Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
July 1, 2009

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: John Drees, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, Tom Hagness, and Bill Hutchison. 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 JUNE 3, 2009.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the June 3, 2009 planning and zoning minutes. After hearing no comments, 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 DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5, ALL OF VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 AND ALL OF VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 3, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED BETWEEN INTERSTATE 29 AND NORTH 42ND STREET AND BETWEEN 5TH AVENUE NORTH AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE.

Achman reviewed the rezoning request for the former Overtime Bar and Grill property. The request is to rezone from B-3 to a B-3/R-4 combination which would permit construction of a mix of commercial and high density residential land use. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. However, due to the size of the lot and existing drainage concerns, all applicable development standards shall be determined by the planning and engineering departments upon review of the preliminary detailed development plans.

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 MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST.

Kreun said the change would mirror other development taking place in the area and it is working out well.

Malm asked the city engineer about access onto North 42nd Street. Grasser replied that nothing would change in conjunction with the proposed project because they are restricted from adding any accesses. There have been issues in the area for quite some time.

When asked what is being developed in the area, Achman replied there was no specific plans but it would be a combination of commercial/residential with the possibility of a mix on the first floor.

Further discussion continued on the access issue. Gengler noted the developer is aware of the access restrictions and no future access approaches would be allowed.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CRARY DEVELOPMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS B AND C OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CURRAN’S 3RD RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 1300 BLOCK OF 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the replat request. The request started out as a fast track replat in June but was changed to a regular track replat when the city requested additional right-of-way along 47th Avenue South. The developer agreed to the additional 10-feet of right-of-way. The lots will be split in a northern/southern lots instead of an east/west lots. The necessary crossover agreements have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the technical changes indicated.

There were no questions from the commission members.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Provide utility master plan for Lot E.
3. Provide ingress/egress easement along the west line of Lot E to serve Lot D.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF JOHN SATROM, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACT) OF THE PLAT OF SATROM SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3001 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Lee reminded members a fast track means one time in front of the commission.

Gengler reviewed the request. The property is the former Floor to Ceiling and Carpet World store. Approximately 98% of the property is not platted and with this plat, title issues and legal description will make it easier in the future.

There were no questions from the commission members.

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

Robert Drees noted that much of the lot is gravel and asked if that would remain as gravel. Gengler answered it would remain gravel until an application was received to redevelop the site. Paving would be addressed at that time.

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Change plat name to Satrom’s Second Resubdivision in title block and in owner’s consent.
3. Show Saroj Jerath as the city auditor.
4. Include access control line along all of Shadow Road in the northeast corner of Lot 1.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF PHILADELPHIA MACARONI COMPANY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, GOLDEN HARVEST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT NORTH 36TH STREET AND 20TH AVENUE NORTH.

Lee reminded members a fast track replat means only one time for review by the commission.

Durrenberger reviewed the request. The company is requesting to move the lot line to the north in order to add a new addition to the factory. They own the property to the north but want to replat in order to have the factory on one lot. It also helps them meet the building setback requirements. Staff recommendation was for approval.

Grasser commented that the expansion takes the company past the end of the existing paving so a paving extension will be needed. A paving extension does not require commission approval but Grasser wanted the commission to be aware of it.

Matejcek asked to be excused from voting on the issue.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO EXCUSE MATEJCEK FROM VOTING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Use a scale on the plat as may be easily interpreted
3. Include spot ground elevations or ground contours.
4. Add access control along North 36th Street (Level 5). Show existing access locations and include a note that 20th Avenue North will be subject to future access control regulations.
5. Consider combining Lot 1, Block 1, Golden Harvest Addition and unplatted lift station lot east thereof. Include within plat boundary.
6. Move north line of Lot B north, to allow for proper setback of new building expansion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

Lee announced that 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 were related and Brooks would present them altogether.

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC AND JOHNSON FARMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT GARDEN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF 42ND STREET.

