Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 7, 2010


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
July 7, 2010

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, Jim Galloway, Tom Hagness, (Dr.) Lyle Hall, Gary Malm, and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun and Frank Matejcek. 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) and Mike Flermoen, Assistant Fire Chief. Absent: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; and Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 2, 2010.

Lee said she did not receive the June minutes in her packet. The secretary said the minutes were emailed after discovering they were left out of the packet. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO APPROVE THE JUNE 2, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES RECEIVED BY EMAIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SHANE ROEMELING, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 10, 11, AND 12, BLOCK 36, BUDGE AND ESHELMAN’S THIRD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT NORTH 18TH STREET AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE.

Brooks reviewed the replat request by stating the request is to split out the lot into two lots. There is one owner for the parcel of land. Currently, the lot is 75 feet wide by 140 feet deep. The lot has one existing single-family home that sets 1.8 feet off one adjoining lot line. That does not meet current code but it is an existing condition. The petitioner of the replat wants to build a home on the corner of North 18th Street and University Avenue. With approval of the replat request, a new single-family vacant lot will be established and will meet all requirements of code. The lot with the existing single-family home will not meet code requirements and would be a 30-foot wide lot. With approval of the replat, a variance of the lot size with the existing single-family home would be included. The existing garage located off North 18th Street will be removed.

Malm asked about rebuilding on Lot B if the existing home were to be destroyed by fire or torn down. Brooks said the lot could still be used as a single-family lot; the lot with the existing home would have dimensions of 30-feet by 140-feet. It would be a challenge to rebuild a home on the lot, but there are many 25-foot lots in the city. However, a new home would not be allowed to be 1.8 feet from the adjoining lot line. Any new home would have to conform to the requirements for a 30-foot lot or 4.5 feet on each side of the structure. The home would be 21 feet wide. The other lot created by the replat would have dimensions of 45 feet by 120 feet, making it a normal size lot. The replat gives the owner the option of selling off the existing lot with the single-family home.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Peg O’Leary, historic preservation commission, asked if approval is granted, could there be wording that the setback had to conform to the street and the mass and scale of the building conform to the existing neighborhood.

Galloway asked if there would have to be a variance to the green space for the existing single-family lot. He was told it is zoned R-2 and allows for up to 40% of the lot coverage. There will not be a garage on the lot so it does meet the requirements. The only variances will be for the side yard setback and the lot size.

Dr. Hall asked if there could be an apartment inside the house or a basement apartment. Brooks noted the impervious lot coverage would prevent that. If they rent out the current lot, one space per bedroom would have to be provided for parking. They would not be able to get a rental registration for it.

Shane Roemeling, owner of parcel and petitioner of the replat, stated the house was built as a flip house. When the owner ran out of money, the house sat empty. He bought it and finished the house. The lot on the side of the house is very large and is large enough to meet code for another home. Brooks pulled up a picture of the existing home. All the homes are built close together. They plan to build a home on the larger lot that will fit in with the existing homes. The new home will not be rental property; they plan on living in the new home. The existing garage will be removed. Their plans are to have a two-story home with a porch on the front and an attached garage. Access to the garage would be on the west side off North 18th Street. There has never been a house on the corner as far as anyone can tell so building a house there will help to fill in the area.

Hagness said he liked what Mr. Roemeling was doing. The existing property will provide affordable living for someone. He still owns his family home on the north end and the width of the house is 17 feet by 34 feet long. He was raised in the house and now has it as rental property. He added a slab in the rear of the house to provide off-street parking and comply with city requirements. This type of housing works for that neighborhood in the north end and should be allowed.
Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the land development code 18-0209(9)(A) with regards to minimum side yard setbacks for Lot “B” and 18-0209(6)(A) minimum lot area.

Galloway asked about off-street parking for the area. Collings said there were two spots in the rear of the existing house for off-street parking. There are more restrictive rules for a corner lot so that lot should be bigger. She noted that the neighborhood does look strange without a house on the corner lot.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND POINT FOURTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 40TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 16TH STREET.

