Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
July 2, 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, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Dana Sande. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 4, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of June 4, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented.


Gengler announced there was a late submittal of a simple farmstead plat and a request had been made to add it to the commission meeting of July 2, 2008. There were very few issues raised after reviewing the plat. Gengler asked that the agenda be suspended to add Item No. 4-6 to the agenda as follows:

MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF MARVIN OMLID, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MAGDALENE SUBDIVISION, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 150 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO SUSPEND THE AGENDA TO ADD ITEM NO. 4-6. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF VISIM, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION; ALL OF AMUNDSON’S SECOND RESUBDIVISION; NODAK RESUBDIVISION; GOLDEN VALLEY FIRST AND SECOND ADDITIONS; AND LOT B, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION AND LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2800 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request for rezoning. The request is to rezone Lot D as well as Lots B and C. Staff is currently reviewing the site plan for the hotel to be constructed on Lot D. A certain portion of the structure exceeds the allowable height of 50 feet within the B-3 zoning district. The overall height of the hotel is 49, but the northerly part of the building (contains mechanical equipment and stairs leading to the roof) exceeds the 50-foot allowable. Staff recognizes and supports allowing this part of the hotel to exceed the 50-foot height since the overall average height of the building is 49 feet and the placement of the structure on the site could accommodate the height variance. If final approval is granted, that variance should be indicated in the technical changes.

Gengler showed a photo of the apartment building to the east of the proposed hotel and indicated the apartment building has an approximate height from the base of the building to the roofline pitch of 56 feet. The apartment building has underground parking and measuring from the grade to the top is approximately 60 feet. When comparing the two buildings, the extended height of the hotel does not appear to impact the site. The bufferyard requirements between a commercial and residential use is a standard 15-foot bufferyard “E” which also include a six-foot site-obscuring fence. Staff reviewed the fence for the site and determined it may not function as the fence normally would as far as pedestrians. Staff recommends eliminating the fence requirement in the bufferyard “E” but work with the developer to maintain a minimum planting schedule of bufferyard “E” or something equivalent to provide adequate buffer for the first four windows.

Lots B and C are also included within the rezoning for B-3 type land uses. The two lots front two townhome developments. Staff is concerned about the type of B-3 land uses allowed on the sites. Under the B-3 District land uses, any type of commercial development could occur. Staff asked that commission members provide certain types of land uses that might be prohibited on the property. The siting of future buildings on the lot will also make a difference. A nightclub or bar might not be appropriate on the lots, while banks, offices, or restaurants would be appropriate. Letters were sent to adjoining property owners but staff received only a few phone calls in reference to the letters. The rear yard setbacks from the lot lines are between 20-25 feet. Gengler said certain land uses for Lots B and C could be applied to the PUD today, but it is not known what type of land uses would develop in the area. Depending on the land uses permitted, staff could present any site plan to the commission. This would also incorporate the public hearing process with adjoining neighbors. Prior to 1996, all site plans and detailed development plans were reviewed by the commission on a case-by-case basis. All three lots will be a planned unit development, with underlying B-3 land uses.

Hagness asked about the types of land uses that should be omitted and whether or not to add them to the zoning document. Gengler said bars, nightclubs, auto repair shops might be a few of the land uses that might not be appropriate with the residential area located behind the lots. He suggested the following be included on the ordinance: “B-3 type uses excluding the following: bars, nightclubs, auto shops, etc. Not only is the type of land uses critical but also the layout on the site and proximity to the townhomes. If the request were for multi-family apartments, the same discussion would occur on height limitations, setback issues, etc. due to the way the property is situated.

Malm stated there had been trouble there before. The single-family homeowners felt the townhomes were too high and shaded their backyards. Can something be added regarding height limitation on Lots B and C? Gengler stated height limitations had previously been set for some areas along the corridor.

Malm said since it was in a PUD (planned unit development), the land uses could be controlled. When someone presents a plan, the commission could determine what would be appropriate in the area from the B-3 list of land uses.

Gengler said not only is the list itself rather extensive, but all B-2 uses are allowed in the B-3 District.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Brenda Hodny, 4182 Lark Circle, resident of one of the townhomes behind Lots B and C stated she just wanted it known that whatever is decided to be allowed on the lots would directly affect her property values as her townhome is a few feet from the property line.

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

Malm said the commission needed a list to consider. He asked what land uses were allowed at Columbia Road and 17th Avenue South? Gengler said he thought it was limited B-1 type uses and additional exceptions for the corner.