Brooks used his computer to show a map of the plat (4-1). Brooks said there are two existing 44-plex developments on Lots A and B. The proposal is to construct a final 67-plex building on Lot C. The developers needed more land added to Lot C so they added 1.7 acres on the east side of Lot C and had to replat the property to create one parcel.

The packet indicates that the remainder of Lot C (not currently annexed), Lot D and Lot E would be the annexation area. However, if the commission agrees, only the remainder of Lot C, not previously annexed, could be the annexation area. That would be consistent with previous annexations. Lots D and E would be annexed as soon as development occurs.

For the zoning, Brooks reported the addition of the 1.7 acres on Lot C would not include any residential units. That area will only include garages and green space. Because of the area of Lot C with the addition of 1.7 acres, there would be a reduction of overall total units.

There will be public hearing notices on the rezoning sent out prior to next month’s meeting in order to inform the surrounding neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting might be in order to make sure all the surrounding neighborhood is aware of what is happening.

Lee noted new technical changes for the plat had been passed out to each member.

Kreun asked if Lot C, D and E were annexed, is there any indication of future development and what would be the density allowed for Lots D and E?

Brooks said the density is 6.5 units per acre. Lot D would have 39 total units and Lot E would only be allowed a total of 10 units. Lot D is 6.06 acres and Lot E is 1.55 acres. There is nothing planned for those lots at this time. Staff did inform the developer that the necessary buffer needed to be between the existing units, townhome units and the single-family areas.

There was a discussion on the property south of Garden View Drive. Brooks said there was an area designated for 18-units per acre next to 42nd Street and the remainder would be 6.5 units per acre. That area has not been platted or annexed at this time, but the zoning is in place. Brooks said buffering of the residential area would be planned for any development.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add ground contours or spot elevations.
3. Add bearings to all line segments.
4. Include bearings and distances to all exterior plat lines.
5. Use longer city council approval to include street and highway ordinance number.
6. Show necessary curve data for all remaining unplatted lands in this area. Include backyard drainage plan.
7. Submit copy of ingress/egress easement to show legal access to Lot C.
8. Submit copies of any other covenants or maintenance agreements between Lots A, B and C.
9. Include utility easements and future bikepath/pedestrian easement as shown.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT LLC AND JOHNSON FARMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE MCENROE FIRST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND GARDEN VIEW ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AREA 3-1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE MCENROE FIRST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF THE MCENROE FIRST ADDITION AND MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON GARDEN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Brooks asked for feedback from the commission on whether or not to have a neighborhood meeting.

Galloway asked if there would be a height restriction on Lots D and E. Brooks said it falls under the R-3 guidelines and that has a restriction of three stories or 40 feet. The existing development on Lots A and B has a height of 3.5 stories because of underground parking. One idea is to create a limit on the area east of the Magellan easement (twin home); that would provide a barrier between the existing units.

Several members suggested a neighborhood meeting should take place. Grasser said the developer should be the party holding the meeting and have staff there only in support.
Staff will also be at the meeting with the developer prior to next month’s meeting.

Brooks showed where a bikepath is intended for the area.

When asked about the time for the neighborhood meeting, Brooks said it would take place within the next two weeks and not later than one week before the August planning and zoning commission meeting. A letter is sent to all homeowners within 400 feet 10 days prior to the next meeting.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PUD CHANGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC, AND JOHNSON FARMS TO ANNEX ALL OF MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION NOT PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT THE 3800 BLOCK OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE.

Brooks said it would be appropriate to annex the portion of Lot C, not previously annexed. The plat and PUD requests would return to the commission in August for final approval, however, the annexation is only heard one time at the commission.

Grasser stated he usually pushed for annexation but he was agreeable to annexing only the portion of Lot C not previously annexed. If utilities are needed, he wants annexation on both sides of the road in place to share the costs, but Lot C is not requiring infrastructure.

Gengler suggested the ordinance would show that Lot C be annexed immediately and Lots D and E would be annexed when infrastructure and roadway is requested.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF LOT C AND LOTS D AND E WOULD BE POSTPONED UNTIL INFRASTRUCTURE IS REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-4. MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BY-LAWS UPDATE.

