Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
June 3, 2009

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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


MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY SANDE TO APPOINT GARY MALM AS TEMPORARY PRO TEM SINCE THERE WERE NO OFFICERS AT THE MEETING.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 6, 2009.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 6, 2009. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WEBSTER, FOSTER AND WESTON, ON BEHALF OF MURIEL I. SAUMUR, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF BORDER PATROL STATION ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1816 17TH STREET NE.

Gengler said there had been no changes to the plat and zoning since last month’s preliminary approval. The site plan review process takes place administratively by city staff. Talks continue with the developer on various issues, such as the septic system. In talking about the plat and the zoning, Gengler stated that approval of the Planned Unit Development, Concept Development Plan (zoning) recognizes a reduction of the standard 20 acres to 10 acres due to the nature of the project.

Gengler showed on a map the location of the project site. Staff’s recommendation is for final of the plat subject to technical changes shown on the review copy.

Michael Huntress, Acquest Development, said the proposal is for a 35,000 square foot border patrol station; 17,000 square feet would be for office and station space and 18,000 square feet of vehicle storage space. The intent is to disturb a minimal amount of the acreage of land due to their desire to achieve a silver LEED rating by the U. S. Green Building Council on the facility. The hope is to create an energy efficient facility and employee-friendly environment related to things such as non-toxic paints. The Border Patrol will lease the building for 20 years from Acquest Development. Detainees will be held for short periods of time during processing before being transferred to the Grand Forks County Jail. The building will be constructed of brick and stone and a fence will surround the site. Acquest Development deals with a number of federal contract projects and is familiar with building high level secured buildings. They plan to hire 100% local workers during the construction period. With a bigger facility, the Border Patrol plans to add more agents so there will be a significant job creation with the construction of the facility and also with the addition of more agents through Home Land Security.

When asked about notification to the neighbors of the project, Gengler stated a standard letter mailing was sent to surrounding property owners as well as a copy of the vicinity map. If the various property owners were listed in the city’s database, they were sent a letter regarding the public hearing meeting. Mr. Huntress stated he had spoken to the nearest neighbor, developer of the housing project across the street, as well as the airport personnel regarding the project.

When asked about the silver LEED rating, Mr. Huntress stated they have a LEED consultant on the team to design the facility to meet the LEED silver standards. There are 60 points to meet in order to achieve the rating such as in energy efficiency, open space around the facility, no irrigation on site. The subcontractors have to meet the standards also.

Galloway said there are no existing LEED certified buildings in town; however, there are buildings that have been built to the LEED certification. They have not gone through the certification process. The Border Patrol is the first one to do that. The airport is designed to be gold certified.

Hagness asked about a landing strip, training facilities for a shooting range, or dog training. Mr. Huntress answered there would be a 1,000 square foot dog kennel on site but no heliport or shooting ranges.

Malm opened the public hearing and reminded the audience the only thing under discussion was the plat of the property.

Don Dubuque, 1811 17th Street NE and developer of the Airport Estates, said his home was located across the road from the proposed project. He said he had gotten a letter regarding the public hearing and had talked to the developer on the phone. He noted there was already earthmoving equipment on site as well as a trailer so it appears the project is already a done deal. Since he lives across the road, he would like to have input on the project as well as ask questions about what is exactly going to be built. He said he had not been notified except for the letter regarding the meeting. He had talked to the developer by phone and was promised a meeting but that never happened. Mr. Dubuque said he was not for or against the project but he had questions he would like to have answered such as lights shining onto his property, barbed wire fencing, or dogs barking. He had the water line put in throughout the residential area and wondered about his water pressure with the proposed project. What will the construction hours be and the noise associated with the equipment. There are power generators on site now so it is obvious they plan to start construction very soon. Mr. Dubuque passed out photos he had taken earlier in the day of the site that showed some equipment and a trailer. He has concerns about the project and his property would be affected by the project

Ray Dohman wanted to know about the zoning. Malm replied it was the next agendaitem.

Since there were no further questions, Malm closed the public hearing and returned the issue back to the commission members.

Questions were asked about the residential area to the west. Gengler showed the area on the screen.

When asked why the project was not located directly on Highway 2 instead of 600 feet back, Mr. Huntress stated the site was chosen by the General Services Administration (GSA).

Hagness asked Mr. Huntress if he intended to meet with the residents in the area and answer some of their concerns.

Mr. Huntress said he had sent Mr. Dubuque a rendering of the site and asked for comments. He wants to be a good neighbor and he would try to do any screening possible to make everyone comfortable.

