to the board not to approve the variance request. Schell added that the City Commission had made it clear a few years back about the need for sidewalks in new developments. Wright moved to recommend a denial of the request for the variance with Jeff Erickson seconding and the rest of the board except for Koepplin following suit to deny the request. The board moved on to the replat request. Erickson questioned the need for another 36-plex, pointing out that the R-4 zoning allows only for up to a 24-plex. Schell said it may have been allowed in the past but at some point the board needs to follow their own regulations. He added he had no problem with the plat as presented with the 16-unit townhomes, but questioned whether they should approve it with a 36-plex. Koepplin said a 24-plex may not be feasible for the developer based on per unit costs. He moved to approve the plat as presented. More discussion followed regarding if approval would extend to allowing for the construction of a 36-plex or if that would fall on the building inspector when permits were issued. Martineck said that the plat could be approved if the size of the building was addressed. Quanbeck agreed that the plat should be approved but the developer needs to recognize the zoning does not allow for what he intends to do. Koepplin expressed concern about addressing the need for better R-4 definitions regarding the number of units allowed for multi-family dwellings. Schell asked for a motion to satisfy what they were trying to approve. Wright moved to recommend the city commission approve the plat subject to R-4 regulations, with Faure seconding. The board approved with Koepplin and Erickson as nay votes.

Public Hearing for amendments to Chapter 7-01 and Chapter 11-07 of the Valley City Municipal Code

      Chair Schell opened the public hearing. Martineck asked the board to approve an administrative penalty for building without a permit, building without conditional use permit or variance if required, or building in violation of building codes. Currently the only recourse is to charge someone with a Class B misdemeanor in municipal court or sue them in district court if any of these transgressions take place; this would make the process more efficient and effective to endorse penalties. Schell had questions on why the planning & zoning board has final say on this as written. Koepplin said the board’s responsibility is to make recommendations to the city commission. Schell asked for Carlblom’s input as a county commissioner regarding how their board handles fines, and he said that the county building inspector monitors permits and enforces what needs to be enforced. Further discussion clarified that the collection of fines would fall to City Hall but there needed to be a board involved for the appeal process if someone wanted to appeal their fines. Koepplin asked if it could be tabled until further research was submitted. City Administrator Gwen Crawford said that she had contacted Jamestown, Wahpeton and West Fargo and asked how they proceeded and that information was taken into account. Wright moved to recommend the city commission approve the amendments with Bishop seconding. The board approved with Koepplin and Erickson as nay votes.

Building Inspector Report

     Interim Building Inspector Mike Blevins had sent the board an email outlining current building projects; he had nothing else to add to that other than construction activity is picking up.

Adjourn

     With no other items to discuss, Chair Schell called for the meeting to close at 5:23pm.

Submitted by: City Assessor Sandy Hansen, Acting Secretary

Chair Mike Schell presided and called the meeting to order 4:00pm on Wednesday, March 10th, 2021. Committee Members present: Jim Wright, Jeff Erickson, and Bill Carlblom. Joe Faure and Bobby Koepplin were present by teleconference. Mike Bishop was absent.
Others: City Attorney Carl Martineck, City Administrator Gwen Crawford, City Planner Joel Quanbeck, City Assessor/ Acting Secretary Sandy Hansen, and Building Inspector Lance Coit. Building Inspector Mike Blevins attended by Zoom.
Audience (by Zoom) members: Chad Petersen & Mike Strom (KLJ). Tracy Eslinger (Moore Engineering), Kelly Kohn, Jennifer Stainbrook, Ken Reid, and Lela & Raphael Grim.
Jim Wright moved to approve the Minutes of the January 13th, 2021 regular meeting, seconded by Bill Carlblom, followed by roll call and approval.
Public Hearing for preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone application for parts of Lot 16 of the Replat of Scherr’s Addition and parts of Blocks 2 & 3 of Frances Pearl Brown’s Subdivision of Tract No. 3 of Mary M Zetterberg’s Plat of part of the NW Quarter of Section 21 of Valley City – to be named Hidden Pond Estates.
Chair Mike Schell opened the public hearing. Joel Quanbeck addressed Jennifer Stainbrook’s concerns from a prior conversation with her regarding the holding pond placement and construction, and also regarding a potential walking path. Quanbeck said according to the supplied topographical map, the placement for the pond was going to be a substantial distance – more than 100 ft – from the Stainbrook property line. The questions of how big & how deep the pond will be had not been determined at this time; drainage will be to the southwest to an existing drainage easement. In answer to another question, the storm management plan has not been completed at this time. Drainage from the development will be managed by this holding pond and is not intended to address other drainage issues. The Grims questioned issues regarding underground springs and an existing pond on that property and whether the development will be disrupting those natural springs, causing problems and costs for properties below. KLJ’s Chad Petersen said the construction was not supposed to increase runoff from the site but if problems arose, the developer would have to address that as part of the development. KLJ’s Michael Strom added that at this time nothing has been done regarding natural springs at this time and that the only excavating will be the detention pond. Not knowing where the gravel & clay layers are makes it difficult to determine how things could be affected. Stainbrook asked about the excavating and how the pond would be built, and Strom said it would be a combination of digging into the hill and adding fill on the backside for a berm; he didn’t know if that excavation might disrupt a spring as there had not been a Geotech study that he knew of or whether any borings had been done. Petersen added that City Ordinance regarding Storm Water Management requires that the runoff does not change from pre-construction to post-construction so whether its known today or discovered as a result of construction, any runoff change would need to be addressed by the developer. Strom clarified that drainage of the pond would go to the west so there’s no impact to the existing pond or properties to the east.
There were questions regarding the walking path. Quanbeck stated that based on these discussions they would want to make sure that any path would not disrupt those water issues but at this time he did not have a map regarding any paths. City Attorney Martineck said that sidewalks are generally required in new subdivisions but if there aren’t any planned at this time, he didn’t think a decision was required by the board. Schell wondered why the board was being asked about it if it was not part of the PUD application – as such the board could not address it at this time. Schell asked if there were any other concerns, and Stainbrook just added that she would like a geo-study done on the springs before there is any further construction. With that, Carlblom moved to close the public hearing with a second from Wright.
Schell opened internal discussion starting with a question regarding the supplied topographic
map and whether it was done prior to development or if it showed proposed levels. He was
concerned about the drop-off where the second duplex was being considered. Strom said that the
map was prior levels, and at the hammerhead turnaround there will be 6-1/2-ft fill with a possible
12-ft of fill needed for the southside of the second building site to make it the same elevation of
the first duplex. Jeff Erickson thought that kind of fill would re-route any natural spring that
might be there with no control. Schell said he ‘did not have a good feeling about it,’ adding that
Valley City has had too many issues with hillsides already and it might not be the best decision
for the city to go forward. Wright asked why there was an application for a PUD and Martineck
said although he also had concerns about that request, it does follow the guidelines. Erickson
made a motion to postpone the decision until more information was supplied through a stability
or Geotech study to address all the concerns brought forth from this meeting. Joe Faure seconded
and the board agreed.
Building Inspector Report
Interim Building Inspector Mike Blevins had sent the board an email outlining current
building projects; he had nothing else to add to that other than construction activity is picking up
and that things are getting ready to ‘break loose.’
Adjourn
With no other items to discuss, Chair Schell called for the meeting to close at 4:46pm.
Submitted by: City Assessor Sandy Hansen, Acting Secretary