Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
May 6, 2009

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, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Tom Hagness, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, and Frank Matajcek. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees and Dana Sande. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 1, 2009.

There were no corrections or changes noted to the April 1, 2009 planning and zoning commission minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF KING’S VIEW FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2300 BLOCK OF 62ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler informed members that they would be seeing maps scanned in through a computer as well as direct access to the GIS (geographic information system).

Gengler reviewed items 3-1 and 3-2 together, explaining it was the King’s View condominium project reviewed in April during preliminary approval. There was a neighborhood meeting regarding the project. Since the meeting, there have been two calls asking for clarification on the project. The plat map was shown and the three lots were pointed out in the southwesterly portion. Lot 2 is the first phase for the proposed condominium buildings. Lot 1 is proposed to also be condominiums but there is no firm timeline set for that development. Lot 3, adjacent to 62nd Avenue South, does not currently have plans to develop, but will be in the same zoning amendment. If Lot 3 is later developed with the same type of condominiums, the zoning will already be in place, but could be developed at a lesser density. The phase 1 development will be 32 units with three and one-half stories and underground parking. The detailed development plan has not been reviewed as yet; the developers are waiting for verification of the rezoning. A lengthy document has been submitted covering the master plan for the stormwater and sanitary system. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the plat request.

Grasser said that in meeting with the developers, he had asked about entrance features since some developments have an island in the middle of the road and would require additional right-of-way. The developers did not have plans for any entrance feature.

Robert Drees commented on the plan as discussed at the April meeting to have a basement depth of six feet for an underground parking garage. Based on the ground in the area, his belief is that six feet is too far in the ground without lateral drain tile underneath the basement/parking garage. There will be problems with water in the garage area. Drees also noted that he thought the power line easement was for Nodak rather than Minnkota as listed on the technical change form.

Gengler said the basement/garage depth and water issues would be reviewed during the detailed development review process.

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

Lee returned the meeting to the commission members.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY, AS WELL AS APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Submit utility master plan for all of Kings View First Addition.
3. Add acreage to all parcels.
4. Identify the existing Minnkota Power Line easement along the north line of 62nd Avenue South.
5. Include dimensions for all public rights-of-way.
6. Note that 20-foot strip of land along the north line of 62nd Avenue South is dedicated for public right-of-way.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE KANNOWSKI PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE KANNOWSKI PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, ALL OF KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION, ULLAND PARK FIRST ADDITION, DEACON’S GARDENS ADDITION, FOUNTAIN VISTA PARK RESUBDIVISION, ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION AND KING’S VIEW FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE VICINITY OF KINGS VIEW DRIVE AND 62ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler said the concept is the zoning request. The concept plan has the same parameters as the plat. A rendering of the project was shown. The rezoning allows a residential density up to 16 units per acre for all three lots with a maximum building height of 50 feet above grade. The remaining area of the concept plan is set at five units per acre but no plans are pending at this time. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

There were no questions for Gengler from commission members. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

Hagness commented that the reason for the 50 feet in height was due to the six feet for the garage area underground. They will be high-end luxury condos and there are some people who are looking forward to them being built.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM DEVELOPMENT HOMES FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SIXTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF ENHANCED SERVICES APARTMENTS.

Brooks reviewed the vacation request. The easement is a total of 60 feet with 30 feet on the south lot and 30 feet on the north lot. A portion of the access easement will be retained to get to a non-buildable lot owned by a different party. Eventually the other side of the easement may be vacated. Staff recommendation is for approval of the vacation.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE EASEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEVELOPMENT HOMES, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SIXTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3880 SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD.

Brooks reviewed the replat, stating the request is for a fast track. There are six accessible units to be built on the property that was rezoned last fall. With the replat, the property will be under a different ownership. Brooks noted there was a request for additional right-of-way along Columbia Road and that would negate the fast track option. When right-of-way is involved, the regular option (two meetings with the planning commission and the city council) is required to process the street and highway ordinance. The fast track option is only one meeting with the planning commission and one meeting with the city council. If denial for the fast track were determined, the request would then be for preliminary approval of the replat and the street and highway ordinance. The agenda was set and packets had been mailed when the request was made for more right-of-way.