Mr. Dubuque said he did receive a rendering but was told by Mr. Huntress that when he was back in town, he would meet with him. That never happened.

Hagness asked how many houses were located in the residential area. Mr. Dubuque replied there were 38 lots and four homes have been built. There are 34 unsold lots left. All the property owners were present at the meeting.

Christensen said there appears to be a failure to communicate.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. State the basis of bearings.
3. Express ground elevations as (834.0).
4. County Road No. 5 is subject to level 3 access controls (1320’ gaps). Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to 18-0907 (L)(1)(d) with regards to location and frequency.
5. Submit the following: potable water plan, wastewater treatment plan and site grading and drainage plans.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WEBSTER, FOSTER AND WESTON, ON BEHALF OF MURIEL I. SAUMUR, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE BORDER PATROL STATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOR ALL OF BORDER PATROL STATION ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1816 17TH STREET NE.

Gengler reviewed the concept plan stating there were stipulations being placed on the Planned Unit Development zoning document. The document will define public buildings on the Planned Unit Development (PUD), Concept Development Plan. The PUD will also include a note as follows: “Prior to any change in land use other than a public building as defined in Section 18-0204 of the Grand Forks Land Development Code, the property owner must submit an application to the City of Grand Forks for an amendment to the P.U.D., Concept Development Plan.” Staff continues to work with the developer on the site plan and stormwater plan. Staff’s recommendation is for final approval.

Sande asked if the zoning fit the city’s 30-year plan. Gengler said it falls within the planned unit developments and how future land use needs are anticipated. The proposed area was designated as an agricultural reserve district. Every request is handled on a case-by-case basis. The land use is being changed.

Sande said he thought the area had been looked at as a potential area for a new industrial park. Gengler said the airport had at times talked about rezoning the whole area to mainly airport industrial uses.

Sande wondered if the project would affect the land values of the residential homes. Gengler said property values are often times based on perception. He did not see how this would have anymore of a negative impact than being underneath the flight zones for UND as far as any disturbance in the area. For many years, the county jail was located in the downtown area and held prisoners for a longer period of time than the border patrol facility would.

Kreun said his understanding was that detainees would not be housed at the facility; only detained for processing and then moved to proper facilities.

Dan Salyers, officer in charge of the Grand Forks Field Office, said the length of time any prisoners would be held is only the time needed to do the booking process. There would be temporary detention cells in the facility but they are not made for long-term housing. After processing, they are moved to the Grand Forks County Jail. That has been the process for years.

Galloway asked if there was risk or threat assessment level associated with the facility.

Mr. Huntress said it was a level four facility which is a standard classification for GSA requirements.

Christensen noted that one significant change was lowering the requirement from 20 to 10 acres for the planned unit development. He was concerned about the lighting issue for the residential area and felt the design should show that lights would not be allowed to shine across the road to the residential homes. The facility should be under a conditional use permit (CUP) and not change any zoning. If the conditional use permit is not approved at this meeting, he would recommend it at the city council meeting.

Gengler stated the conditional use permit process is completely outside the realm of the project. It would require an ordinance change (a two-month process) and whatever use described has to be placed in the city code under the CUP section. The use does not currently exist in the CUP and the process would have to be restarted.

Christensen asked how people would know in 20 years or more about the use of the property when the border patrol is no longer there.

Gengler said that, as stated earlier, a note would be added to the zoning document that if the use changes in the future for whatever reason, it would have to be brought back to the planning commission and city council for approval. There could also be a note attached to the deed that the facility could only be used for a border patrol facility. If that use changes, the property would have to be rezoned and processed again through the city. Currently the property is zoned A-1 (agricultural preservation) district and the request is to place the property in a PUD (planned unit development) and identify the permitted use as a public building for the site.

Christensen said he wanted the processed cleared with the city attorney so that only this facility could use the site.

Mr. Huntress said they would only maintain lights on-site and not have them directed at the residential area. They would work the light issue into their plans.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Don Dubuque, 1811 17th NE, appreciated the notice taken on the light issue. What about the answers to his other concerns?

Christensen said the city council would take final action on the zoning on June 15, 2009.

Malm announced the planning commission was only an advisory board to the city council.

Christensen suggested Mr. Dubuque and other interested homeowners meet with the developer after the meeting.

Ray Dohman asked if the property had been rezoned, if Rye Township had given permission for the property to be rezoned and if that agreement was in writing.