Christensen said the request is to build a hotel on Lot D. The commission should move forward on that request and not worry about Lots B and C at this time. He stated recommendations for land uses on Lots B and C, with owner’s input and townhome residents, could be discussed at a later time.

Malm asked if Lots B and C would still be included in the planned unit development rezoning request or is it being withdrawn from the request and left in the agricultural status? Gengler said they could be included in the planned unit development and left in the agricultural zoning status.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST FOR LOTS B, C AND D BUT DEFER ACTING ON LAND USES FOR LOTS B AND C. MOVER AND SECOND ALSO RECOGNIZED AN INCREASE ON A PORTION OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE ELIMINATION OF THE FENCE ON LOT D. LOTS B AND C WOULD REMAIN IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING STATUS. APPROVAL IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. After confirming with Cliff Coss, we will add his lot to the PUD. Please add to the legal description: LOT B, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION.
2. Also change the PUD drawing to reflect the additional lot. (Vicinity map also)
3. F.Y.I.: Additional General Notes may be added following the July P&Z meeting.
4. Staff is researching the previous approval for the amendments. We will forward you the dates and ordinance numbers prior to the final print.
5. Please provide the full legal description of all areas within the PUD. See review copy for placement: LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION; ALL OF AMUNDSON’S SECOND RESUBDIVISION; NODAK RESUBDIVISION; GOLDEN VALLEY FIRST AND SECOND ADDITIONS; AND LOT B, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION AND LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF KEVIN HODNY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT COLUMBINE COURT AND SOUTH 29TH STREET.

Achman reviewed the request by stating it is a simple replat. There is one owner of Lots 3 and 4. The owner of Lot 5 wanted to buy a portion of Lot 4 in order to have another stall in his garage. The replat allows the shift in the lot line.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Use short version of city council approval certificate as no street and highway ordinance is needed with the plat.
3. In the owner’s consent, correctly identify the addition name.
4. Check the certificate of correction dated 10/8/84 for the basis of bearings.
5. Include 100-year flood line on drawing and in legend.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, ETAL, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2 BLOCK 1, JOHNSON’S 4TH ADDITION AND LOT D, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, JOHNSON’S 4TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1200 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Gengler reviewed the replat request and asked for institutional memory of members sitting on the commission in 1996. He showed the aerial photo of the westerly one-half of the Johnson’s PUD (Planned Unit Development). In 1996, the PUD went through different changes. A linear park had been installed, separating the single-family and the multi-family uses. On July 10, 1996, a staff report was forwarded to the city council indicating preliminary approval of the rezoning request (to change from multi-family uses to B-3 type uses) with a list of the technical changes. One of the changes added to the technical change list was that “the B-3 type uses shall be limited to a height of no more than 35-feet above normal sidewalk grade.” On August 7, 1996, the staff report was forwarded to the city council indicating final approval of the rezoning request but did not include the statement regarding a height limitation. The staff report indicated the ordinance had not been amended in any way between preliminary and final approval. Gengler said there were meetings with the neighborhood during preliminary and final approval, but there were no minutes to ascertain whether or not the height limitation was removed. In researching the documentation in the office, there is nothing to indicate the reason for removal of the height limitation between preliminary and final approval. The Johnson’s PUD is up to amendment number three and only refers to the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial without reference to the note. Gengler stated the remark in the beginning about the height limitation by both the planning commission and the city council raises a question. There is no documentation to indicate if the omission of the height restriction was an error or if a decision or compromise had been made to eliminate it. However, the replat, subject to the technical changes, should proceed accordingly. If the 35-foot height limitation is the rule and is not challenged or appealed, staff will recommend that subject to final approval, if the development plan changes to a lower building to accommodate the rule, the lot line would be allowed to shift without having to return to the planning commission.

Hagness said he recalled the determination of the height limitation was established as a negotiating point during the rezoning process. The higher buildings were appropriate on the west side of 42nd Street but not on the east side.

Dr. Hall asked the height of Choice Financial. Gengler said he was not sure but stated it was below the 50-foot threshold. Building height is measured from the base of the building to center of the peak (if a pitch roof) of the eave line. He said the bank was somewhere in the 35 to 38-feet in height.

Lee asked if the height limitation needed to be stated again to make sure it was part of the record?

Gengler said a decision was made at preliminary approval for the height restriction in 1996 and that probably should have been part of the technical changes going forward for final approval. Regardless of the reason for the removal of the stipulation, it should not hinder this plat. The applicant, based on the decision, would have the right to appeal any decision. The proposed hotel is shown to be an average of 50 feet and the peak to be over 50 feet. Gengler made a drawing to indicate how the building height is measured.