There were no questions from the commission for Brooks. Lee opened the public hearing.

Russ Melland, attorney with Camrud, Maddock, Olson and Larson law firm, stated he was representing Development Homes to ask the commission not to address the right-of-way issue and to leave the project on the fast track. The simple replat should not trigger the right-of-way issue. The right-of-way issue should come up when it becomes relevant to the street in front of the facility and at that time, would be addressed on an equitable basis with the neighbors and share in the cost of any development of the roadway. He requested the commission to waive the comment on the right-of-way easement.

Hagness asked if it was legal to waive the request for right-of-way.

Gengler said that in addition to the existing platted right-of-way, the request is for an additional 20 feet of dedicated right-of-way. If the additional right-of-way request is pursued, the street and highway ordinance process would require a two meeting process.

Grasser stated the city is trying to get consistency as to the needed right-of-way on a major classified street. They are trying to get 70-feet minimum on the right-of-way in order to fit the roadway in. The original dedication of easement along the area was made in the early 90s. Subsequently, there have been traffic studies on the Columbia Road extension and it has been determined the roadway needs to be a full four-lane extension such as it is to the north. Installing a full four-lane roadway with a bike path and given the conflicts with power lines, the city needs to have more right-of-way to put in the roadway. Is it fair to ask for that as part of the replat or should the city be forced to purchase that right-of-way at the time a project is needed? At the corner of 32nd Avenue South and South Columbia Road, the city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on property acquisition in order to fit in the necessary bike paths. He wanted to suggest that as the properties come up, even though they are already platted, the city should get the additional right-of-way needed at the time of replatting. That is in the best interests of the city and the citizens. These types of roads are not special assessed and the costs of the roadways go back to the citizens. Acquiring property at the time of constructing the roadway drives up the cost of the project. As the chance to get the needed right-of-way comes up, the city should require the right-of-way in the interest of the city. The property owner would rather wait and have the city purchase the right-of-way.

Hagness said getting the right-of-way at the time of replatting is the time to do that and that has been the policy of the city for a long time. If the fast track is allowed for the replat, it should be contingent on no protest of donation of the land when the project is started. The property should not be purchased. The costs become exorbitant when the city has to purchase right-of-way when it is not conducive for the property owner to donate the land.

Gengler said the commission could grant preliminary approval of the replat and the street and highway plan ordinance recognizing that next month would be final approval of the street and highway ordinance. The street and highway ordinances are a boilerplate ordinance.

Christensen said there was nothing to discuss. The idea is to work for the community. He asked if the replat could be processed without holding up their project but still get the necessary right-of-way.

Malm said the replat should be given preliminary approval with the right-of-way added to it.

Gengler said final approval could be granted to the replat but preliminary approval to an ordinance to amend the street and highway plan to carve out the right-of-way. Next month would be a public hearing on final approval of the street and highway ordinance.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. State basis of bearings.
3. Address access concerns regarding Lot 3, Block 1, Perkins Sixth Resubdivision.
4. Add access control along South Columbia Road.
5. Dedicate 20 additional feet of public right-of-way along the west line of South Columbia Road and a 10-foot wide utility easement adjacent thereto.
6. Plat approval recognizes a variance to the subdivision regulations Section 18-0204(B) regarding dedication of public roadway and utility easements.
7. City staff has been directed to work with the attorney and owners to resolve the right-of-way issue referred to in technical change number 5.

Hagness asked Mr. Melland about the reason for seeking final approval through the fast track option. Mr. Melland said he was asking to remove the comment on the right-of-way on behalf of his client, Development Homes. He was not aware of the board’s position on the right-of-way. Hagness said the commission’s position was to protect the city and acquire the right-of-way through the platting process if possible. He asked the attorney to encourage his client to dedicate the needed right-of-way. He also asked Mr. Melland if the position of the board could be ascertained prior to review by the city council.

