Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

April 7, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek, Sheryl Smith and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Bill Hutchison and John Jeno. 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 MARCH 3, 2004.
Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of March 3, 2004. There were none and Malm declared the minutes approved as presented.

Malm announced a request was received to withdraw Item 4-4 (West Campus PUD, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1).

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS:

3-1. (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 requested the item be tabled until the May 5, 2004, meeting to allow attorneys from both sides to meet and discuss issues.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE MAY 5, 2004, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM JON LARSON AND VAN LARSON, ON BEHALF OF SURE FOOT CORP. FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE PART OF THE WESTERLY TWENTY (20) FEET OF NORTH 14TH STREET FROM DYKE AVENUE SOUTH TO THE BNSF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALL OF NORTH 15TH STREET FROM DYKE AVENUE SOUTH TO THE BNSF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOTS 1-12, BLOCK 16, BUDGE AND ESHELMAN’S 3RD ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF 1401 DYKE AVENUE.

Durrenberger reviewed the vacation request and noted there were several issues that had to be addressed on the property. One of the earlier issues was to determine who needed to sign the petition to vacate. A revised petition was received in the office with signatures included on behalf of Burlington Northern Railroad so all appropriate owners did sign the petition. The city Engineering Department suggested a modification to the initial request. In surveying 14th Street, it appears BurlingtonNorthern SantaFe (BNSF) Railroad uses 14th Street for access. Durrenberger stated there was a utility building belonging to BNSF that sets at the end of North 14th Street and access on both sides of the building is utilized by BNSF. The initial request was modified to provide adequate access right-of-way for BNSF. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request.

Kerian asked what was remaining on N. 14th Street. Durrenberger replied that the vacation request only includes enough right-of-way for the new building addition. She further asked if there was a street access and Durrenberger answered yes and there are utilities located in the remaining street right-of-way on the east side of the requested vacation so addition vacation of N. 14th Street would not be needed.

Durrenberger further explained that at the time of site plan review, the relocation of the existing watermain would be addressed.

Grasser stated the watermain is private for the BNSF but it would be necessary to have an easement in order to service the watermain if needed.

Malm asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. There was no one to speak and he returned the issue to the Commission.

Kreun asked if the access to BNSF was for larger vehicles. Durrenberger answered in the affirmative, stating it was used for trucks to get to the service road. Kreun said the access would be necessary for emergency equipment also.

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

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUSAN CHRISTOPHERSON AND JAN RESS, ON BEHALF OF SCOTT REIERSON, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO ALLOW A DOG DAYCARE AND BOARDING FACILITY IN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18-0216(3)(L) OF THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR LOTS 160 THROUGH 164, BLOCK 3, WILLMAR ADDITION, GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1515 DEMERS AVENUE.

Gengler reviewed the request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a dog daycare and boarding facility in the B-3 District. He mentioned the ordinance allowing such a facility had been discussed and approved in previous meetings. Members were referred to documentation included in packets that dealt with the compliance of the CUP. He discussed the various issues for the plan of operation as submitted by the applicants. The plan of operation covered hours of operation, indoor areas, outdoor areas, site plan submittal, maximum number of dogs and the expiration of the CUP. Gengler said the plan does appear to meet the requirements. Gengler reminded the Commission members that the ordinance stated the fenced outdoor area could be located no closer than 300 feet to an existing residential structure; however, the Commission and Council had the discretion to waive the requirement. Gengler presented an air photo of the property being requested by the applicants to be utilized as a dog daycare facility. He noted the approximate location of the proposed outdoor fence area. He also showed a Geographic Information System (GIS) proximity map that indicated approximate distances to the surrounding properties. Immediately to the west located approximately 125 feet was the Diamond Lounge and Gengler pointed to several residential structures ranging from 105 feet as the closest to 280 feet for the farthest location under 300 feet. The applicants requested the 300 minimum distance be waived as provided for in the ordinance to approximately 105 feet, the closest residential structure. The ordinance allowed a minimum of 100 feet for a commercial structure and the closest commercial structure to the proposed dog daycare facility would be 125 feet.

Gengler noted 28 dogs would be the maximum number allowed to be kept for daycare services and this would be based on the square footage of the facility. The maximum number of 14 dogs would be allowed for overnight boarding and that number was based on 50% of the maximum number of dogs allowed for daycare services.

