Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
November 5, 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, John Drees, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm and Frank Matejcek. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Al Grasser, and Dana Sande. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 1, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of October 1, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes. Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented.

Lee welcomed Jim Galloway as a new commission member and said he replaced Whitcomb who decided to retire from the commission after serving for 10 years.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, 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 SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0301 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE SIGN REGULATIONS.

Brooks reviewed the ordinance and explained the sign subcommittee had met several times regarding the electronic changeable sign regulations and on two separate occasions to review a video of signs with messages shown at ½, 1, 1-1/2 , 2, 2-1/2, and 3 second intervals. The business people are requesting the hold time of the messages be lowered from 2 seconds to 1 second. The ordinance has not changed much but the hold time is still the issue. The hold time for signs in the PUD districts is set at two seconds and the idea of reviewing the sign ordinance was to set a standard for all zoning districts. Staff decided they could agree to lowering the hold time to 1 and ½ seconds but the business people wanted it lowered to one second.

Kreun said the sign subcommittee had recommended the two-second hold time for messages but business sign owners wanted the hold time lowered. After much discussion, it was decided to bring the issue back to the full commission for a decision. He said the video would show the differences in hold time.

The video of the Ground Round was shown at the various levels of hold time.

Dr. Hall said there was also a discussion about the amount of lettering shown. Sometimes a second is fine if there is only one or maybe two lines to read and sometimes it is not long enough if there were more than two lines. The subcommittee discussed the idea of setting a minimum of a one second hold time and let the business community police themselves or leave the hold time at the recommended two seconds. It is to the benefit of the business owners to allow their signs to be read by the passing motorists.

Brooks agreed but said staff felt the one second hold time was too much flashing when it changed so quickly. As stated before, staff decided they could agree to lowering the hold time to 1 and ½ seconds but the business community wanted it lowered to 1 second.

Hagness commented that after watching the video, he agreed that 1 and ½ seconds would be agreeable to him but that the one second hold time seemed too fast to read.

Hutchison asked if staff had checked on what other cities were using as hold times. Brooks replied there was a substantial range of hold times for messages. North Dakota cities are waiting to see what Grand Forks comes up with but in Minnesota, the hold times run from 4 seconds to 24 hours. The sign companies are working with the city but they are representing the businesses. They feel the new signs can do any of the hold times. There are businesses with the older type signs and those businesses want some time to make the necessary changes on software and time resetting on their messages.

Christensen noted that city is now governing how a business presents an ad but asked about the safety concerns beyond the flashing aspect.

Brooks responded there were traffic studies done in the twin cities in terms of safety standards and whether or not signs were distracting to motorists and it was discovered they often were paying more attention to the signs. Another issue is the aesthetics of the electronic changeable signs.

Christensen said he understood the flashing and/or garish aspect, but asked who will police the signs and what are the consequences?

Brooks answered there is a penalty clause in the code. The inspections office will handle the signage enforcement. The first step would be to send the offending business owner a letter. Also, the sign hold time can be measured if there is a disagreement on the timing.

Lee opened the public hearing and invited those in the audience to speak on the issue.

Barry Wilfahrt, Chamber of Commerce Director, thanked the planning and zoning department for having the sign subcommittee meetings that included the business community. The purpose of a sign is to be attention-getting and distracting in nature. There were 18 of the 23 business owners who had the electronic changeable signs present at the meetings. There was agreement to no flashing and also to a one-second hold time. He spoke on the fact that some signs are placed a distance from the roadway and the owner wants to show one large word at a time to have the impact he needed. Other signs have different types of messages that can be read easier from the roadway. The business community would support the one-second hold time.

Bill Lee, president of Community Bank, said the meetings indicated the biggest issue was the flashing and a one-second hold time is not considered flashing. With the agreement of the one-second hold time, there would a complete buy-in and self-policing with the business community.

Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO SUPPORT THE ONE SECOND HOLD TIME. THE ONE-SECOND HOLD TIME WOULD BE MONITORED AND IF PROBLEMS WERE DETECTED WITH IT, THEN THE ORDINANCE COULD BE CHANGED FOR A LONGER HOLD TIME.

Hutchison stated the idea was to get away from the flashing signs. Brooks stated there were signs in the community flashing at ½ second.

Galloway said his first impression was that the one-second hold time was too fast and if there were a bunch of signs along the roadways it tends to become visual noise.

Kreun said he could live with one second or one and one-half second hold time. The subcommittee considered a lot of research to come up with the two-second hold time as well as a lot of thought. Utilizing the signs to their full ability does not work and, so far, neither has self-monitoring or policing. The technology will continue to change and signs will have to be reviewed from now on. He agreed that if the one-second hold time is allowed, it should be reviewed in a year.

Lee asked what the procedure would be if a sign was determined to be flashing at less than 1 second?

Brooks said a letter is sent first and if they do not conform, the legal route is taken.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, said they are prepared to enforce the ordinance. The offending business owner can be cited in municipal court. First, they are asked to cooperate with the ordinance. Then they may be asked to show the inspectors the timing set for the messages. The signs themselves have to conform to certain size and location and that is handled through the inspections office. However, they have to wait until the ordinance is passed. Then there will be a review by inspectors on the timing or flashing and signs will be checked if a complaint is received.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, 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 ARTICLE 2, ZONING, SECTION 18-0204, RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SUBSECTION (2) DEFINITIONS; SECTION 18-0206, A-1 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND A-2 AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3), USES PERMITTED, LIMITED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED; ALL RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A GUEST HOUSE.

Brooks reviewed the request, stating there had been request in the A-1 and A-2 zoning Districts to allow guest houses. Staff defined what a guest home was and wrote the ordinance indicating that a guest home would be allowed in these two zoning districts only under a conditional use permit (CUP). He also reviewed the conditions allowed for this type of housing. He noted that conditional no. 11 was added since preliminary approval by changing the normal 400 feet of notification to surrounding property owners to 1,320 feet.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE.

Malm asked how the ordinance would be enforced.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated it would be difficult. Staff have talked to the city attorney and discussed the proper documentation that must be filed. The owners of the guest home will have to sign a recorded agreement that it is a guest house only. This type of home is restricted to the extra-territorial area and to very large lots. If a complaint is received, her office will address it.

Kreun said a complaint would be the trigger mechanism and this is the same thing as with the apartments when non-relatives live together in a rental dwelling. People have to be given some flexibility in utilizing their property.

Collings said the conditional use permit is an additional requirement. If questions are not answered to staff’s satisfaction, the owner will be asked to come to the planning commission and verify the status of the home. Conditional use permits have a life and can be revoked.

Galloway asked if a property line could be placed between the properties at some future date. Collings answered the requesting owner must have at least five acres.

Brooks explained to Galloway that the code states there can only be one housing unit per 40 acres. Staff has discussed the possibility of a request for a guest home in an area that might become part of the city limits at some time in the future and then they would have to make some provision for the ability to split the property when the zoning changes from A-1 or A-2.

Collings said they have tried to accommodate the public whenever possible.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MELAND ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF, JAMES R. AND JUDITH A. BRADSHAW, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHARLSON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A GUEST HOUSE. The property is located at 6497 16th Street SE.

Brooks indicated on a map where the Charlson Addition is located (between the Burke Addition and the river). He showed the site plan for the property. He explained that the property will probably never be in the city limits as well as being on the wet side of the dike. The location of the property guest home will be not seen from the road. Staff did notify property owners within one-quarter mile of the property.

