Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

March 3, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek, and Sheryl Smith. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Tom Hagness and Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Brad Gengler, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior.


2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 4, 2004.
Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of February 4, 2004. There was no response and Malm declared the minutes approved as presented.


3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS:

Matejcek made a point of order. He asked why the dog daycare issue was placed further down on the agenda when it was a continued issue from last month and was the first one last month. He said the proposed owners of the dog daycare had been working on the issue for several months and they should be heard first.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DREES TO MOVE THE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3-4 TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 3-1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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); SECTION 18-0216 B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, SUBSECTIONS (3) CONDITIONAL USES AND (11) SPECIAL CONDITIONS; SECTION 18-0218 I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES; AND SECTION 18-0219 I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES, ALL RELATING TO DOG DAYCARE AND BOARDING FACILITIES.

Gengler reviewed the ordinance stating he wanted to go through the changes of the ordinances with the Commission.

Section 11, Special Conditions: (F) 2(b) – Gengler noted that section had created a point of discussion. The discussions were concerning the appropriate distance from the fenced-in outdoor area to adjacent residential and commercial structures. The suggestion in the ordinance is that the outdoor fenced area be no closer than 300 feet to a residential structure or 100 feet from a commercial structure. He noted the next sentence allows the Commission and City Council the option of establishing a minimum distance less than stated if it is determined that the proximity of the fenced area to residential and /or commercial structures will not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. That sentence provides a discretionary clause in the approval process because it is a conditional use permit (CUP). Each situation could be different and without the discretionary option, many opportunities could be excluded, especially in the B-3 District. It is currently still allowed in the B-3, I-1 and I-2 Districts as a conditional use permit.

Hutchison asked where the 300 feet designation came from?

Gengler stated it was not an arbitrary number. In the research of other similar developments, the range was from no restrictions to 300-400 feet. Staff decided on 300 feet and the Health Department also agreed.

Hutchison noted the top of the range was picked from all the research and Gengler agreed.

Gengler said staff discussed the issue and finally decided to go with the 300 feet but also to include the discretionary option.

Gengler referred members to the next change.

Section 11, Special Conditions: (F) 2(d) – Gengler said he discussed the sanitary issues with various city department members to determine how it could be done without having an overhead canopy or a drainage system. 2(d) explains that a maximum of 300 square foot impervious slab (fenced) would be constructed with a gravel material around the impervious area of 3 feet in width. Then the graveled area would be surrounded by a minimum of seven feet in width of grass and sight obscuring trees.

Gengler explained that the impervious surface would be sprayed and the gravel would be the initial saturation point. Then the seven-foot landscaping area would address most of the concerns addressed. The hard material would be cleaned up appropriately.
Dr. Kweit said the issue was a point of concern at the February meeting and he asked the city engineer, Al Grasser, if the ordinance addressed his concerns.

Grasser said it could work but thought it might be too specific. He said he would like to leave a judgement factor depending on the site. He had no problems with the plan.

Jeno asked about the winter months when everything was frozen. Gengler answered that staff would clean up the best they could during winter months.

Gengler addressed the next change.

(11) Special Conditions (F) 4. Gengler explained that originally the ordinance was established at 30 square feet of indoor floor area per dog. That number has been changed to 50 square feet of indoor floor area per dog.

(11) Special Conditions: (F) 5. Gengler said the maximum number of dogs kept for boarding at any given time would not exceed fifty (50) percent of the maximum number of dogs allowed in the facility.

(11) Special Conditions: (F) 7, Gengler said the CUP was left at 20 years. Setting the CUP for a period of less than 20 years could cause problems with prospective owners’ funding.

Kreun asked if the conditions were not met, what is the process for revoking the CUP?

Gengler said there was not a revocation clause built in, but there are standard operating procedures built in the CUP. The owners would have to meet the City Council on the issues. The Planning Department is the holder of the CUPs.

Grasser asked if there was an option to change a 20-year CUP if federal or state regulations changed.