Staff’s recommendation for the CUP expiration time would be 10 years. The CUP allowed up to 20 years but the happy medium was determined to be 10 years. Staff’s recommendation was for approval of the CUP as presented.

Kweit asked about notification of the CUP to surrounding property owners and Gengler replied that property owners within 400 feet of the proposed facility were notified. There were no formal complaints or concerns received in the office.

Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. Malm returned the issue to the Commission members.

Kerian asked about the impervious surface of the fenced area. Gengler stated the fenced area was located on the west side of the proposed building and there was an existing driveway (30-40 feet in width) that would be utilized as part of the fenced area. An existing door leads out to the proposed fenced area (existing slab). Staff decided not to apply the full bufferyard around the fenced area since the area is currently paved. There would be a curb stop put in place that would detract water from being spread onto the driveway and also allow the water to be sprayed back onto the gravel and grass area. Staff did not feel there was enough deviation for it not to be allowed.

Kerian asked about the hatched area drawn on the CUP site plan and Gengler stated that was the mandatory landscaped area.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ROBERT AND MARILYN WOCKEN FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE COLUMBIA PARK 29TH DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), COLUMBIA PARK 29TH RESUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3715 MULBERRY DRIVE. THE APPEAL IS FOR A DECREASE IN THE MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FOR SIDE YARDS IN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICTS.

Gengler reviewed the request for an appeal on a decrease in the minimum building setback for side yards in the R-1 Districts. The applicant wants to construct a single family residence in the Columbia Park 29th Resubdivision which has been designated as one of three affordable housing districts. Gengler reminded the Commission that special concessions were made for the designated affordable housing districts. The affordable housing districts differ from standard subdivisions in that the typical 10-foot utility easements adjacent to the public streets are increased to 15 feet and the normal 80-foot public right-of-way for local streets was reduced to 70 feet. Requests for variance in impervious surface and side yard setbacks have been received and presented to the Commission in the past. However, the current request was for undeveloped property and staff could not determine a hardship as stated in the code. Gengler noted that typically the Board of Adjustments would determine the outcome but the property is located in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and comes under the Commission’s purview. Since it is a new development, Gengler stated it could set a precedent for further requests, if approved. Staff’s recommendation was for denial.

Grasser asked if the request would place the house in the easement.

Gengler said the north side is the standard 15-foot utility easement, the west side (Mulberry Drive) would be the other street frontage easement. The proposal is for a variance on the south lot line. There is a 15-foot section of the house that would encroach into the mandatory side yard setback of 7 feet. The remainder of the house would be in conformance with the required setback.

There were further questions regarding the easement line and the options for allowing the variance.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Bob Wocken, applicant, said he and his wife have lived in Thompson, North Dakota since 1977 and they bought the property in Grand Forks as their retirement home. He offered appreciation to Brad Gengler for his help in assisting them through the whole process. Mr. Wocken presented Commission members background information on the property by stating they purchased the property from Greenberg Realty and signed a purchase agreement in October 2003. He said it was sold to them as a 90-foot wide lot by 127-foot deep. They had house plans drawn up to cover 300 square feet. After he received his title insurance, he found out about the 15-foot easement on the west side of the lot rather than the typical 10-foot easement. Between the easement being larger than normal and the lot being 2-feet smaller than was sold to him, he stated he lost 7 feet. Mr. Wocken said he called the realtor about it and was told “there are buyers out there and you can sell your lot.” Mr. Wocken said he was trying to inform the realtor that he should know about the easement and should not misrepresent it to prospective buyers. He then knew he had a problem with the property. If he remained at the 15-foot easement, the house would go to within 3 feet of the south property line. He found out there were no utilities located in the 15-foot easement. All the utilities were located in the east and west end of the lots. Mr. Wocken stated his plans have been drawn up and all estimates are in from sub-contractors. He was hoping not to have to change much in the house plans and had planned to have the hole already dug. He said he would like to shift into the easement by one or two feet if possible and hoped the Commission would reach a compromise with him.

Hagness asked Mr. Wocken what was planned for the 15 feet that juts out on the south side.

Mr. Wocken stated there were two bedrooms planned on the front of the house and the one on the south end would have to extend out somewhat, otherwise the area would not be usable for a bedroom.

Hagness asked Grasser if there was any intent to have utilities in the 15-foot easement.