After verifying that there were no questions from the commission, Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONAL USES:
1. The term of this conditional use permit shall be indefinite until such time zoning is changed.
2. The guest house owner shall comply with all existing and future Grand Forks City Codes. Any violation or violations of the city code requirements and the conditions in this conditional use permit shall be mitigated by the permit holder within seven (7) days of receipt of the violation(s) notice. A violation(s) not mitigated within this time period may be mitigated by the City of Grand Forks and billed to the permit holder.
3. The owner must reside on the real property and said property must be the owner’s primary place of residence.
4. The guest house is and shall be a secondary use to the primary residential use on the property and shall not be used in a fashion as to constitute a second primary residential use on the property.
5. A guest house shall be placed on a lot or parcel equal to or greater than five (5) acres in size.
6. No more than one guest house shall be permitted on a lot or parcel.
7. Mobile and manufactured homes shall not be permitted as guest house.
8. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded with Grand Forks County stating the guest house placed on the real property shall not be sold, leased or rented separately from the primary dwelling.
9. The guest house shall meet all setback requirements for said district. The guest house shall have a minimum front yard setback greater than or equal to the setback of the primary dwelling.
10. The city reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit for any violation of this permit and/or a violation of city code.

Malm asked about approval of a building in the floodplain.

Collings stated that presently the property is not in the floodplain. With the new FIRM map that will be released soon, the property will be in the floodplain. A structure can be built in the floodplain but it has to be elevated one foot above base flood elevation (100 year flood elevation) so there can be no basement.

Robert Drees asked if the one-quarter mile notification included notifying property owners in Minnesota. Brooks answered no.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GATEWAY STORAGE LLP, AND BRITTON TRANSPORT, ON BEHALF OF GATEWAY STORAGE, LLP, BRITTON TRANSPORT AND VIOLET KORYNTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 4TH RESUBDIVISION AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF NORTH 48TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 17TH AVENUE NORTH.

Brooks explained the Herald failed to publish the public hearing notice for the rezoning and the item would have to be tabled until next month’s meeting. The parties involved in the rezoning have been notified and delaying it for one month does not affect their plans.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO TABLE THE REZONING REQUEST UNTIL THE DECEMBER MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF DAVID VAALER, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOTS A & B, BLOCK 1, YOUNG RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ‘STAY AND PLAY PET RESORT’ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL DOG BOARDING KENNEL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7274 SOUTH WASHINGTON.

Durrenberger reviewed the request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the ‘Stay and Play Pet Resort.’

The current facility was original approved in 2006. At the time, the updated A-1 and A-2 zoning regulations had not been drafted. Under the previous regulations, a kennel was a permitted use. Under the new regulations, a kennel is classified as a conditional use. The business has grown and the owners do not have adequate capacity for the kennel area. The request is to expand the current facility. Durrenberger showed the site plan that indicated over 1800 square feet of additional space which included a fenced-in outside play area. Also under the new regulations, there must be a minimum of a five-acre lot area instead of the previously allowed 2-1/2 acres. The owner purchased a residential home to the south of the current location to create the minimum five-acre lot size.

Durrenberger reviewed each of the conditional uses. Conditional use number four will be changed to reflect the residential home can remain if it is turned into a related use of the dog kennel, i.e. dog grooming facility.

Malm asked about conditional use number five. If approved by the planning commission and the city council, will the planning staff be able to add additional conditional uses? Durrenberger said that once the conditional use permit is approved, there should be no need to add conditional uses but that condition is added for flexibility.

Hagness questioned why number five should be listed.

Brooks explained the city attorney is contemplating another clause for conditional use permits. If there are issues in the future, the city can pull the conditional use permit.

Christensen asked if the conditions had been reviewed with the owner and Durrenberger answered yes. Durrenberger said he also made suggestions to the owner for related uses on the single-family residence.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITIONAL USE NUMBER FIVE:
1. A minimum of thirty (30) square feet of kennel area must be provided per dog thirty (30) pounds or more; and a minimum of fifteen (15) square feet of kennel area must be provided per dog less than thirty (30 pounds).
2. This permit will not expire until such time that the use is discontinued or changed. Any expansion to the site will require another conditional use permit.
3. Lots A and B, Block 1, Young Resubdivision must be combined and remain combined to continue the use of Lot B, Block 1, Young Resubdivision as a kennel.
4. Adjacent single-family house either be removed or turned into a caretaker’s living quarters upon vacation of the current renter.
5. Any additional conditions or restrictions placed on the facility by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council.

