Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
May 7, 2008


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 (reported late to the meeting at 6:33 p.m.), Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison (reported late to the meeting at 6:33 p.m.), Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees and Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 2, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of April 2, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes of April 2, 2008 and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

Gengler introduced new planner Roxanne Achman to commission members.

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

3-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL L. MARCOTTE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED NORTH OF ADAMS DRIVE, SOUTH OF DESIREE DRIVE AND EAST AND WEST OF MORGAN STREET.

Gengler reviewed the plat request. He referred members to the list of technical changes and stated the park and open space committee had met with the developer on the issue. The developer is purchasing an additional two acres to be added to the existing acreage that the park district holds a deed for in the Adams Drive area. Gengler reminded members that in 2007 there was an approved plat of Shadyridge Eighth Resubdivision with Darrell Adams. There were discussions to re-design the right-of-way along Desiree Drive which was not built according to the platted right-of-way lines. Mr. Adams did not sign the plat for various reasons. Also, Gengler noted that anyone who owned property under that plat had to sign the plat. If all parties did not sign the plat, it becomes null and void. Mr. Marcotte is the present developer of the property. The issue of the size of the lots has been raised. Lots adjacent to the plat now range from 1.5 acres to two acres, with larger lots on the river side ranging from three to five acres. Approving the plat recognizes a variance to the land development code for access on Adams Drive. Gengler noted there was some opposition to the plat by adjacent homeowners based on the variance for access directly onto Adams Drive.

Gengler stated utility plans and grading issues have been submitted by Jerry Pribula, surveyor working with Mr. Marcotte.

Hagness asked if staff had worked with the neighbors and developer as to the problems noted. Gengler replied that staff has had meetings with the developer but staff has had no formal meetings with the neighbors. The developer has had contact with adjacent home owners. However, planning staff would facilitate any group meeting.

Gengler also noted that Lavonne Adams had submitted a request to rezone the concept plan from R-3 (multiple-family residence, medium density) District to the R-1 (single family residence) District. Several years ago, the original intent was for a townhouse development and although approved, the plat was never recorded. Staff is encouraging the rezoning to R-1 land uses.

Jerry Pribula stated that Darrell Adams put a lot of fill on the lots and that was the reason for moving the street. The property is still currently owned by Darrell Adams’ widow, Lavonne Adams. Mr. Pribula stated there are still back specials owed on the property. When Mr. Marcotte proposed to purchase and develop the property, he asked only for the ability to access onto Adams Street. The smaller lots were made into bigger lots in order to make a nice development. Mr. Pribula said that Adams Drive is considered a collector roadway because it is on the one-half mile line but the traffic is not there for a collector street.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Randy Smith, 465 Desiree Drive, said he is a physician at Altru Hospital. He said the impression from Darrell Adams was that the area would be single-family homes. The homeowners in the area want it to be changed to R-1 zoning. He was not happy about allowing access onto Adams Drive and felt it would place people in danger. He stated there was no reason to rush the process.

Jerry Pribula talked about the paving of the street and said Mr. Marcotte would not oppose the paving. Mr. Marcotte would donate the land needed to move the roadway. He also discussed the utilities in the area and the large specials created by the utilities.

Mark Schneider, 433 Desiree Drive, said the road could not go where it is presently placed. It is too close to where homes would be built. He wants to have the paved street but the roadway needs to be in the proper place.
Robert Beattie, 401 Desiree Drive, stated he has had very little time to look at the plat but wants the zoning to be R-1. The road does need to be moved.

Lee asked Mr. Pribula if the lots could be arranged on cul-de-sacs. Mr. Pribula said yes but if that was the option, Mr. Marcotte would not do the project because of the utilities that would be needed and the specials that would be added. If Mr. Marcotte buys the property he would have to come up with one-quarter million dollars as well as pay Mrs. Adams. If the lots were sold for $40,000 each, the developer could make two million dollars but with a phased development it takes time.