Malm said his recollection was that the linear parkway would be mounded and that probably eliminated the 35-foot height limitation. The buildings would be located far away from the linear parkway and that the mounding would be between the buildings and the linear park to help in blocking the site. Malm said the discussions went on for some time on how to keep the commercial from interfering with the residential properties.

Gengler showed a recent picture of the landscaping, the linear parkway and the mounding. Any proposed buildings would be required to install a bufferyard “E”. The mounding itself does not act as a site barrier. Gengler showed the current site plan of the proposed Staybridge Suites Hotel. There is 136 feet from the building to the rear lot line and the homes behind have a rear yard setback of approximately 50-60 feet.

Kreun said one of the concerns neighbors would have would be the buffering. The reason for the mounding was to add shrubbery on top of it to get the height up. The positive with having a taller building is that it would shield noise from the interstate. Shrubbery in the back would also help. He suggested the developer visit with some of the homeowners and find out their concerns with the project.

Gengler noted there is still substantial room left for development and the current development will set a precedent for the area.

Robert Drees suggested moving the building further to the west.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Tim Crary, developer, stated there was much discussion 12 years ago on the rezoning and he could not remember the outcome of the final decision, but they were given the B-3 uses without exceptions. He did state the reason the linear park was so wide with the mounding was to accommodate the height restriction. His company built many of the homes in the area and they want to be a good neighbor so they will do whatever is required.

Lee closed the public hearing.

Hagness said he did not agree with moving the building further west because that would place the lights and traffic closer to the homes. Leaving the building where it is proposed and allowing it to be 50 feet would be a better option than moving the parking lot. Adding more shrubbery to the mounding would take care of some of the issues. He wanted to hear from some of the residents that live in the area.

Gengler said if the decision is to keep the height restriction at 35 feet, the applicant could request an appeal on the height restriction. The replat would continue on through the process.

Hutchison said if the 35-foot rule was not in the final technical changes, he did not feel it could arbitrarily be added at this date. He thought it was probably removed because of the distance from the homes and the mounding that was added to the linear park.

Grasser spoke on the need for an access easement and crossover easements.

Matejcek said he agreed that if a change was made between preliminary and final, there was a reason for it. The final technical change list is what was approved by both the commission and the city council and it should not be changed now.

Adams asked to be excused from voting on Items 3-3 and 3-4. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON ITEMS 3-3 AND 3-4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler said if other decisions are made on the issue, they should be made under separate motions. The request is for the replat and the motion on the replat should be separate from any other motion.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVE TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct plat boundary distances on the east and west lines of the plat.
3. Correct the east and west lot distances for Lot F.
4. Show correct square footage for Lot F, Block 1.
5. Include a document number for the 60-foot N.S.P. easement.
6. Scale of the drawing if 1-inch equals 100-feet.
7. Provide utility master plan for all of Lots E and F of this plat.
8. Include a five-foot wide utility, bikeway and pedestrian easement along land adjacent to south 42nd Street.
9. Show an additional ingress/egress easement along the line common to Lots E and F for the benefit of both lots.

Hagness said he learned something from the national American Planning Association conference he attended. They were told that if a member of the commission abstains or asked to be excused from voting, that person should not be in the room while the issue is being discussed or voted on. A lawsuit could be brought against the city if a member is implied to be part of the discussion but has a reason not to be voting on the issue. This has never been a problem for Grand Forks in the past but he brought it up as a point of information.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler asked if the commission wanted to make a decision on the height restriction. Christensen said the approval was for the replat request and since they were previously given approval for B-3 uses and 50-feet is allowed for B-3 uses, the motion was intended to allow that.

3-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN TO BE PLATTED AS LOT E, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, JOHNSON’S 4TH ADDITION AND LOT D, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, JOHNSON’S 4TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, EXCEPT LANDS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED, LOCATED IN THE 1200 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Gengler reviewed the annexation request for the proposed hotel site. The area is surrounded by development as shown on the annexation point review. Staff recommendation is for approval of the annexation request.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM JERRY AND JENNIFER HOFFARTH AND JOSHUA AND LISA CHRISTIANSON FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A 20-FOOT SIDEWALK AND UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 10-FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 2, SUN-BEAM 5TH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 4520 AND 4538 HOMESTEAD CIRCLE.