Christensen wondered why staff is recommending uses for the single-family facility. Why can’t the owner rent out the facility if he wants to? Why restrict the right for the owner to rent it?

Durrenberger said the question arises on whether it is being used as a five-acre parcel for the kennel or two 2-1/2 acre parcels. It would violate one of the conditions under the conditional use permit.

Brooks also explained the owners are building on the lot line and would not meet the setbacks.

Christensen said the house was in place before the rules were changed and now the owner cannot use the house as rental property. It doesn’t make sense. Why regulate it? The previous homeowners sold their residential home to the Vaalers knowing the intent was to create a larger kennel area. Why would staff tell the Vaalers they could only use the house if they groom dogs there? All they have to do is groom one dog a month and work around the rules. The owners should not be told to tear down the house.

Brooks explained when the commercial kennels were put in the code, the city wanted the separation between residential and the commercial kennel and that was the reason for requiring a minimum of a five-acre lot. The owner could not subdivide the property and split the residential home off.

Christensen stated staff is restricting the new owner’s use of the property as an item of income. He should be grandfathered in. The owner should not be made to tear the house down if there is not a related use for the kennel. He stated he was troubled by the principle of restricting the use and wanted to establish some level of consistency. He is against taking away a person’s right for income from an existing home. If someone wants to rent the house knowing it is located by a dog kennel, the owner should be allowed to do that.
Brooks said the current use is grandfathered in but the expansion triggered the changes.

Matejcek said the grandfather status is lost when the lot line is changed.

Kreun said the house becomes commercial property and cannot be rented. The use of the property changed and the owners have to abide by the rules for that.

Brooks said he understood that Mr. Vaaler’s intention is not to keep the house as a residential dwelling.

MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT TO CHANGE CONDITIONAL USE NUMBER FOUR TO STATE: THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE CAN BE TURNED INTO A RELATED USE OR AN INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE DELETION OF CONDITIONAL USE NUMBER FIVE.

Hagness said he was against the amended motion. He spoke to Mr. Vaaler and said his intent is to have a grooming business in the residential home in the future.

Christensen said he was not talking as a proponent of Mr. Vaaler, but he wanted to shape the debate so there are fundamental principles that guide in making the decisions when people are told they have to tear something down.

Lee said the original motion was amended to remove conditional use number four and five and called for a vote on the amended motion.

AMENDED MOTION FAILED WITH CHRISTENSEN AND MALM VOTING FOR THE AMENDMENT AND ALL OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING NAY.

ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

None.


5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (REPLACEMENT FOR MARIJO WHITCOMB).

Steve Adams volunteered to be on the Downtown Design Review Board.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY ROBERT DREES TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEVE ADAMS AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DDRB). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Kreun asked that Galloway, previously a member of the DDRB, give an overview of the DDRB to the city council.

6-2. MATTER OF PRESENTATION BY CPS, LTD. ON THE GRAND FORKS PERIMETER DRAINAGE STUDY.

Mark Walker, Assistant City Engineer, gave an overview of the new regulations required by the EPA and introduced Mike Korman.

Mike Korman, engineer with CPS, Ltd, gave a presentation on the Grand Forks Perimeter Drainage Study. A question and answer period followed. A copy of the presentation is on file in the planning department.

6-3. MATTER OF THE UPDATE ON THE RIVER FORKS DOWNTOWN PLAN BY EARL HAUGEN, GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

The power point presentation on the update of the River Forks Downtown Plan was presented by Brooks. Mr. Haugen was unable to be present at the meeting. A copy of the presentation is on file in the planning department.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:52 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President