Lee asked about a turn-around pad or hammerhead driveway for the homes to eliminate backing out of the driveway. Gengler said they have negotiated that type of driveway in the past for commercial projects but it was usually because of fire truck access. He does not remember ever using that for single-family homes. There was some discussion about shared driveways.

Matejcek asked about the rezoning. Gengler announced that Mrs. Adams had submitted an application for rezoning the PUD from R-3 land uses to R-1 land uses but not in enough time to have the item placed on the agenda. The commission can suspend the agenda and vote to add the rezoning request to today’s agenda. Matejcek said if the plat were tabled and the rezoning added to the agenda for preliminary, that would give everyone another month to continue working on the various issues. Then the plat and the rezoning would be on the agenda for final approval at the June meeting.

Grasser noted the sanitary sewer and water utilities were constructed in the area six or seven years ago and Adams Drive was treated as a collector type street as far as delivering utilities. Engineering staff has been working with the developer and surveyor on utility, drainage and access issues. He also stated that the turnaround pads have been used in the past but those areas typically turn into secondary parking spots and he would hesitate to recommend them. Grasser said one of the technical changes is to have the building setback at 40 feet to make sure houses would fit and not be tight.

Hagness asked Mr. Marcotte to speak on the issue and asked him if it would not be better to get all the issues worked out ahead of time. How would a delay of another month affect the project?

Mike Marcotte said even with approval tonight, it would be the middle of June before any of the work could be started. Then there is the short building season to consider. Waiting for another month would be detrimental to the project. He stated Lots 16 and 32 would access off Terrace View Drive and not off Adams Drive. The request to access Adams Drive was only for the seven lots (9 thru 15). He sent letters to the neighbors for a meeting but only two of them showed up.

Mark Schneider said Mr. Marcotte wanted to sell them land that the neighbors felt they had already bought (this is the land for the moving of the road).

Malm told Mr. Marcotte the neighbors that are party to the plat need to be on board with the project in order to get the plat signed and recorded. He suggested Mr. Marcotte get all the neighbors together and work things out.

There was a discussion on denying or tabling the plat request and the process for adding the rezoning request.

Mr. Marcotte and Mr. Pribula spoke again to the need of moving the project forward. Mr. Marcotte said he owns two of the lots there now and has an interest in making the best development for the property.

Lee closed the public hearing.

Hagness said he did not feel Mr. Marcotte had met with all the neighbors and fully discussed the project or listened to their concerns.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO TABLE THE PLAT REQUEST.

Lee said Kreun had his hand up to speak and that was the reason she was not acknowledging the second on the motion.

Malm called a point of order and reminded everyone that the rezoning would require two readings by the commission and two readings by the city council.

Further discussion continued on the various issues raised by the surrounding property owners.

Kreun said it appeared there were three options to consider: (1) to change the collector type street for the variance; (2) change the zoning to R-1; and (3) the number of lots on Adams Drive. He noted that if Mr. Marcotte reduced one lot, it would raise it from 17,000 to 19,000 square foot per lot. Mr. Marcotte replied that if they approved the plat tonight, he would do that.

Christensen and Hutchison reported to the meeting at 6:33 p.m.

When asked about the rezoning, Gengler replied it was a critical aspect of the development.

Christensen called a point of order and said a motion to table was not debatable.

Lee asked for a vote on the motion to table.

MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBERT DREES VOTING NAY.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO SUSPEND THE AGENDA AND ADD ITEM 4-4 FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (R-1 LAND USES) FOR THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

Matejcek said he was recommending the change in the agenda to help the developer by making it possible to get the plat and the rezoning finalized in one way or another at the June meeting.

Malm asked if Mr. Marcotte met with the other homeowners in the area and reached an agreement, could a special meeting be called? Gengler said that could happen but staff would need 14 days prior notice to advertise the public hearing notice with the Grand Forks Herald.

Christensen called the question.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO SUSPEND THE AGENDA AND CHANGE THE ORDER TO REVIEW AGENDA ITEM 4-4 (AMENDMENT TO THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN) IMMEDIATELY.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM AND MATEJCEK VOTING NAY.