Adams asked to be excused from voting on items no. 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON 4-1, 4-2 AND 4-3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Achman reviewed the plat request, reminding members that Highland Point Third Addition (18 lots) was given final approval at the June 2, 2010 planning and zoning commission meeting. Along with the review of the plat, Achman discussed the rezoning and annexation requests for the new addition. The new Highland Point Fourth Addition will include five lots to allow construction of one duplex and one three-plex unit. Following the plat request is a request for rezoning and annexation. Highland Point Third and Fourth Additions will share access onto 40th Avenue South. The area was zoned for R-1 and R-2 (single-family and one and two-family residence) Districts, but the request is to change to R-3 (multiple family residence, medium density) District with limited use for up to three units single-family attached housing. This will accommodate the request for a duplex and a three-plex. The rezoning will also include an area to the north of the lots to include a pond and park uses. The pond will be the stormwater retention system for the concept development plan area and will include an outlet to the drainway system located on the south side of 40th Avenue South. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request.

Sande asked if there were any existing single-family homes in the Highland Point Third Addition or any located by the proposed multi-family units. The answer was no as the plat had just recently been approved.
There was a discussion regarding the stormwater pond and the use of it as a park amenity. Achman said the city would maintain the pond since the pond must be in place to meet the new stormwater regulations by the EPA. The size of the pond is not known as yet but will be more defined with future plats. Since the stormwater system is a requirement, the city will maintain it and allow it to also be used as a recreational area with a bikepath around the pond.

Christensen stated the city has several mini parks in neighborhoods that are not taken care of and having a pond as a recreational area with standing water is not a good idea. There will be safety issues for children to consider as well as the problem of bugs and mosquitoes. He would be against approving permanent water ponds. He asked how long it would take the stormwater pond to drain to the drainway. Brooks deferred the question to Mike Korman, CPS Ltd. who stated that 12 hours is the minimum time to hold water in the pond before it is released to the drainway.

Discussion continued on the stormwater pond. Mike Korman said the EPA regulations and the North Dakota Health Department regulations allow for a dry retention pond at this time. The EPA does not recognize a dry pond system as a good management practice for stormwater quality but it is allowed right now. It could be a dry retention pond and meet the current regulations.

Christensen said he would agree to the pond if it was a dry retention pond and that would have to be a condition of the plat.

Korman said his firm was in the process of drawing up the master plan for the area for utilities and drainage.

Adams reminded members that nothing has been built yet and the plan is a concept plan. They are working to make their plans work because they had to retrofit a pond in the area. They will continue to work on the issue but wanted to get the plat approved. Christensen said he was fine with the plat but does not want a pond with standing water and does not like the idea that the city has to maintain the area.

Discussion continued on wet versus dry ponds.

Brooks said the preference for a dry pond system would be discussed with the engineering staff before final approval in August.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND POINT FOURTH ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Supply a utility master plan for all surrounding lands. Subject to approval of the city engineer.
3. Platting requires annexation.
3. Platting requires annexation.
4. Correct plat location within the vicinity map.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE HIGHLAND POINT PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE HIGHLAND POINT PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF HIGHLAND POINT FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH ADDITIONS AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED LANDS LYING IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH 20TH STREET AND BETWEEN 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 40TH AVENUE SOUTH, GRAND FORKS, ND.

Discussion of this item was discussed with the plat under Item 4-1; however, there was further discussion on the stormwater pond.

Korman noted that the pond would be draining approximately 55 acres to meet the EPA requirements.

Christensen said previous discussions indicated that the property along South Washington Street in the Highland Point area would be signed to reflect commercial property.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY MALM TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF ALL THAT PART OF HIGHLAND POINT FOURTH ADDITION NOT PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 40TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 16TH STREET

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION FOR HIGHLAND POINT FOURTH ADDITION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-4. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR JEROME SWANGLER ON BEHALF OF SWANGLER AUTO WRECKING (EXPIRES DECEMBER 19, 2010).

Brooks reviewed the conditional use permit for Swangler Auto Wrecking and Weekley’s Auto Parts. The businesses have been operating under a conditional use permit (CUP) since 1980. The businesses are allowed in the zoning district where they are located with a conditional use permit. Brooks showed photos of the businesses from 2004 and more recent photos. He stated a wall was constructed to hide the cars. The murals painted on the wall have since been removed and the wall repainted. There are no longer cars parked in the right-of-way. There have been no violations or complaints noted. Everything the city asked of the salvage yard owners has been done. Brooks recommended the conditional use permits be renewed in December for a period of 10 years.