Durrenberger reviewed the request. The vacation request of the sidewalk/utility easement came from the two adjoining property owners. The city engineering staff had no problem with vacating the easement. There are currently no utilities through the area and the sidewalk would access on a future planned commercial/multi-family district. There is no over-riding need for the easement. Staff recommendation is for approval.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LORI MILLER, ON BEHALF OF LKM ENTERPRISES, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, LOT D, BLOCK 1, HALEY’S 1ST SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH WASHINGTON AND 55TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler said staff’s recommendation for the rezoning request is denial. Lot D, an undeveloped lot and currently zoned A-2, is located between the All Seasons Garden Center to the north and the First Presbyterian Church to the south. To the west is the Zavoral’s First Addition with single-family homes and proposed townhome development. The request is to rezone the four acres to a B-3 (general business) District and develop the property into a mini golf course, arcades, vending, batting cage, and golf simulators. The request also includes a separate building for activities and dances as well as a go-kart track. Gengler noted the go-kart track would have to be eliminated since it is only allowed in an industrial district. The current land use plan identifies the parcel as future residential based on residential to the east and west. All Seasons Garden Center is noted as commercial. The Year 2035 Land Use Plan shows commercial nodes to the south at 62nd Avenue South and South Washington Street. There are many unknowns at this point in time, but based on the current land use plan as well as whether or not the proposed land use is fitting and compatible, staff’s recommendation is denial. Staff questioned the proposed land use next to a tree farm and a church without knowing what is planned for the east side of South Washington Street. Gengler pointed out this would also be part of the corridor overlay plan and whatever is allowed will have to abide by those development standards. The rezoning request, if approved, will also require a change in the Land Use Plan and annexation.

Gengler noted that an annexation resolution exists from 1999 for the All Seasons Garden Center (Lots A, B and C) to be annexed in 2015 or sooner, if development contiguous to their property takes place before that date. If Lot D is allowed to be developed, it would trigger the annexation of the All Seasons Garden Center.

Hagness asked if the Heitmans (owners of the All Season Garden Center) had been notified. Gengler said they have not been contacted as yet since the initial request was for rezoning of property south of them.

Robert Drees said the land use plan also shows residential next to South Washington Street further south and that should be changed. Gengler said residential next to the corridor would usually be high density multiple family type housing.

Matejcek said the proposed plan is considered a miniature amusement park and wondered if that fit the B-3 District. Gengler answered the B-3 does reflect most of the uses discussed, except for the go-kart use. That is required in an industrial area.

David and Lori Miller, 3698 22nd Avenue South, along with Mrs. Miller’s son, Josh, are the principals of LKM Enterprises. Their proposal is for a family type recreational facility and to provide entertainment activities for the youth of the community. There is nothing set in stone for the go-kart track and if considered unsuitable for the property, they would be okay with that. Their main objective is to develop an 18-hole miniature golf course. He noted that miniature golf courses today are made more along the lines of a real golf course. They want to develop state-of-the-art golf simulators, arcade games, and a grill for snack foods in one building. An adjacent building would be used for entertainment purposes such as teen dances (20 and under age groups) for those not old enough for the bar scene. The property seemed well suited for the development because it is on a major thoroughfare, has visibility and is accessible. They noted there is other commercial lots to the north developed by Mr. Crary.

Hutchison asked if the only reason for denial was because it did not agree with the land use plan and Gengler answered yes as well as the questions regarding the compatibility of the business at that location. Hutchison said he probably voted for the 2035 Year Land Use Plan but felt the proposed use was more compatible than residential uses. There was a batting cage along South Washington Street that was closed because of the development of a hospital. There also used to be a miniature golf course along South Washington Street and these activities fit along that corridor.

Mrs. Miller stated they had looked at other land but the four acres seemed ideal for their purposes.

Hutchison asked if there would be enough activities to fill up the four acres without the go-karts? Mrs. Miller replied they were looking at two 18-hole miniature golf courses.

Grasser asked how many activities would be outside the buildings? Mr. Miller answered the miniature golf courses and the batting cages. Other activities would be indoors; however, there are designs for indoor miniature golf courses and that would be a possibility for some of the land. The ND season is rather short and if they had an indoor miniature golf course, they could open it year-round.

Christensen said the land use plan is not written in stone and is only a visioning tool. It does seem inappropriate to have housing along South Washington. He complimented the Millers for their vision and said the location is appropriate for the proposal since the city is growing to the south. Mr. Christensen noted a pool was given to the north end of town and this should be allowed for the southend of town. He also stated the go-karts should be allowed as part of the proposal, maybe as a conditional use permit. If housing developed around the area, the go-karts could be an issue in the future and could be eliminated at that time. Hours of operation would have to be considered with a church next door.