Malm answered that the property was in the jurisdiction of the city for zoning when the request was received. It now falls within the jurisdiction of the county. State law shows that any site plan submitted before May 1, 2009, was under the jurisdiction of the city. Because the process was started with the city prior to May 1, the developer did not have to submit approval through Rye Township.

Mr. Dohman said he did not read the law that way and the city was arbitrarily changing the rules.

Malm explained about the extraterritorial legislation recently decided by the state legislature. Anything submitted after May 1, 2009, will now be under the purview of Rye Township.

Terry Stromsodt, supervisor on the Rye Township Board, stated his main concern was the homeowners located across the road from the proposed facility. He noted his disappointment on the notification process to the surrounding homeowners. The facility will be a tax paying entity for the township and the county. The developer has requested 100% exemption for five years. However, he said the commission should facilitate the Dubuques and other homeowners to meet with the developer so they could have some input in the process.

Since there was no more public input, Malm closed the public hearing and returned the meeting to the commission members.

Sande asked Mr. Dohman if he agreed or disagreed with the change in zoning and why.

Mr. Dohman answered it was arbitrary and he was opposed to any rezoning and was also opposed to the facility on that site. There are too many federal agents in Grand Forks now and is one of the reasons for his high taxes.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THE STIPULATIONS STATED BY THE CITY PLANNER.

Hagness suggested to the developer that he meet with Mr. Dubuque and other homeowners to discuss their concerns prior to the city council meeting on June 15, 2009.

Christensen asked that the city planner be involved in the meeting.

Sande asked the developer if they were moving dirt and Mr. Huntress replied no.

MOTION CARRIED WITH SANDE VOTING NAY.

The developer, city planner and homeowners left the meeting to meet in another area of city hall.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE FOR THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SIXTH RESUBDIVISION (DEVELOPMENT HOMES) TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3880 SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD.

Brooks said the street and highway ordinance was a follow up to the replat from last month’s meeting. The replat was given final approval and the street and highway ordinance was given preliminary approval by the planning commission in May. The city council only gave preliminary approval to the replat. The street and highway ordinance will be sent to the city council for final review and approval along with the replat on June 15, 2009.

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

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY 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. The request is to rezone Lots 12, 13 and 14 and located at the intersection of North 42nd Street and 5th Avenue North. She explained it was the location of the former Overtime Bar and Grill. The request is to change the zoning from B-3 (general business) District to a B-3 and R-4 (multiple family residence, high density) District combination. This would allow for a mixed-use development (apartments above commercial) and would also fit in with the existing development which is zoned B-3 and R-4.

MOTION BY ADAMS AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CRARY DEVELOPMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) 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 request, stating it was a simple replat. A new Grandview memory care unit is being built next to the Bridgestone Condos. There is a vertical split between the two lot lines. Everything fits with the zoning. A PUD concept amendment for the use will be filed. A 50-foot setback is required for all lot lines. With the new lot line, it will be less than 50-feet; probably at the 35-foot range. It does make sense so staff is recommending a PUD concept plan change and that will take care of the current and future building at the corner. There are additional right-of-way requests and that is being negotiated with the developer. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

Adams asked to be recused from voting. MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO RECUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Expand right-of-way along 47th Avenue South to 60-feet of width with a 10-foot utility and bikepath/pedestrian easement adjacent thereto.
3. Use city council approval that reflects street and highway ordinance numbers.
4. Extend 34-foot ingress-egress easement across the east side of Lot D to serve Lot E.
5. Provide utility master plan for Lot E.
6. Provide any crossover easements necessary to serve Lot E with utilities and access.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

Brooks stated that in the commission members’ additional packet passed out tonight there was a draft planning and zoning jurisdiction agreement with the county. As a result of the new extraterritorial bill, the city, county and other jurisdictions could enter into an agreement that would wipe out what the state legislature had determined. In the two to four-mile area, the county has the final say on what is allowed. Other than the Border Patrol and the landfill, the proposed agreement will grant back the areas to the county for zoning. He asked if the commission wanted to review the agreement for a month or move it forward to the city council.

The general consensus was to move the agreement forward to city council.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF DISCUSSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALVAGE YARDS.

Brooks stated the five-year conditional use permit (CUP) for the salvage yards will be up on December 19, 2010. The idea is to start working on that issue sooner rather than later.

Christensen said he would like a letter written from the planning office to the salvage yard owners to remind them of the December 19th date. There is money for beautification and since the salvage yards are located within the city’s two-mile jurisdiction, the city needs to decide whether or not to approve a new CUP or if funds can be found to remove them.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY KREUN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President