Grasser spoke on the three existing easements and said the additional easement would provide the necessary utilities and bike path.

Christensen asked if the motion could be amended to request that Grasser work with the attorney and owners to resolve the right-of-way issue. Lee said she would accept it as a friendly amendment.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DUANE AND DARLENE ANDERSON AND U.S. BANK, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 7, BLOCK 2, BLAIR-SATROM-BAUKOL ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, LOCATED AT 2202 AND 2206 FALL CREEK COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request to split an existing lot of a duplex. That will create two lots and the property will become two single-family attached units. Splitting the property will require a two-hour firewall between the units or one inch of plasterboard on each side of the wall. Staff recommendation is to approve the request subject to the inspections office approval on completion of the firewall.

There were no questions from the commission. 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 KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE FIREWALL:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Use shortened version of city council approval as no street and highway ordinance is necessary.
3. Inspection’s Department approval required for common wall.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SAJ, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF PART OF BLOCK 3, WESTWARD ACRES SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2100 BLOCK OF DEMERS AVENUE.

Adams asked to be excused from voting on the request since he is part of the partnership.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND FROM MALM TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON THE REPLAT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Durrenberger reviewed the replat request. He described the location of the property and said the replat will relocate the lot line to the west. That will make the existing structure (Dakota Boys Ranch) conforming to current setback regulations. The replat will also eliminate several lot lines along South 20th Street. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the removal of No. 7 on the technical change list. There is an existing extension of the original alley that opens onto South 20th Street. The request is to allow that to remain and be grandfathered in.

Durrenberger was asked what existing properties are located at the site. He replied there were two residential homes on the two lots adjacent to South 20th Street.

Steve Adams, partner in SAJ, LLP, stated the building located on South 20th Street was Clarence Nikle’s building. A storage building exists in the back and Dakota Boys Ranch is located in the larger building. There are also two small houses that are non-conforming. There are eight tax statements for the property and he is trying to consolidate the property to make sense.

There were no questions from the commission. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

Malm made a statement regarding variances versus rezonings. Durrenberger noted there was no rezoning attached to the request. The zoning for the property is B-3 (general business) District and the presence of the two single-family homes is not allowed in a B-3 area. The two homes are non-conforming.

Gengler said the only variance noted on the request was No. 11 on the technical changes and that referred to the definition of a minor subdivision.

Hagness asked how the alley could be utilized to exit from a B-3 into a residential district. Durrenberger said it was an existing platted access and the request is to change lot lines.

Gengler said the existing platted alleyway connects to the public street. He also discussed the existing driveway for the homes. They have to utilize the alleyway to get to the driveway. At some point, the two existing family homes will be removed and the property redeveloped for small scale commercial. The alleyway and the driveway are existing conditions. Staff is recommending allowing the driveway to stay in existence because it is perfectly aligned to 7th Avenue South and it is grandfathered in.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND THE ELIMINATION OF TECHNICAL CHANGE NO. 7:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Show length of all curved line segments on the drawing.
3. Remove existing building lines from recordable mylar plat.
4. Include bearings and distances on all line segments of the plat boundary.
5. Show dimensions to locate the 20-foot permanent easement across the southeast corner of new Lot M.
6. Scale on drawing is 1” = 40’.
7. Show appropriate access controls.
8. Include a 10-foot utility easement along the north, east and south plat boundaries.
9. Use shortened version of city council approval as street and highway ordinance is not necessary.
10. Designate area northeasterly of existing alley as a utility easement as public utilities exist within this area.
11. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the subdivision regulations Section 18-0204(B) regarding the definition of a minor subdivision.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM AND HAGNESS VOTING NAY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MILT GOWAN, ON BEHALF OF GOWAN CONSTRUCTION, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOT A, BLOCK 1, VERN’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1601 NORTH 73RD STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING THREE UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS.