Christensen asked why the city would continue the view of the salvage yards for another 10 years, especially with the renovation of the airport. Five years ago, he asked staff to start exploring the various programs that exist to help remediate the problem and clean it up. There are probably environmental issues, besides the cars, behind the walls. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Gershman found money to paint the fences. He asked why the problem should continue rather than why the city should say no and it has to go at the end of X number of years. In the meantime, there are programs that exist to help the owners out. It is not the responsibility of the city to find the programs; it is the city’s responsibility to assist them in finding programs to remediate the brownfield that might exist on their property. He said he could not agree with Gateway Drive looking the same for the next ten years. If the cleanup started now, by the end of ten years is up, the area will be cleaned up and will present a much better entrance to the community than what currently exists.

Brooks asked if they should be moved to another location and Christensen said the city does not have to do anything. It will no longer be a permitted. The owners will have to find a way to take care of it. Brooks said the salvage yards operate under a conditional use. Christensen answered that a conditional use does not become a permanent use. He suggested the city attorney give an opinion on what would happen if the city were to pull the conditional use permit. There might be litigation involved with it.

Sande asked if pushing the auto salvage businesses and the fence back by 600 feet in order to open up space for other businesses along Gateway Drive. Christensen said that was a good idea. When the corridors were developed, 400 feet was discussed. He was unsure as to what amount of space would be needed for other businesses to develop. Then the salvage yards would be buffered by other development. Those are the types of ideas that should be explored.

Galloway noted that pulling the conditional use permit for these businesses would be monumental because there are acres of cars. Would cause be necessary to pull the permit? Brooks said there needed to be cause for pulling the conditional use permit. Galloway said everyone talks about the alkali soil and could not be developed but he did not believe all effort had been exhausted.

Brooks stated there would never be a major commercial corridor because there are industrial-type businesses in the area (Swingen Construction, FedEx). In terms of upkeep, the salvage yards are not the worst offenders on the corridor. There have been strides made with the salvage yard businesses over the years.

Christensen said he would be willing to extend it for a few years as long as staff was willing to explore other ideas such as moving the businesses back from the corridor. Brooks said staff would have to work with property owners to see what the possibilities would be in the area.

Malm said the city allowed the salvage yards to go on Gateway Drive and now there is another opportunity to do something about it but city will have to work with the property owners. He sat on the planning and zoning commission 20+ years ago and the commission could not agree on what they wanted out along Gateway Drive. They tried to grow trees but that did not work. If the property owners want to sell 600 feet of their property along Gateway Drive to the city and the city is willing to buy, then maybe the time is now.

Christensen said the city does not have to buy anything. That’s their property and the city does not have to put a dime of city money in it. If there is some brownfield money to clean it up, that’s one thing and the staff should be exploring that option. He asked the salvage yard owners what their plan was to clean up in order to get a continuance on their conditional use permit.

Malm said there are programs available but the city needs to get the property owners to join in because they own the property. Moving the salvage yards would solve most people’s problems but they own the property. Malm asked Mr. Swangler how much property he had and he answered 35 acres.

Mr. Swangler, owner of Swangler Auto Parts, asked what Mr. Christensen meant when he said the places needed to be cleaned up. His property is closed off and can’t be seen except for the roof. They have been on Gateway Drive since 1966.

Christensen said a lot of things have changed since 1966 in the community, including the Gateway Drive area. There is a window of opportunity to address the area. When the conditional use permit process started, the property owners asked for a 10-year permit and they got a five year permit. The five years have come and gone and now the issue is to determine what the property owners’ plan for the future use of the land when they are no longer able to run the business. Christensen told Mr. Swangler that he had a conditional use; the use is not permitted under the city’s zoning rules.

Mr. Swangler said they met all the conditions with the fence and signs. Christensen said he had to do that in order to keep the business operating for the last five years. The city is questioning whether or not it wants to continue the area being operating as a salvage yard. If the ruling is not to continue with the conditional use permit, then the city has to find a way to buffer in front of the salvage yard businesses. The city can help with locating some federal funds for clean up because of the “brownfield” (environmental) problems.

Mr. Swangler stated that with the fence in place, there could be a mortuary or hospital located there and no one would know it. Why is having cars in the area a problem when they can’t be seen?

Lee said the comments being made should be for future use. The information was provided because Christensen asked for it. Some of the detail being provided goes beyond the scope of what was intended.

Brooks said the item was placed on the agenda for discussion. Staff needs to know what conditions are needed for the next step. Moving the businesses back will have to be discussed with the city attorney to see how that can be accomplished.