Gengler stated the by-laws have not been updated since 1992. They will be back on the agenda for the August meeting. He asked that the chair appoint the executive committee to review the changes made. Lee verified that the executive committee would be the review for the by-laws update.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1 MATTER OF ATTENDANCE TO THE WESTERN PLANNERS CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN SPEARFISH, SD, ON SEPTEMBER 9-11, 2009. FOR INFORMATION, GO TO: http://www.westernplanner.org/ (2009 CONFERENCE).

Gengler said they could send up to four people to the Western Planners conference since it was not a national conference and would be less expensive. He asked members to check out the website and email him if they were interested in attending.

5-2. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

Gengler said Matejcek requested the item be on the agenda for discussion. The city/county zoning agreement document was approved by the city council and by the county.

He gave a summary of the intent of the agreement and to establish why it is needed. He talked about the state passing a new law regarding extraterritorial jurisdictions during the past session. The agreement sets out the duties and responsibilities for the city and the county. Gengler reviewed the agreement. The city would be responsible for the first two miles outside city limits and the county would be responsible for the two to four miles. The landfill and the Border Patrol Station are within the two to four mile area and normally would fall under the county’s jurisdiction, but since those two entities were started by the city prior to May 1, 2009, the city would maintain jurisdiction.

The agreement does not apply to townships that executed their own zoning authority. The two townships, Rye and Falconer, have adopted their own zoning authority. The remainder of the townships, Brenna, Grand Forks, Wallee and Allendale, have chosen not to exercise their zoning authority. Grand Forks County is in charge of zoning and subdivision regulations for those four townships.

Part of the agreement establishes an annual review between the city and the county. If there was a larger scale annexation by the city that would have impact on jurisdiction, the city, county and affected township would meet and review the annexation.

Matejcek said he just wanted clarification on the agreement. Falconer Township has their own zoning authority from two to six miles. He said he was wondering if the city planning department or the commission was interested in working with the township when they have something going on as a courtesy. There have been differences in the past but good planning is still the goal. He asked for a gentleman’s agreement to look at things affecting their area.

Gengler spoke to how things would work with those townships that established their own zoning authority. Rye and Falconer are in charge of zoning designations, land use regulations, comprehensive planning, floodplain management – everything involved with zoning authority. The state does not give townships the subdivision authority. The county would be the subdivision authority. The township provides the city notice of whatever occurs (zoning authority). The city has 30 days to respond in agreement or disagreement. If there is a disagreement, a mediation process would start. The mediation process would include someone appointed by the governor, two city council members, and two township members. If there is no agreement after mediation, the issue is turned over to the county board of commissioners as the final appellate body. Because two townships established their own zoning authority, the city does not include them in the comprehensive plan any longer or future growth area. Any decision made formally by the city would not have legal standing.

Kreun asked what the township does that requires notification to the city. Gengler said by law it is very brief but would probably include a rezoning, conditional use permit or whatever that township has established as a function of their zoning authority.

Lee asked about the corridors. Gengler stated one option was for the county to maintain jurisdiction on the corridors. The city decided as part of the agreement if the county had jurisdiction, they would have jurisdiction over the corridors. The city and the county would be on agreeable terms on access control on major corridors. Both parties have to notify the other party of actions and plans.

Robert Drees said Brenna Township discussed the corridor overlay issue with the county planner. There was discussion of defining, in the two to four mile area, reservations for future commercial use at major intersections. There is a pro-active desire on the part of the county and the townships to preserve corridors.

Gengler said there are no two townships that are identical in how they are situated. Allendale Township, for example does not touch the two mile and that township is completely outside the city’s extraterritorial area, but Falconer Township has a portion in the two mile area and a portion in the two to four area and some outside of the two to four area. Code enforcement is a question. If a township has the zoning authority, they are responsible for code enforcement. Gengler said each entity handles the junk ordinance differently and maybe now is the time to have a resolution on that issue.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

NONE.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY FRANK MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:32 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President