Durrenberger reviewed the conditional use permit request. The request is to construct three underground tanks to house on-road diesel, off-road diesel and gasoline to fuel their equipment. He explained where the property was located and noted the surrounding businesses. The property is currently zoned as a planned unit development, heavy industrial uses and is required to have a conditional use permit based on Section 18-0219(3)(E) for the storage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Durrenberger showed photos of the site. Since the packets were mailed, a new site plan was submitted showing the access to the property. Environmental personnel were notified and did not have a problem with the installation of the tanks. Fire department personnel were also notified. The property is located outside the city limits and the fire marshal will be on-site to observe the installation. The state inspector will also be on-site during the installation of the tanks. There will be materials to catch any fuel that might be spilled. Recommendation from the staff is to approve the conditional use permit subject to meeting the state installation standards and final approval of the site plan.

Drees asked about the above ground tanks currently on site.

Doug Herzog, CPS, Ltd., explained the reason for the underground tanks is because of the approximation to the city airport.

Kreun said the existing above ground tanks are not on the site in question. When removed, they will have to meet the EPA regulations for cleanup.
Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issues and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS AS NOTED.

Christensen stated that all environmental issues on the site needed to be met.

Kreun said he would accept the environmental issues as a friendly amendment to the motion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WEBSTER, FOSTER AND WESTON, ON BEHALF OF MURIEL I. SAUMUR, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF BORDER PATROL STATION ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1816 17TH STREET NE.

Gengler reviewed Items 4-1, 4-2 and 5-1 since they are all inter-related. He gave a brief summary of the extraterritorial (ET) legislation. The state legislature has been in session and the ET in cities with a population of more than 25,000 was one of the issues. A new law was just passed. One of the provisions of the law indicated that any plat or site plan presented to the city prior to May 1, 2009 would be under the city’s jurisdiction. Anything subsequent to that would fall into another category of joint jurisdiction.

The proposal is for a border patrol station. The development team responsible for the project is available for questions. The air photo for the area was shown. Gengler stated it is a 10-acre area located just west of the airport and adjacent to Highway 5. The site is referred to as a station as opposed to a sector headquarters. Several sites were discussed but this is a preferred site by the GSA. The main functioning of the facility is to temporarily house or detain undocumented or illegal aliens. It is not a jail; it is for temporary processing of individuals and if there is a criminal action, those individuals are taken to the county jail until they can be sent to another area.

The facility is 35,000 – 36,0000 square foot building with a security fence around the site. There are two driveway access locations being proposed and approval of the plat would recognize a variance to the driveway locations. Highway 5 is a level three functionally classified street that allows an access at 1320 feet per driveway. Staff recognized the critical nature of the development and the two access points were proposed as part of the project. Staff supports the variance to shift the driveway as shown on the plat.

The architectural rendering of the facility and the elevation drawing was shown.

Dan Salyers, Border Patrol Station Field Office, said they house individuals only for the time it takes to process them. While they are being processed, they are usually held at the county jail until they are moved to the twin cities or turned over to the U. S. Attorney’s office.

Gengler said a presentation was given to the county commissioner for informational purposes. As the project progresses, it will be in the same timeframe as the discussion for the new ET laws. Staff recommends preliminary approval of the plat request and the variance for the driveway location.

Gengler answered additional questions.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY MALM TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. County Road No. 5 is subject to Level 3 access control (1320’ gaps). Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to Section 18-0907(L)(1)(d) with regards to location and frequency.
3. State the basis of bearings.
4. Include ground contours or spot elevations and describe a local benchmark.
5. Verify culvert sizes with the county engineer.
6. Submit the following: potable water plan, wastewater treatment plan and site drainage and grading plans.
7. Use shortened plat title as shown.
8. Remove park district approval as parks dedication requirements apply only to residential subdivisions.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WEBSTER, FOSTER AND WESTON, ON BEHALF OF MURIEL I. SAUMUR, FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE GRAND FORKS BORDER PATROL STATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR ALL OF BORDER PATROL STATION ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1816 17TH STREET NE.