Grasser said he would find it unlikely that the water, storm and sewer would all be put in on the north side.

Hagness asked if there were no utilities in that area, would there be an objection to moving the house over into the easement.

Potter asked that the plat map be shown to Commission members.

Grasser left the meeting.

Matejcek said the property owner had the full easement on one side because he is the end lot. He asked if the property owner shares the easement with his neighbor on the other side.

Gengler explained the side yard setbacks to Commission members, stating that lots that are between 60 feet and 99.9, 20% of the width of the lot is needed for side yards. The lot is 87.96 so 17+ feet is needed. The sum of the two side yards has to equal the 17+feet. In each district a minimum is stated and the minimum in the R-1 is 7 feet.

Dr. Hall stated the drawing shows the garage opening onto Mulberry Street and wondered if the house could be turned around to face Pembrooke Drive.

Mr. Wocken said he would be the only house on Pembrooke but it also would leave no yard space. The lot is 90 feet wide and the house is 40 feet deep.

Grasser returned to the meeting with the combination plat map that included utilities. Malm asked him to show the map under the camera. Grasser stated the storm sewer and water lines are in the easement but they are located on the outside edge. The footings would go down 8 feet deep and with a basement, it would be very tight. Grasser said as the city engineer he would have to vote against approving the request. He said he did not know where any of the private utilities were located. The detriment to moving the house over would be if there was a watermain break, it could undermine the home. Grasser said there also needs to be room to get equipment into the area for repairs. If the watermain were five feet further into the easement, Grasser said he would be telling the Commission to not even consider it. He stated he would just present the information for the Commission and let them decide.

Mr. Wocken said going four feet into the easement would be too extreme for him but wondered if the Commission would consider compromising on 2.5 feet into the easement. Any consideration would be beneficial.

Potter stated an unknown factor remains. The easement is for public utilities, telephone, cable, etc. The city engineer can only speak to the utilities from a public standpoint. The city does not know what is in the easement from a private utility standpoint. He stated he does not think it is wise to consider approving the request but if the Commission entertains doing so, the issue should be deferred in order to research it. If all the utilities are in place, they would be running the length of the frontage.

Whitcomb asked why the staff would not know what utilities were in place at this time.

Potter stated it is not known if the private utilities have been installed. The private utilities are not required to register with the city and staff did not drive out to the area to see if there were pedestals in place. Normally, city staff would never recommend encroaching into the easements because of the problems created later on. Before Commission members decide, Potter stated that city staff needs to check out exactly what utilities are in place and what others might be placed there.

Whitcomb asked if Potter wanted the issue tabled for one month. Potter said only if the Commission is considering allowing the encroachment into the easement. Potter further stated state law does not require the registration of the private utilities.

Malm said staff could research the easement issue and contingent on the research, approval could be given to the property owner to move forward.

Potter asked if the Commission wanted to approve the request or not. If the Commission desires to approve it and over-rule the staff, he requested that the utility easements not be considered. If the Commission feels the variance should be approved, then they should just do so. If approved to move into the easement, that might be an issue in the future.

Mr. Wocken asked if the private utility companies (cable, telephone) could put the utilities in as if it were a 10-foot or 12.5 easement and not have it closer to the house.

Potter explained that the utility companies just put it in and feedback to others would not be available. The city had found that in the narrower right-of-ways utility companies just put them in and at times, end up cutting someone else’s cable.

Mr. Wocken said he was told that all the utility companies are public utilities since they pay fees to the city to put them in.

Potter said the terminology of public utilities would refer to something the city owns. The city does not own the cable TV or telephone; those are considered private utilities. They are public in the sense that they provide a public service, but they are not utilities owned by the city.

Kreun said the reason the easement was different from standard subdivisions was because the city allowed smaller lots and gave up some street right-of-way to make street paving less costly. The intent was not to allow any building on the easements. Kreun said it would be better to just consider the variance and not consider allowing the applicant to build over the easement.

Malm closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK FROM SEVEN (7) FEET TO THREE (3) FEET.

Grasser pointed out that a house 3 feet from the property line, plus an overhang of 18” and a downspout, places the house very close to the neighbor. The city often gets involved with neighbor disputes when one neighbor is dumping water on another neighbor’s property and problems arise from that. Granting the variance would not guarantee problems but Grasser said it could create problems. He stated if the Commission decides to approve the variance, he wanted the owner to make very sure water was contained on his own property.