Potter said federal or state law regulations change constantly; the city would have to determine a way to bring the business into compliance. If that was unsuccessful, the city attorney would have to determine the strategy for bringing the business into compliance.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Sue Christopherson, 1601 7th Avenue North, thanked everyone that had worked with them on the project. She stated the ordinance presented to the Commission works for the project 99% but 1% does not work for them. They want to be in the B-3 District. If they have to be 300 feet from a residential structure or 100 feet from a commercial structure, then it virtually eliminates any B-3 District. She also stated there is a concern on the 11(F) 2b section that has a discretionary option. She likes the option but is afraid it will be eliminated.

Ms. Christopherson showed pictures of other dog daycare facilities and indicated that ways have been found to make the business work in various communities. She said 75 feet from a structure is doable for them. She discussed the noise issue stating they went to the humane society with a decimeter to see what the noise level was. Standing outside of the structure, no noise was indicated. Standing outside the dog room in the humane society building, there was an 80% reduction in noise from being inside the room. The inside noise is not an issue. The outside area is only for bathroom times and dogs will be outside 4 times daily for 5-10 minutes. The dogs will not stay outside. She further stated that they can further sound proof the fencing, if necessary. The main goal is to be in a B-3 District and the ultimate goal is to be at 1515 DeMers Avenue.

Lee asked Ms. Christopherson which of the distances was the major problem.

Ms. Christopherson stated the 300 feet from a residential structure was more of a problem for them. In the I-2 Districts, the 100 feet might be more of a problem because there are more businesses. She stated if they could assure that noise is not a nuisance at 75 feet with the conditions of the CUP, then they should be allowed to do that. She indicated on camera the best ordinance they would prefer. They would like to have 11(F)2(b) show the outdoor area to be no closer than 75 feet from any other structure, residential or commercial. An additional clause would state: Additional sound-proofing material would be mandated by the Planning Department if noise causes public nuisance. They would also consider a three or five year CUP since many people are uncomfortable with the length of the 20 year CUP. She requested her changes be considered for the ordinance.

Kerian said the outdoor space seems to be an issue and asked what could be done to sound-proof the area.

Ms. Christopherson stated there are numerous sound-proofing materials such as panels and egg carton type materials that could be attached to the interior of the fence.

Kerian asked if she would consider the 75 feet AND the sound-proofing the fence.

Ms. Christopherson said she did not want to sound proof until they knew they needed to do so. Maybe a fence would be adequate. But they will add sound-proofing if there are complaints of noise.
Dr. Kweit asked what was magic about 75 feet versus the 300 feet.

Mr. Christopherson said that was the number they need for the location they desire and they would be willing to sound-proof to make 75 feet work.
Malm closed the public hearing.

Kerian asked how effective the sound proofing would be on the fence. Gengler said it would help with any noise but would not eliminate it. He said the prospective owners offered the sound-proofing on their own; they were not encouraged or told to do that.

Kerian asked about enforcement of the CUP and asked if a file is kept on the CUPs. Gengler said a file was kept on every CUP approved by the Commission and City Council in the Planning Department.

Lee asked if a review was made on CUPs and to check on complaints. Would it be possible to have a 20-year CUP and then a periodic review of it? Gengler said that could be done but typically it is based on the expiration date and then a recommendation would be made on the continuation of the CUP.

Hutchison said he recently did some research on the internet for the dog daycare. He called one in Rockville, Maryland and talked to the owner. She had opened the daycare several years ago in an adjoining county to where she lived because her home county would not allow one. The business was very new and no one knew how to treat it. The owner had 60-70 dogs in the residence on the day Hutchison talked to her. The owner told Hutchison there were several in operation now in her area. She also told him she was now being allowed to have the business in her home county so she is renting a space to start another one. Hutchison said he would like to see no restrictions on where the business could operate. He suggested that maybe a shorter time than 20 years might be better but he wanted to see the business work.

Kreun said the discretionary clause gives the ability to adjust the distance. He noted the owners are looking at a building in the B-3 District but there are two homes located in that area. He asked if the distance is measured from the zoning district to the next home or the building being considered to the home? Gengler said they knew that would be a problem and that’s why they specifically state “structure” rather than property or zoning district.