Dr. Hall said there are electric go-karts now that are much quieter.

Mr. Miller said the concerns raised by the commission have been their concerns also. They looked at a 10-acre piece of property next to the South Middle School. The property was too big for their development and the owner would not subdivide but on the north side of the property was housing. They would not have considered the go-karts for that area because of the noise. They understand there are concerns with neighbors where the go-karts are concerned. They want to be good neighbors wherever they are allowed to develop.

Hagness also complimented the Millers for the proposal and said it was a need in Grand Forks. There is a wonderful facility in Fargo and there should also be one in Grand Forks. He agreed with the project and said it should also include the go-karts.

Hutchison said he was agreeable to the project but was hesitant to agree on the go-karts at that location. He stated the idea of a combined amusement area, including the go-karts is great but has concerns about the go-karts in that area. There would definitely have to be some thought given to the go-karts based on activities at the church such as weddings, funerals, etc.

Grasser said his concern is falling back into the strip commercial as opposed to having commercial nodes. He voiced the need for high intense lighting and parking lots that would be required for a business of this nature as well as the noise from the various activities. It is a great thing for the youth of the community but he is not comfortable that the proposal is appropriate for that location.

Lee brought up the limited time to use the facility in the wintertime. Mr. Miller stated the operating period for a miniature golf course in this area would be May 15 to September 15. It is weather limiting (winter as well as rain) but there are years when it is possible to extend the play time of the courses. Any outdoor activity is affected by the weather. Mrs. Miller said that is why the golf simulators that would be located indoors would be available.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ENCOURAGE THE PROPOSAL AND GRANT APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST AND TO USE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE GO-KARTS ONLY.

Gengler said a conditional use permit is stated in code, by ordinance, that provides for a specific conditional use. If the commission is going to approve go-karts, a change would have to be made to the code and list go-karts as a specific use by conditional use permit in the B-3 District.

Christensen said he disagreed and said it could be granted as a conditional use in the B-3 for go-karts without amending the ordinance. He suggested the city attorney be contacted about the issue. He does not want to include go-karts throughout the B-3 District. He asked if the area could be part of a planned unit development. Gengler said it was too small by itself but if attached to the garden center, it could be a PUD (planned unit development). Individual land uses have been assigned to certain planned unit developments. Setting the proposal up as a planned unit development would require a different process and negotiations would have to be set up with the owners of the garden center. The request is for a conventional rezoning and that does not include a conditional use permit.

Christensen wanted to know how junkyards ended up being allowed on Highway 2. Gengler said that happened many years ago.

Malm said he had no problem with the proposal except for the go-karts. Go-karts are going to be a disturbance to anyone living in the neighborhood and to the church. People get upset now about the trains running through town. He does not think go-karts will work in that area but is agreeable to the rest of the project.

Hagness said the proposed project belongs in the location before any residential is developed. The racetrack on the north end of town can be heard for a long way.

John Drees said the whole project does not belong in the proposed location. The intense lighting, as well as the noise, is not appropriate there.

Matejcek reminded members this is preliminary approval but he felt it would be prudent to see a site plan of the development before making a final judgment.

Dr. Hall said the plan is very good for the community but he also has concerns about the noise (metal bats). He is close to Century School that has a hockey arena and when a puck hits the boards, it is quite loud. The noise could be quite disruptive; however he is not opposed to the project.

Christensen said they should be given a chance. There used to be an oudoor theatre on South Washington Street and people probably complained about that, but everyone got used to it. The proposed project will be located next to a church and a garden center and the garden center may be gone one day. The area is open with no housing there yet. Where could they go in the city if not in the proposed location?

Malm suggested they go next to the Carpet Garage on Gateway Drive. He is not against go-karts but is against having them next to a church. There should be proper planning.

Adams said the request is for rezoning and whether or not the commission is agreeable to commercial at that location. It makes sense to be commercial. Between preliminary and final, the applicants can provide a site plan showing their plan for the property.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE REZONING WAS AS FOLLOWS:
VOTING AYE: ADAMS, LEE, KREUN, HUTCHISON, CHRISTENSEN, AND HAGNESS.
VOTING NAY: MALM, MATEJCEK, WHITCOMB, JOHN DREES, DR. HALL AND GRASSER.
NOTE: ROBERT DREES LEFT THE MEETING PRIOR TO VOTE BEING TAKEN.

