Print VersionStay Informed
Click here to view the committee packet

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
February 2, 2011

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Jim Bollman, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, Laura Jelinek, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Mike St. Onge. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Dana Sande. A quorum was present.

Staff present: Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Senior Administrative Specialist (Planning and Zoning Department); Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building and Inspections Office). Absent: Brad Gengler, City Planner; and Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner (Planning and Zoning Department).

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 5, 2011.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of January 5, 2011, 2010. There were no comments or changes noted. Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.There were no corrections noted and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES.

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 18-0223 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SIGNS.

Roxanne Achman reviewed the request stating it was tabled at the January meeting. Staff met with the sign subcommittee and decided to put the ordinance in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the land development code instead of the sign section. Placing the ordinance in the PUD section allowed staff better flexibility since most developments are in a PUD. The ordinance has not actually been written but they have the basics outlined and the final ordinance is being written with the help of the city attorney. There will be one sign per PUD, at a minimum, with the location and duration at the commission and city council discretion. The signs will be a minimum of 4’x 8’ and constructed of a durable material. The sign will indicate what the PUD will look like, give the phone number for the developer, the phone number of the planning department and the name of the development. Staff’s recommendation was for approval of the ordinance.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY ST. ONGE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

Malm asked how the sign would compare with a ground monument.

Bev Collings explained the development signs are more like a political or real estate sign. Ground monument signs are very strictly regulated. The concerns she had was knowing exactly where a sign would be placed in order not to obstruct driving vision and that the signs be well maintained.

Galloway said he was a member of the sign subcommittee that met with staff. What has been proposed is a good layout for a sign; however, he is against the signs in general.

Brooks explained that ground monuments are placed close to the ground and the development signs will be higher in order to be seen. The siting of the signs will be addressed on a site-by-site basis.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM AND GALLOWAY VOTING NAY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. (AE2S), FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF HOMESTEAD GROVE FIFTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND 40TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Ryan Brooks reviewed the plate of Homestead Grove Fifth Addition and stated it was located in front of the Wellness Center area. Staff recommendation was for approval.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY JELINEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Use the proper owners as signers in the owner’s consent as per the title opinion.
2. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code 18-0907 (L)(b) with regards to access on a level 5 roadway (40th Avenue South).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF MARLAN C. SHULL (DAKOTA UNLIMITED) FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 31 THROUGH 36 AND LOT 38, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 2, DEACON’S GARDENS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED SOUTH OF AUGUSTA DRIVE AND NORTH OF 62ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the request, stating it was a very simple replat. The area was planned for future three-plex dwellings but the developer decided duplexes were selling better so the replat is for duplex dwellings instead of three-plex dwellings. There will be a total of 10 units instead of 9 units. There are some issues listed in the technical changes still to be addressed between preliminary and final approval. Recommendation from staff was for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show Lot “G” as the common area for block 1.
3. Include a lot line distance along the west line of Lot G adjacent to Columbia Road.
4. The common area for Block 3 should be labeled as Lot “G.”
5. Label the lands east of the drainway a Kings View First Addition.
6. The lots in the square footage table should be “A-F” and “A-K.”
7. Show the correct replat location in the vicinity map.
8. Use shorter version of city council approval as no street and highway ordinance is required.
9. Update detailed development plan.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Robert Drees asked to speak on behalf of Brenna Township. He explained a situation had occurred over the last few years and was getting significantly worse. The location is a lot on the corner of 17th Avenue South and South 83rd Street. The area has become a junkyard. The property was purchased because there is a large shed on the property for the owner to repair cars. At the present time, there are 27 cars that have not been moved since snow started falling. The owner does not live on the property; he works in town and repairs vehicles in the evening and on weekends. There was a fire in the shop and the roof has been partially repaired. If the property was in the county zoning, it would be in violation of the junk and litter ordinance and a permit would be needed to operate a junkyard. He asked for guidance on how the township should proceed. The property is located in the zero to two-mile jurisdiction of the city; however, the city does not have the same junkyard and litter ordinance that the county uses. He stated he provided pictures of the area to Ryan Brooks earlier who passed the pictures and information on to Bev Collings in the building inspection office.

Collings said she received a complaint in the fall and recommended the complainant go to the city/county health department. She was told the owner had moved some of the cars and was making progress. However, according to the photos received from Mr. Drees, there has been no progress. She said her office was willing to take the issue over and see what could be done to rectify the issue. The county ordinance is fairly strict and the person making the complaint has to pay a fee for the complaint. If the issue is found to be legitimate, the fee is forgiven. Maybe the city should look at adopting the same ordinance as the county. It would be difficult to use in the city but it might be effective for the zero to two-mile area and would mirror the ordinance being used by the county. Collings stated she was unaware the owner was not living on the property. The situation has gotten out of hand and it is not known how many cars are legally licensed or inoperable. The city restricts the number of cars that can be on a property but that probably would not apply in the county. The city does have an ordinance for a home occupation business but this would not apply if the owner does not live on the property.

Brooks suggested staff meet with the Brenna Township officers and try to resolve the situation.

St. Onge questioned whether or not there were regulations to deal with the issue.

Collings noted there are limits to what the city can do but once the inspections office hears a complaint, they try to address it. She noted that strides have been made in the zero to two-mile area. The issue is really controlled by the health department.

Matejcek asked what the land use was for the property. Mr. Drees answered that it was a single-family area when the owner purchased the property. He suggested they use the single-family rule to stop the business as they did in Falconer Township.

It was decided to let staff meet with township personnel and see what could be worked out.


Brooks announced the 47th Avenue Committee would be meeting early next week.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY GALLOWAY AND SECOND BY MALM TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:54 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Dana Sande, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President