Gengler showed a GIS drawing of the building the prospective owners want to use. He said the fenced area was approximately 130 feet from the nearest commercial structure. To the south, the residential structure is 110 to 115 feet from the southerly edge of the fence.

Potter discussed the issue about the 20 year option for the CUP. He noted the text stated “approval of the conditional use permit shall be issued UP TO a maximum of 20 years.” That gives the Commission and City Council the flexibility to decide how long the CUP will be issued. The City Attorney’s advice was to add the “up to” in order to standardize the first “x” amount of time. Allowing up to 20 years allows lenders some comfort for a large project. A permit could be issued for five to seven years so the flexibility has been built into the ordinance for that. He asked that the Commission not mess with maximum of 20 years because a standard was being established.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

Matejcek further stated he had some problem with the 300 feet issue but the discretionary clause should handle that. He asked if neighbors within 400 feet would be notified when the prospective owners ask for a site-specific conditional use permit. Staff answered yes.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM McCOMBS, FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF WAL-MART STORES, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF A REPLAT OF LOTS A, B, C, F AND H, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION, GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD, BETWEEN 32ND AVENUE SOUTH AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 9, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; SECTION 18-0907, SUBSECTION (2), RIGHT-OF-WAY, PARAGRAPH (L), AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS TO ARTERIAL STREETS.

Malm explained that the Commission would be dealing with three items (Item No 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4) and only the three items. They would be discussed at the same time because they are connected. The three items being discussed: (1) access to arterial streets; (2) appeal for the increase of the maximum allowable impervious surface area for B-3 District uses; and (3) appeal for a decrease in the width of the required bufferyard adjacent to 32nd Avenue South. Even though they would be discussed together, each item would require a separate vote.

Gengler explained that one of the main issues to be discussed was the existing entrance to the Sam’s and Walmart stores. The plan is to close the existing entrance and locate a new entrance approximately 340 feet from the existing entrance to the east and adjacent to the existing Grease Monkey business. The city and state are presently reviewing a traffic study which was required by the developer. The purpose of the traffic study was to determine whether or not the proposed entrance could withstand a fully signalized intersection. Walmart wants the signalized intersection. Signalized intersections on the corridor have been an issue for many years. Gengler stated that a signalized intersection at the proposed location would only make it possible for west bound vehicles on 32nd Avenue South to either go straight or take a right to travel north (right in, right out). East bound traffic would be able to take a left to head north on South 25th Street or continue on straight. Another change would be to modify the existing entrance on the west side of Walmart off Columbia Road. The plan is to make it smoother for vehicles to get in and get out on that entrance. Gengler further explained that the existing retail shops between Walmart and Sam’s would be closed and relocated to a newly constructed building adjacent to the proposed entrance relocation. The existing area is approximately 13,000 square feet and the new building would be a approximately 16,000 square feet of retail space. Another change on the plan is a driveway access (ingress, egress) onto 36th Avenue South, located behind the Walmart and Sam’s stores. Gengler also pointed out the proposed Sam’s gas station to be located on 32nd Avenue South. He noted that if the plan is approved and accepted, the entire corridor from Columbia Road to the easterly portion of the property would be built out.

Kerian asked about the traffic patterns from the west. Gengler said the existing curve or jog would be removed and a straighter wider pattern would be created to move traffic through the access. There would also be a 30-foot drive aisle space in front of the store.

Kerian asked about access to the gas station. Gengler said there is an interior ring road that would access the station from the proposed new entrance.

Kerian asked if there was going to be a ring road on the west side up to the gas station. Gengler said it would be possible to use one of the drive aisles to function as a roadway to get to the gas station. He noted the plan shown is not the final plan.

Kreun discussed the traffic pattern in front of the building. He noted the traffic backs up to the stop light on 32nd Avenue South and Columbia Road because of the bottleneck in front of the Walmart store. He suggested a lane be designated as a driving lane to the gas station and also to alleviate the congestion of the traffic.

Gengler said some changes could happen but that would occur under the site plan review.

Potter asked that the Walmart representative be recognized so that he would be aware of the problems being voiced.

Tom Kier, Real Estate Manager for Walmart for the Midwest Region, appeared before the Commission.