Drees stated the house was too big for the lot configuration and 3 feet is not enough distance from the neighbor.

Mr. Wocken asked how much area the city wanted between the lots. He would be willing to take one foot off the bedroom area and that would leave four feet between the house and the property line. He stated he would like to leave the meeting with an answer one way or the other and he was willing to compromise.

Grasser asked that Mr. Wocken show the change of one foot on the site plan and to show the detail of the down spouts and also where the water would discharge.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO AMEND THE PENDING MOTION AND REDUCE THE SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK FROM SEVEN (7) FEET TO FOUR (4) FEET.

Gengler said the motion is to basically approve a four-foot building setback. Members concurred.

Grasser asked for additional input from Potter and from Bev Collings, Inspections Office.

Potter said if a variance was granted, the Commission should decide what the footage would be, but to determine it on the opposite side from where the easement was located.

Bev Collings, Inspections Office, stated situation was difficult and it was unfortunate the plans were drawn up with the idea that the lot was bigger. However, they are just plans and could be changed. She suggested the bedroom could remain the same size but possibly consider reducing the garage area. She stated that if the issue had gone to the Board of Appeals, it would not have been approved. It is an undeveloped lot and does not constitute a hardship case. The plans do not fit the lot. The only reasonable portion is that it is only for 15 feet and not the whole depth of the house. Collings reiterated that this is a new development and seven (7) feet is not unreasonable for a new home.

Malm asked the recorder to read the amended motion.

Lee wanted clarification that the variance would not be allowed on the easement side and Malm stated that was correct.

Kreun said the city personnel did their jobs correctly in questioning the easement issue and the Commission was the appropriate place for the discussion.

Malm asked for a vote on the amended motion to approve the variance from 7 feet to 4 feet from the property line.

ROLL CALL VOTE INDICATED THE FOLLOWING: VOTING AYE: WHITCOMB, SMITH, KREUN, KERIAN, DR. HALL AND HAGNESS. VOTING NAY: MATEJCEK, MALM, LEE, KWEIT, GRASSER AND DREES. THE VOTE WAS A TIE VOTE (6-6). MALM DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED AS A RESULT OF A TIE VOTE.

Whitcomb asked the applicant if there was a possibility of reducing the dimensions of the garage or bedroom in order to eliminate the need for a variance.

Mr. Wocken said he would be willing to compromise, but wants to take as little as possible out of the house. The house is their retirement home.

Malm said the issue was still not resolved and Commission members could make a new motion.

Matejcek spoke to the owner and said he voted against it because it is too close to the neighboring structure.

Further discussion continued.
MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

Kreun asked Mr. Wocken if he had considered buying additional property from the adjacent property. Mr. Wocken said he would have bought the entire adjacent lot but it had already been sold.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK, GRASSER AND DREES VOTING NAY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SCOTT STAUSS, ON BEHALF OF THE HAMPTON CORPORATION, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE ALL OF PINE CIRCLE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT UTILITY EASEMENTS THERETO IN LOTS 26-33, BLOCK 2, PERKINS FOURTH ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE 3000 BLOCK OF 40TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request to vacate a cul-de-sac. Originally the area was platted as single family residential cul-de-sacs. Once the vacation request is approved, the area will be replatted and rezoned for townhomes. The easements are in place but there are no utilities in place. The vacation includes only the internal easements around the cul-de-sac. Staff recommendation is to approve the vacation request.

Grasser stated there are utilities in place but the utilities will be vacated and turned over to the private owners. The utilities in place only serve that area.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS COUNTY, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF FAIRGROUNDS FIRST RESUBDIVISION BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4 OF A REPLAT OF BLOCK 4, FAIRGROUNDS SUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 81, NORTH COLUMBIA ROAD AND GATEWAY DRIVE.

Durrenberger reviewed the request. The request is from the county to replat a portion of the Fairgrounds property. The intent is to sell off the eastern portion of the property. Staff’s recommendation was to approve.