Gengler reviewed the zoning for the Border Patrol Station Addition. Rye Township personnel have been notified about the project. He also spoke to Mr. Dubuque who is the property owner across the road from the proposed project.

The only difference on this PUD is that the city prefers to have 20-acre PUDs. Due to the circumstances and nature of the use, staff is recommending the 10-acre area. The area is currently zoned agricultural and public buildings are not listed in the agricultural district. The facility will be privately owned and leased to the Border Patrol. In order to set some long-term protection, there will be a statement on the PUD itself that if the land use ever changes, whatever proposed use would have to be presented to the planning and zoning commission at that time as a request to amend the PUD.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE NEW EXTRA-TERRITORIAL (ET) LEGISLATION.

Gengler spoke on the new ET legislation. The law reflects that 0 to 2 miles will stay the same and is under the city’s zoning jurisdiction. The two to four mile area becomes a joint jurisdiction. The law also refers to “other political subdivisions” which means the county or a township. The county and city planning staff are working together to establish a zoning agreement to help define what the law states and who is responsible for what. Townships do have legal authority to adopt a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan. That has not been done by any of the townships to date. Once they do that, they also enter into a joint zoning jurisdiction with the city. If someone submits a plat or requests zoning to the county, the county will send the information to the city. The city has 30 days to respond to the request. If the city rejects the request, it would proceed to a mediation process. The idea is to avoid doing that if at all possible. Additional meetings with the commission will be scheduled if necessary to go over all the issues.

When asked about the number of townships around the city, Gengler said there were six.
According to the county planner, there has been no formal zoning adopted by any of the townships.

Matejcek stated that Falconer Township had adopted a zoning ordinance but the official copy with all signatures is not completed. They do have a comprehensive plan completed but no copies are available at this time. They are working to get the comprehensive plan online. The differences are that the townships A-1 District is closest to the city and A-2 is further away but the city recently changed theirs to reflect A-2 as the closest to the city and A-1 being further out. The township will allow 2.5-acre lots similar to what the county used to have and the city requires one unit per 40 acres. Also, the floodplain is based on the new FEMA map. Other than those differences, the township has the same zoning as the city and the county.

Christensen said he understood the law was to be in effect for two years. Gengler replied that had been changed and there is now no expiration on the law.

Christensen said the city probably is not too concerned about the 2 to 4 miles area but the corridors are very important.
Gengler noted that state law currently gives the townships the authority to zone, but does not give them subdivision authority.

Matejcek stated the townships do not have to utilize the zoning authority; they can relinquish that authority to the county.

Gengler indicated a gentleman in the audience wanted to speak.

Ray Dohman asked why comments regarding the Border Patrol Station were not solicited from the audience when it was discussed. Lee explained it was under preliminary approval and generally the comments are received at final approval. However, if he had indicated a desire to speak, that would have been allowed.

Mr. Dohman said the facility should not be allowed in Grand Forks. The problem is across the southern border, not the northern border. Even under preliminary approval, the township supervisor should be part of the discussion. The federal government cannot force a city to accept a facility and it should not be considered without input from the township supervisor.

Gengler explained that Rye Township does not exercise a zoning authority so they are not part of the legal approval process. The township supervisor has been notified about the Border Patrol project. The legal requirements for ordinances require public hearings on the second (or final) reading/meeting.

Mr. Dohman suggested that input should be obtained prior to the final reading before money is spent and the project is denied. Mr. Dohman stated he wanted to air his views on the issue.

There was further discussion on the ET issue and legislative law. Gengler stated there were considerable differences between Senate Bill 2027 and House Bill 1554. He also stated the governor has not, as yet, signed the law.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Lee asked the Land Use Subcommittee members (Kreun, Malm, John Drees and Lee) to meet directly after the meeting in order to set up a time for a meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:55 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President