Lee asked if the motion had to be unanimous. Gengler said yes. Malm said suspending the agenda to change the order only required a simple majority.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LAVONNE ADAMS FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR ALL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE THIRD ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FOURTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SEVENTH ADDITION, AND ALL THOSE LANDS TO BE PLATTED AS SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION, ALL LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE SHADYRIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 45 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, LOCATED AT SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD AND 62ND AVENUE SOUTH (SE-1/4, SE-1/4 OF SECTION 29).

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request stating it is related to the flood protection project. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

When asked about the flood project related plats, city engineer Grasser stated that in order to get FEMA certification, the interior drainage has to be in place. The holding pond (9.51 acre) collects the overland flow from undeveloped properties. The water is released as the river levels go down. Having the holding ponds in place helps to eliminate pump stations.

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

MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 46 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF 62ND AVENUE SOUTH (NE-1/4, NE-1/4 OF SECTION 33).

Durrenberger reviewed the plat related to the flood protection project (7.44-acre holding pond). Staff recommendation is for approval of the plat subject to the technical changes and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY MALM TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CI6TY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 47 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, LOCATED AT 62ND AVENUE SOUTH AND GRAND FORKS COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 8 (NE-1/4 OF SECTION 34).

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request related to the flood protection project (9.08-acre holding pond). Staff recommendation is for approval of the plat subject to the technical changes and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY MALM TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 48 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, LOCATED AT GRAND FORKS COUNTY ROADS NO. 6 AND 8 (SOUTH ½ OF SECTION 34).

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request, stating it was related to the flood protection project (9.67-acre holding pond). Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the technical changes and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVARROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 49, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 27TH AVENUE NORTH AND HIGHWAY NO. 81.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request, stating it was related to the flood protection project. He said it was a low-lying area that included the English Coulee. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the technical changes and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show length of all curved lines on the drawing.
3. Dimension 50-foot public right-of-way along 27th Avenue North.
4. Identify the north line of Section 33.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER TO THE REQUEST FROM TONY KOBETSKY, DOUGLAS EARL AND JOHN R. MCDONALD, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS, OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN (MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2 – BISON INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION).

Brooks reviewed the 2035 Land Use Plan map and the request to change the zoning for an area located at DeMers Avenue and the Airport Road. In changing the property from agricultural to industrial, an amendment would need to be made to the 2035 Land Use Plan map to show the Bison Industrial Subdivision as industrial.

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

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN MAP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TONY KOBETSKY, DOUGLAS EARL AND JOHN R. MCDONALD, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION) DISTRICT AND INCLUDE WITHIN THE BISON INDUSTRIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), ALL OF THE BISON INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT DEMERS AVENUE AND COUNTY ROAD NO. 5.

Brooks reviewed the request by stating the ordinance would rezone the property to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and allow I-1 (light industrial) uses. The uses are allowed by the Grand Forks Airport Land Use Compatibility Study. With the PUD zoning, the city can regulate the uses in the area that is compatible with the city and the airport. Also, the dimensional standards set for the I-1 zoning district will have to be met; i.e. no more than 40% on lot coverage would be allowed. The PUD will allow gravel roads and driveway areas on-site. Brooks stated a request has been made for a metal building and he wanted input from the commission. The area is part of the Corridor Overlay District recently adopted. The owner’s request is to follow the rules established for Gateway Drive and North Washington Street with a 70% metal-sided building and dress it up on the front. Although it would fit the industrial style development, he asked if commission members were comfortable with that along Airport Road. The setback line would be set by the existing MK building. One business does have outdoor storage and the plan is to construct a building as well as screening for the site.

Christensen said the materials list should apply for buildings along Airport Road. When the committee met and established the materials list, the plan was to keep it from looking like Highway 2. This is a main corridor from the airport. The city has to live with what is currently in place in the area but he wants to make sure that whatever is added now does not replicate Highway 2. Christensen stated he was very concerned about the facades of the buildings. There should be oversight on how the buildings look.