Jerry Pribula, land surveyor, showed an aerial map of the property. The entire property is owned by the Grand Forks County. Pribula pointed out the Speedway and the County Highway Department building. The County plans to keep the property where the County Highway Department is located and the property adjacent to the highway department property. The replat will allow the property next to Highway 81 to be sold. He noted there has been interest expressed by the Calvary Cemetery to buy the property, but the property will be put up for bid. Pribula noted the map shows the utilities on the property. He said there were also some access issues on Highway 81 and the city would like the approach presently there to stay but that would be the only access point for the property (Lot 6). A private road would be platted for the existing roadway from North Columbia Road to Gateway Drive, but with public easement due to city utilities in place. He asked the Commission to contemplate the access issues. If the Commission voices any problems or concerns he would work with staff over the next month to clear up any concerns. The request is for preliminary approval and the request would be on the agenda next month for final approval. The plan is for the County to retain Lots 1 and 2 as long as they have a county highway department. By making the now public road a private road, the county highway department will maintain the road. There is equipment on site to maintain the road. Pribula stated the County is selling the property to pay for the dike assessment. If the property is sold to the cemetery, it might require rezoning for the property.

Hagness asked about the property line around the impoundment building. Pribula said the impoundment building would be on a separate lot (Lot 5).

Hagness asked Malm if there was a agreement with the Fairboard to take the building. Malm answered the building did not belong to the Fairboard. Hagness asked if it were leased. Malm said the County is acquiring title to the whole property. Once the County has acquired title to the property, it would be sold. There were questions about the building but there was no proof of a lease. There is no signed lease or recorded deed that places the property with anyone but the Grand Forks County.

Hagness asked if the building was going to be taken away from the Fairboard. Malm said state law requires that fairground space be provided as long as a fair is held. If a fair is not held on the property for two years, the County does not have to provide space for them.

Hagness asked if the go-kart facility would be eliminated. Malm answered that no one would be eliminated unless someone buys the property for another use. The property is being sold to pay the county’s $200,000 dike assessment.

Jerry Pribula stated there is one recorded lease but it states the Fairboard is responsible for any special assessments. If they can pay the dike assessment, the lease is good but if not, the lease is void.

Hagness asked about the BMX and go-kart areas. Pribula stated Mr. John Herz, cemetery board member, had said if the cemetery became the purchaser of the property, they are willing to allow the BMX and go-kart tracks to remain in place until such time the property is developed for other uses. Since the property will be a bid, another buyer might purchase the land and there would be no guarantee that the tracks would remain.

Hagness said his understanding was that the Fairboard building would remain and if the cemetery purchased the property, they would go to the east of the building. Pribula said that was originally the plan but the lot would not be big enough if it were bisected.

John Herz, 1019 22nd Avenue South, stated Lot 5 is a separate lot with a building on it. It is not included in the area that Calvary Cemetery was interested in.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Change plat title to “Fairgrounds Third Resubdivision.”
3. Label Columbia Road as a “collector” and North Washington Street as a “minor arterial.”
4. Dimension existing easements from lot lines.
5. Add book and page or document numbers for existing easements.
6. Label all lands surrounding plat boundary as shown.
7. Show access control line along North Washington Street.
8. Plat approval recognizes a variance to the subdivision code 18-0907(L) right-of-way. Owners want to relocate existing approach road from southeast corner of Lot 6, Block 1, to the northeast corner as shown.
9. Reverse symbols for monument found-set in legend.
10. Show correct lot areas on drawing and in legend box.
11. Consider changing scale of plat to one that is easily interpreted.
12. Show new easements for all existing utilities within plat boundary.
13. Show outline of all existing structures.
14. Show ground contours or spot elevations.
15. List 100-year flood elevation as elevation 829.00.
16. Consider rotating drawing to place north at the top of the page.
17. Show blow-up view of distances and pin placement on east corner of Lot 6.
18. Enlarge utility easements along Columbia Road and No. Washington Street to 15’ wide.
19. Label first 10-feet (adjacent to right-of-way) as “water, sewer and pedestrian/bikeway usage” and the second five (5) feet as “utility easement.”
20. Access location change on North Washington Street needs NDDOT approval.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MICHAEL BENSON, ON BEHALF OF RICHARD NOVAK, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT, THE WEST FIVE (5) FEET OF LOT 12, LOTS 14, 16 AND 18, BLOCK C, BUDGE AND ESHELMAN’S 2ND ADDITION, LOCATED AT 1217 6TH AVENUE NORTH.