THE VOTE WAS TIED. MOTION DEFEATED. THE ITEM WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

Hagness said according to the discussion, commission members wanted more detail; they were not necessarily against the project. He felt the proposed plan should be given preliminary approval and have the applicants come back with plans showing what they want to do with the property. The commission could deny them at final approval if the plan is not acceptable but he felt they should be given a chance. Christensen agreed.

Hutchison left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LORI MILLER, ON BEHALF OF LKM ENTERPRISES, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS, OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN.

Gengler reviewed the ordinance to change the 2035 Land Use Plan from residential to commercial for Lot D, Block 1, Haley’s 1st Subdivision. In order for the rezoning to take effect, the ordinance changing the land use plan has to be approved.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO APPROVE CHANGING THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN TO REFLECT COMMERCIAL ZONING FOR LOT D, BLOCK 1, HALEY’S 1ST SUBDIVISION. MOTION CARRIED WITH JOHN DREES AND GRASSER VOTING NAY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LKM ENTERPRISES, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX LOT D, BLOCK 1, HALEY’S 1ST SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH WASHINGTON AND 55TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler stated staff’s recommendation is for approval of the annexation of Lot D, Block 1, Haley’s 1st Subdivision and to pass the approval on to city council. Also staff should be directed to review the previously approved annexation resolution affecting the remainder of the subdivision.

Adams asked why annex the property if the Millers are unable to get approval for rezoning of the proposed property. Gengler said the annexation would be contingent upon the approval of the rezoning and the plan amendment.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO ANNEX LOT D, BLOCK 1, HALEY’S 1ST SUBDIVISION CONTINGENT ON THE REZONING APPROVAL. ALSO, STAFF IS DIRECTED TO REVIEW THE ANNEXATION RESOLUTION PASSED IN 1999 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION.

Whitcomb said she was hesitant to approve the annexation because the Heitmann’s are not at the meeting to speak on this issue.

Gengler reminded member that the rezoning ordinance and the ordinance changing the 2035 land use plan are in the preliminary stage and will have to be given final approval before any annexation is actually in place. The Heitmanns will receive notification of the annexation.

Christensen stated that just because the annexation is proceeding on the proposed rezoning property does not mean that annexation will take place on the All Seasons Garden Center. The council still has the discretion not to annex their property even with the annexation resolution from 1999 on file.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DEVELOPMENT HOMES, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5, ALL OF PERKINS 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS AND ALL OF PERKINS 6TH THROUGH 12TH RESUBDIVISIONS TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (3880 SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD).

Brooks reviewed the ordinance request and showed an aerial photo of the property. The applicant is requesting the addition of a six-unit townhome to their existing site. The townhome is for adults with autism as well as a resident manager. They will have zoning of B-3 type uses to include a six-unit townhome for the site.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING TO INCLUDE AN ADDITION FOR ADULTS WITH AUTISM. MOTIO CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY 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.

Durrenberger reviewed the ordinance to address the new type of signage. Staff will continue to review the ordinance with the sign subcommittee to address safety concerns and effects on adjacent properties but still allow business owners to advertise their products. He covered the various parts of the ordinance such as the definitions and types of illumination (blinking or fading). A definition is still needed for a changeable sign. He talked about the various types of signs such as changeable copy signs, graphic display signs, video display signs, multi-vision signs, time and temperature and vehicle signs. A vehicle sign is currently not part of the city code but it was felt it needed to be addressed. This is to eliminate someone placing a vehicle in the extraterritorial zoning and advertising from it. The bulk of the ordinance addresses electronic signage as well as amending the existing code to reinstate areas that were left off. It covers such things as duration, orientation (i.e. shining into residential homes) and safety. There will be feedback from businesses, sign companies and the sign subcommittee. The ordinance is very technical with much of the technical information being provided by the sign company representatives.

Gengler said the goal is to get preliminary approval and start it through the system. Work will continue on the ordinance between preliminary and final approval.

Christensen asked if the ordinance affected existing signs. Durrenberger answered existing signs would be grandfathered in but if businesses wanted to add another type of electronic sign, they would have to conform to new rules and regulations. Christensen asked about the billboard electronic sign located at Demers/Washington Street. Gengler said certain provisions will be implemented that will have retroactive abilities, such as automatic dimmers and actual operations of signs during daytime operations. Flashing signs are one area where business owners will have to conform to flashing rates if the sign has the capability of doing so. The idea is to even the play field for all businesses with electronic signage. The intent is not to eliminate sign companies or signage. Most of the new signs can meet the regulations.