Kreun again suggested a drive lane be utilized from the west entrance to direct traffic to the north and provide better access to the gas station. Kreun said the congestion deters him from going to Walmart.

Mr. Kier stated that the proposed entrance on 32nd Avenue South would help alleviate the problem. He stated he has not been to Grand Forks often enough to understand the traffic flow.
Kreun said the main traffic is from Columbia Road turning into the Walmart entrance on the west.

Mr. Kier stated that with the protected left turn on the proposed entrance, most consumers would change their traffic pattern.

Further discussion continued on the traffic pattern in and around the Walmart store including 36th Avenue South located behind Walmart and Sam’s.

Dr. Kweit gave an analogy to the Market Place Mall. When entering there off 32nd Avenue South, a person can turn on the first road and travel down to the store they want to go to and park. This eliminates going down to the second road and driving back and forth in front of the businesses where there are multiple stop signs and pedestrians walking across the road to parking lots.

Malm asked for discussion on the variance to access an arterial street and changing from the existing entrance to the proposed entrance (centered between existing South 25th Street and South 23rd Street).

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

Matejcek asked if the project for moving the entrance had to be sanctioned by the state. Malm answered yes.

Kweit asked about the letter from the Taco Bell owner regarding the effects the entrance change would have on his business.

Mr. Kier stated Taco Bell leases from the Kroenke Group and Taco Bell has no legal rights to object to the change. However, the Walmart Company wants to work with Taco Bell. The plan is to widen the ring road from 22 to 30 feet and that will include changing radius to allow trucks better maneuverability around Taco Bell.

Mr. Kier said the whole project would be phased in with the new retail building being built first and those businesses moved to the new location. The new entrance would then be built and the demolition on the area between Walmart and Sam’s would occur. After that, the new area for the Supercenter would be constructed.

Mr. Kier said they were involved in a lengthy negotiation with the state. There is a substantial amount of work the state plans to do in the spring and presenting the proposed plan before they start construction will help everyone.
Potter stated the discussion is very important. Staff is trying to get the replat approved by the Commission and the City Council to have everything in place so that if the state grants approval of the proposed entrance, everything is ready to go. If the state says no to the proposed signalized intersection, then the plan is dead.

Lee asked who would be responsible for the costs incurred for closing the existing entrance. Mr. Kier said Walmart would be responsible and they would work with Taco Bell on the circulation problems.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE ACCESS RE-LOCATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE ACCESS RE-LOCATION AND PROPOSED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Extend plat boundary to the section line along Columbia Road.
3. Increase right-of-way width to 55’ along Columbia Road as per N.D.O.T. plat.
4. Add 15’ utility easement along Columbia Road.
5. Adjust area of Lot 1.
6. Remove access control lines from existing driveway and dimension.
7. Plat requires ordinance to amend street and highway plan to include additional Columbia Road right-of-way.
8. Show current right-of-way widths south of 36th Avenue South on Columbia Road.
9. Change Block 11 to Block 1 in plat title.
10. Make corrections in owners’ certificate as shown.
11. Extend access control line along 36th Avenue South to 120’ from Columbia Road.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM McCOMBS, FRANK, ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF WAL-MART STORES, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE WAL-MART AND SAM’S CLUB EXPANSION DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, COLUMBIA PARK SOUTH PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), LOTS A, B, C, F AND H, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION, GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD BETWEEN 32ND AVENUE SOUTH AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH. THE APPEAL IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA FOR B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT USES.

Gengler referred Commission members to the map in the agenda packet for Item No. 3-2 and said the area outlined in bold was the area that would be impacted by the request. Gengler stated more analysis was needed to determine the impervious surface area. The appeal specifically requests that the allowable impervious surface area be increased from 85% to 91%. Staff request was for approval contingent upon final review and approval by staff of the detailed development plans to be presented by Walmart at a later date.

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

Matejcek said he was glad to see Walmart in the community and to see the Super Center being planned. However, he stated he was very concerned about the fact that there are presently 371 empty Walmart buildings across the United States. Many of those are in large metropolitan areas and he wondered if Grand Forks would make it. He asked if Walmart had a formula for closing a store and, if so, what is the formula? What are the chances of that happening in Grand Forks? What would happen to the building if it were closed? In other areas of the country, are performance bonds required in case of closures and a building is left standing for years?