Malm said a request had been received to table the issue.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO TABLE THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JOHN ERICKSON, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE K. ADAMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADY RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADY RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF SHADY RIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADY RIDGE COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request. The property is located in the Shady Ridge PUD and was platted for single family homes. Now developers want to change the uses to single family, attached homes. The plan calls for a limit of 14 units.

Drees asked if the plan was for duplex facilities. Durrenberger said it was two units with a common wall.

Grasser stated the area was under discussion in a standing committee to determine what options are available for city utilities. He said he was not comfortable voting on the change until some direction is received from the city committee and council. Part of the issue revolves around sanitary sewer. Grasser said the lots that are adjacent to East Lake have been allowed to have septic systems and drain fields to be put in based on one-acre minimum lot size. If 14 units are allowed, there will not be sufficient area for the drain field. Unless there are other provisions on how that will be addressed, Grasser said the issue was premature.

Potter stated the issue was in a standby committee and for whatever reason that committee has not moved the issue forward. If the Commission waits for the committee to meet, the chances of getting something built in the area this year would be nil. He suggested granting preliminary approval and sending the issue to the City Council. Let the City Council decide to hold the item if necessary.

Drees said it took a long time for the lots just outside the city to come down from 5 acres to 2.5 acres just for the septic system issue. The decision now would be to allow two homes on 1 to 1.5 acres. He stated that would be too close together and the plan should be put on hold until city services would be available in the area or if each household were placed on 2.5 acres.

Hagness stated there have been issues that have been brought up for many years for that particular area. There had not been proper sewage sanitary drainage or lift stations in the area because of the cost associated with building a lift station. He suggested that other homes in the area might be jeopardized by adding more homes to the drainage system. Hagness said he wanted to know where the money was coming from to build a lift station. He was told a decision had not been made for funding.

Potter stated the city council had made a determination that the area should have sewer capability (lift station).

Hagness asked when a lift station would be built. Potter said a decision had not been made on that.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Outline and show area of Amendment No. 1 and label on plan. Label area as Single-family attached homes.
2. Identify land use type for Amendment No. 1— Condominium uses.
3. Under Shadyridge Estates PUD Approvals, Concept Amendment No. 1 add Single-family attached homes limited to fourteen (14) units.
4. Add to lower CDP title: Amendment No. 1. Remove all legal descriptions except Shady Ridge Estates Fifth Resubdivision.
5. Show 62nd Avenue South and label as a Minor Arterial.
6. Add General Notes:
7. Future lot and block designations shall conform to sub-area numbers when practical.
8. Final approval of a Planned Unit Development Project – As per Grand Forks City Code Section 18-0223.
9. Sign regulations, parking regulations and additional requirements, exceptions and modifications shall generally conform to Article 3, of the Land Development Code.

MOTION FAILED WITH MALM, KREUN, KWEIT, KERIAN, WHITCOMB, GRASSER, LEE, DREES AND HAGNESS VOTING NAY.


4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE WEST CAMPUS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE WEST CAMPUS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF WEST CAMPUS RESUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED BETWEEN INTERSTATE 29 AND NORTH 42ND STREET AND BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND DEMERS AVENUE.

This item was withdrawn.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Matejcek discussed the possible need for a Realtor Code of Ethics. He stated the treatment of Mr.Wocken by the realtor was very poor. However, he noted the house was being built in an affordable housing district. The developers and buyers received benefits for the affordable housing designation. Some of the problems noted should be addressed by the city. Matejcek stated most of the realtors are probably guilty of misrepresentation of some information to buyers and the Commission will see many of the problems generated by incorrect information in the future.

Lee said if the realtor had explained the property the way it really was, the issue would not have been on the table tonight.

Hagness asked if home plans were brought to the Engineering Department. Grasser said the first time the city sees a plan would be when the owner was seeking a building permit and that is usually well past the time the lot was purchased.

Kreun stated he agreed with Matejcek. It is the moral responsibility of the realtor to provide the prospective buyer with correct information. Then it becomes the responsibility of the buyer to follow up and double-check the information. He suggested Potter, Grasser, and Collings write a letter to the Board of Realtors indicating the need for correct information being given to buyers. If problems and concerns start to develop, the possibility exists that additional affordable housing districts would not be approved in the future.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO DIRECT STAFF OF PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF REALTORS INDICATING A NEED FOR ALL REALTORS TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DREES TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.