Christensen said he wanted the salvage yard owners to know that their conditional use permit was expiring on December 31, 2010. Planning staff has suggested the permit be continued for 10 years but the commission needs to know why the permit should continue for 10 years. The commission will have to decide if they want that corridor to continue as is for another 10 years or should the city begin working on the issue in conjunction with the owners of the property so that something can happen on that corridor other than what currently exists. The uses don’t have a right to continue to be permitted. The longer they are allowed to exist along Gateway Drive, the worse it will become.

Scott Weekley, owner of Weekley’s, stated that many years ago, they had a lot across from Hansen Ford and it was zoned properly in that area. They closed that down, cleaned the property up and also cleaned up the property next to Bergley Toyoto. The people in charge of wanting them to move from that area gave the permit to put the businesses out on Gateway Drive in the mid 70’s. They moved out in good faith. Why start a business on Gateway Drive and then find out 30 years later that the city does not want the business there either. There is an extensive amount of cars and parts that would have to be moved. If conditional uses are placed on the salvage yards, why not on Swingen’s Construction and the gravel pit across the street?

Christensen stated that Swingen Construction is a permitted use under county rules. The current Commission is not the same commission that permitted the salvage yards to move on Gateway Drive. At that time they also did not have to address storm sewer run off that was addressed earlier. He said he was not out to hurt their business but was only trying to address the corridor of the city. The city was much smaller and very different when the commission dealt with the salvage yards years ago.

Mr. Weekley said his impression from comments made was that the city wanted them to close their doors and move away.

Christensen said what he had in mind at this time is for the property owners to think about what happens when they are no longer operating the business. If the salvage yard owners tried to sell their businesses, they could not do so because the use is not permitted. At some point in the future, the city will have to deal with the issue. The idea is to start planning what will be done with the property in the future. If there are environmental problems, the property cannot be sold until it is cleaned up. The city could help with that issue and the property owners can help the city with their issue of promoting other types of businesses along Gateway Drive. The property owners need to work through the issues with the city. If the salvage yard owners want to continue in the salvage business, the city can find an area that is not on the major corridors.

Mr. Weekly stated that what he heard was that the city wanted them to move to another location.

Christensen stated the issue of the planning process has to start now and work to solve the issue together. Operating in that area as a salvage yard will not continue for the next 25 years.

Malm said he and Hagness had sat through the same discussion many years ago. The only way to come to any conclusion was to bring all parties involved together in a smaller group to lay all options on the table. He noted the Swangler’s and Weekley’s did eliminate some bad spots in town. Times change but issues can be worked out. The salvage yard owners have a major investment and the city has to work with them for possible solutions.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO WORK WITH SALVAGE YARD OWNERS AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.

Christensen said he also wanted urban development staff involved in the committee since they will be aware of available programs that can be used. The appropriate city staff should be involved in the planning process.

Christensen suggested Gengler and Brooks bring back a list of people to be part of the group at the August meeting. He suggested at least one planning and zoning member as part of the group or task force as well as a city council member and someone from urban development. He also said it should be presented to the finance and development committee to get input from Mr. Hoover as to how it will be staffed from urban development.

Galloway volunteered to be on the task force or committee. He apologized for using the term junkyard in an earlier comment and said he loved going to those businesses. It is valuable to have those types of businesses.

Sande stated he wanted to clarify that Swangler’s and Weekley’s do not meet the requirements of the Corridor Overlay District. It would be great if they could stay where they are or maybe make a plan for moving in 10 years. Maybe it would be possible to make a plan to meet the requirements of the Corridor Overlay District in the short term and also come up with a long-term solution.

Hagness said the Swanglers and Weekleys have been great citizens to work with over the years and they have served the needs of the community with their businesses.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-5. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR SCOTT WEEKLEY ON BEHALF OF WEEKLEY AUTO PARTS (EXPIRES DECEMBER 19, 2010).

This was discussed with the previous item.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF INFORMATIONAL OVERVIEW OF 2040 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE BY MATT LEAL, MPO INTERN.

An overview of the 2030 land use plan update was presented by Matt Leal, intern for the Grand Forks – East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization. A copy of the presentation is available in the planning office. This was provided for information.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Brooks said Matejcek had brought in the ND Rural Handbook that describes what one might see, smell and hear while living in a rural setting. The handbooks are available for anyone on the commission.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Dana Sande, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President