Mr. Kier said there is no formula because a Supercenter has never been closed in the history of the company. The only vacant stores are those where they were unable to expand the store and the company was forced to relocate it. He stated a Supercenter has never been relocated in the history of the company. He further said he was surprised at the number of 371; he thought it was much higher. The company is constructing approximately 275 Supercenters a year. Mr. Kier said if they were unable to make the plan work in Grand Forks, they would be forced to move it somewhere else and then store would be vacant. The company is attempting to do the plan where that does not happen. He stated that performance bonds have never happened but the company is very resistant to them. He said he could not speak to that issue because he has never done them.

Matejcek asked what the re-use would be for the vacant building? Would it be put up for lease or sold? Would another discount store be considered for the lease or sale?

Mr. Kier said if the existing store is relocated a block down the street to a new Supercenter, they would not allow another discount store to lease or buy the building. They do not lease or sell to competition. If they left the market (which has never happened with a Supercenter), that might be a consideration.

Kreun asked what the impervious surface area would normally be in a B-3 District? Gengler answered that it was 85% for properties zoned B-3 (General Business).

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE APPEAL TO THE WALMART AND SAM’S CLUB EXPANSION DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, COLUMBIA PARK SOUTH PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FROM 85% TO 91% IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA FOR B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT USES, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SITE DRAINAGE PLAN BY CITY STAFF, TO BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE KROENKE GROUP FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE WAL-MART AND SAM’S CLUB EXPANSION DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, COLUMBIA PARK SOUTH PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION, GRAND FORKS, ND. THE APPEAL IS FOR A DECREASE IN THE WIDTH OF THE REQUIRED BUFFERYARD ADJACENT TO 32ND AVENUE SOUTH FOR PORTIONS OF LOTS CURRENTLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS B AND F, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION.

Gengler stated the request is to encroach into the required front bufferyard which is 25 feet wide. The request is to encroach five feet. Gengler noted there was a reference in the staff report to the rear building setback, however, there is no action needed on the part of the Commission. Staff wants to maintain a minimum of a 10-foot rear yard. Staff requested approval of the five foot encroachment.

Dr. Kweit asked if there was any way to get any green into the encroachment. He suggested planters in the parking lot so it would not look like an asphalt jungle. Could something be done to the additional paving area to break up the paving?

Gengler answered that the code does require a 5% interior landscaping requirement so that is the reason for the additional islands. Gengler said they would work with the developer on that issue.

Kerian asked about the history along 32nd Avenue South corridor and asked if this had been granted previously?

Gengler referred members to the third map on Item No. 3-3. He said the 25’green area was in place in 1990 when the zoning was established. The businesses along 32nd Avenue South have maintained the 25-foot setback. This request is the only deviation and staff determined that five feet was not an unreasonable encroachment.

Lee asked if the five feet encroachment had anything to do with the change in the impervious surface.
Gengler answered that the lot was separate from the Walmart project. There will be an individual review of the lot separate and apart from the Walmart project. The remaining zoning requirements will have to be adhered to.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE APPEAL TO THE WALMART AND SAM’S CLUB EXPANSION DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION. THE APPEAL IS FOR A DECREASE IN THE WIDTH OF THE REQUIRED BUFFERYARD ADJACENT TO 32ND AVENUE SOUTH FOR PORTIONS OF LOTS CURRENTLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS B AND F, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 21ST ADDITION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ADDITION AND COLUMBIA ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NE-1/4 OF SECTION 5, TWP151N, R50W OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Gengler reviewed the request. He stated originally the request included an increase in the residential dwelling units from 200 to 500 units. On February 17, 2004, City Council denied the request and the residential units would remain at 200 units.

Kreun asked if the bikepath was being relocated. Gengler answered that the issue would be addressed when the detailed development plan was presented for review. Where it would go and who would pay for it would be addressed at that point.

Kreun said getting the bikepath and lighting in was an ordeal and he did not want to see it go away.