Brooks asked if metal-sided buildings at 70% is appropriate or is it the desire of the commission not to have metal buildings at all and follow the Corridor Overlay District rules that states no metal buildings along County Road 5? Christensen answered that the committee met and adopted the rules but gave in on Highway 2 because of how it looks. There are agricultural uses there and the city may not grow out to the area for decades but the corridors should be preserved the best way possible. It might add some cost to the buildings but the aesthetics would be improved.

Grasser asked what restrictions would be in place for any outdoor storage. Brooks said the Corridor Overlay ordinance still requires screening of outdoor storage.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Tony Kobestsky, owner of MK, said they were currently storing outside and with the new building, they can store more inside. The business is expanding and the plan is to hire three more employees.
Matejcek remarked that putting the area in a PUD will help the area and in the future it will look much better than it presently does.

Christensen said he wants the building to be based on the guidelines adopted under the Corridor Overlay ordinance.

Gengler stated that when the corridor overlay district was developed, metal-sided buildings were allowed as long as it was limited to 70% and the remainder to be other types of materials.

Discussion continued on metal and other materials used in buildings. It was noted that the ordinance only covered what is on the outside of the building. The important aspect was the appearance of the building along the corridor.

Mr. Kobestsky said he was researching a metal skin on wood material.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST BUT TO DELETE “AS REQUIRED FOR THE GATEWAY/NO. WASHINGTON STREET AREAS” UNDER NO. 2 OF THE ALLOWABLE USES UNDER DEVELOPMENT DATA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM NICK BROWN, ON BEHALF OF DAKOTA AG PARK II. LLC,, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, BROWN CORPORATION SECOND ADDITION, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, LOCATED ON RYLAN ROAD (SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 6 AND WEST OF I-29).

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request for a simple lot split. The Brown Corporation Second Addition was approved last fall. The plat was not recorded and when the decision was made to split the lot, the owners asked if the plat could be reconsidered. They were told reconsiderations are allowed the following month of a decision. The owners filed the original plat and submitted a replat for the lot split. There is no right-of-way involved. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the plat request subject to the technical changes.

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

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Complete curve data for curve numbers two and three.
3. Include note that Rylan Road will be privately owned and maintained until such time as these lands are annexed to the city of Grand Forks, ND.
4. Shorten city council approval certificate as shown.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-10. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SHARON BREDEMEIER, ON BEHALF OF DOLORES KING AND THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE 13TH AVENUE NORTH (FORMERLY ANSEL AVENUE) LOCATED AT NORTH 5TH STREET AND GATEWAY DRIVE ADJACENT TO LOTS 2 AND 4, BLOCK 49, ALEXANDER AND IVES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND.

Durrenberger reviewed the vacation request and indicated on the map the area to be vacated. Mr. King requested the vacation in the 70’s but never followed through with the process. Staff recommendation is to approve the vacation request. Durrenberger also stated one-half of the area will go to the park board and one-half will go to the King estate.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GEORGE M. UNRUH, PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF VABERG PROPERTIES, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN.

Brooks reviewed the request to amend the Year 2035 Land Use Plan. He stated the area does not have city services and staff considered it similar to the Oscarville area. The request is to rezone the area from agricultural to industrial uses. Brooks said the request is inconsistent with the Year 2035 Land Use Plan and staff recommendation is for denial.

Christensen said the city needs to be researching plans for another industrial park area. Gengler reported commission members would be invited to a meeting soon on identifying an industrial area.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO DENY THE AMENDMENT TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GEORGE M. UNRUH, PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF VABERG PROPERTIES, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND INCLUDE WITHIN THE TO I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT LOTS 4 & 6, BLOCK 3; LOTS 5 THROUGH 8, BLOCK 4; LOTS 2, 4, 6 AND 8, BLOCK 5; AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 6, SUNNY NODAK FARMS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT NORTH 69TH STREET, NORTH 66TH STREET, NORTH 62ND STREET, UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND 8TH AVENUE NORTH.