Gengler said the developer would probably be required to pay for any changes.
Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

Lee asked about the hatched area labeled C3 and inquired how that was different from the larger area marked C-3.

Gengler stated the zoning line is being shifted. The hatched area is the area being rezoned. The uses for the Area 1 were university uses and were established in the original zoning. The original zoning did not allow the commercial uses requested. There is talk of a bank and other commercial offices and that is currently not allowed in that area. Area 2 did not allow gas stations on the permitted use list. The hatched area for C4 would be the only area where a gas station would be permitted.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Change the name of the drawing to: University Village Planned Unit Development, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2.
2. Identify the exact boundaries and label the two areas being changed as shown on the review copy.
3. Make the appropriate changes to the Development Data table that reflect the changes shown on the drawing (land use, sub-area number, etc.).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. (public HEARING) MATTER OF the request from Doug Herzog, CPS Ltd. on behalf of Jim Price REPRESENTING Rydell Chevrolet, for final approval (Fast Track) of the Plat of Rydell First Resubdivision being a replat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 2, including the vacated alley adjacent to said lots and the north 30.00 feet of vacated 26th Avenue South adjacent to Lots 11 through 16, L. N. B. Court to the City of Grand Forks, ND. tHE Property is located at 2605 South Washington Street.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the single property lot be subdivided into two lots. He referred members to the map showing a strip mall with a parking area behind. Durrenberger stated there were utilities in the parking area that service the mall structure and a condition of approval requires a covenant or agreement to provide for the services to continue. Further, in order to maintain the parking integrity, a crossover agreement would be required for the two lots so that the mall would have adequate parking after the property is subdivided.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Jim Price, Rydell Chevrolet, stated there would be no problem with the conditions required for the replat.

Malm closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Use darker line for plat boundary as shown in legend.
3. Identify areas previouslyl vacated by notes or shading (26th Avenue South, Louis Street and vacated alley).
4. Show Block 3 as L.N.B. Court.
5. State basis of bearings.
6. Identify access control along South Washington Street.
7. Label South Washington as a principal arterial and 24th Avenue South as a collector.
8. Use dotted or shaded lines for all existing lot numbers, block numbers and addition names.
9. 20-foot utility easement on the west side of Lot 1 is shown 45-feet wide.
10. Replace the word “thru” with “and” in the owner’s consent on 5th line.
11. Add signer’s name and title to the owner’s consent.
12. Use shortened version of city council approval
13. Shade correct area for plan location in vicinity map.
14. Provide crossover parking agreement.
15. Provide covenant or agreement for included properties to cover all shared utilities.
16. Approval of the Rydell’s Mall site plan.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO SUN-BEAM PUD, DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK F, OF A REPLAT OF LOTS 13-17, BLOCK F OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 18 AND BLOCK 19, SUNBEAM ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 51, 55 AND 59 SLOPING HILLS COVE. THE APPEAL IS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE IMPERVIOUS AREA REQUIREMENT.

Malm noted a request had been received to table the request.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

None.


5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF ATTENDANCE BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS DURING 2003.


6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Matejcek noted that many new things had come or were coming to Grand Forks (Super Target, Walmart Supercenter, Lowe’s) and he voiced a concern that the Planning Department and City Council would begin to look at things such as performance bonds. Some day one of the big buildings will be sitting empty and it will be removed from the tax rolls or be sold for one-fourth of the price which will throw valuations off on other properties on the corridor. He stated it is good planning to not give away the farm when people come into town to do business. He further stated that Grand Forks is a progressive good-looking community and nothing has to be given away to attract businesses. He again mentioned the 371 empty Walmart stores with weeds growing up through cracks in the large parking lots. Grand Forks does not want that on the 32nd corridor and his hope was that in the future, developers and developments would be looked at closely. The city can be business friendly but still be tough and do what is best for the community.

Dr. Kweit said that was an excellent idea and something that should be included in the 2025 Land Use Plan.

Potter said he would pass the observation on to the city attorney. He said that is already happening in the community, i.e. the old Target building, Branigans, and Best Products building.


7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:26 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.