Brooks discussed the rezoning in conjunction with the previous item.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JOHN AND LAURIE SANTANGELO, ON BEHALF OF FRANCIS OLMSTEAD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF OLMSTEAD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1600 BLOCK OF 16TH STREET NE (PART OF NE-1/4, SECTION 9, BRENNA TOWNSHIP (151-51).

Gengler announced the plat request had been withdrawn.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Gengler announced a replat request was received in the area known as the UND neighborhood rezoning area. The area was zoned R-2 which allowed one and two family units. After many meetings and discussions, the area was changed to an R-1 (single family) District. Mr. Grant Shaft owns a number of two-unit structures in the area. He submitted the replat request to be placed on the May agenda. After staff discussions with the city attorney’s office, a decision was made to withdraw the request due to non-compliance with the zoning code. Although there are existing two-unit structures on a single platted lot, in terms of land use, they are considered non-conforming because only single-family detached dwellings are allowed in the R-1 District.

The request to replat was to take the existing single lot with the two-family structure and replat it by dividing it into separate lots similar to a twin home or town home.

Grant Shaft, attorney, showed the location of his units on a map. The dwellings are located near the cemetery and university. In the past, they were all replatted with party walls and could be sold as single-family dwellings. He wanted to do the same thing on the others he owned because they can be sold with better financing. They fit into the neighborhood and the idea is to create single-family units rather than multi-units. Now they are considered side-by-side rental properties/multi-family. The units were built under R-2 zoning but the area was rezoned to R-1. He cited 18-0406 (3). Mr. Shaft said he wanted to replat an R-2 two-family dwelling (no party wall) to an R-2 semi-detached dwelling (includes party wall) and they could be sold as single-family dwellings. According to the city attorney’s office, that does not work. He stated he could accomplish it if he created condos out of them but he feels that is a messy way to do it. He wanted to let the commission know what he was trying to do. He stated he would continue to work with the planning department but asked for any opinion from commission members.

Christensen asked what happened to the party wall if the property is replatted. Mr. Shaft stated if the building is completely destroyed, it cannot be rebuilt. Anything built would have to conform to the neighborhood (single-family structure) zoning.

Lee asked about the square footage of the lots. Mr. Shaft said they were 50x70 and 80x60 under the replat. The existing lot now is 54x139 and 80x140.

Mr. Shaft asked that members think about what he is trying to do. He felt the neighborhood would prefer the arrangement.




MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ROBERT DREES TO CHANGE THE STARTING TIME FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS TO 6:30 P.M. INSTEAD OF 5:30 P.M.

Malm said at 5:30 there was barely a quorum for the meeting. After discussion the first item for a long while, other members came to the meeting late and their questions delayed a finding even further.

Christensen said changing the time for two months and then changing it again was not much of a try. The meetings could be shortened by eliminating the reading of the items and other procedures. He was against changing the time at the city council but it has worked out. There are farming people on the commission who have issues with starting the meeting earlier. The commission should give the new time a six-month trial.

Sande said he had small children and the change would work better for him.

Hutchison said he did not like the idea of changing to various times because it would be confusing to the public.

Robert Drees said changing the time from 5:30 to 6:30 would be better for him. He was going to suggest changing the time to 9:00 a.m. but the 6:30 time would be okay.
Christensen stated that the idea of “me” versus “we” is not a good public policy attitude. He called the question.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON CHANGING THE STARTING TIME OF THE MEETINGS FROM 5:30 P.M. TO 6:30 P.M WAS AS FOLLOWS:

VOTING AYE: MALM, ROBERT DREES, LEE AND MATEJCEK.

VOTING NAY: ADAMS, SANDE, KREUN, HUTCHISON, CHRISTENSEN, DR. HALL, HAGNESS AND GRASSER.

MOTION FAILED 8-4.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY CHRISTENSENAND SECOND BY GRASSER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:12 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President