Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
October 6, 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, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Paula Lee, and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Frank Matejcek and Sheryl Smith. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 1 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2004.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of regular minutes of September 1, 2004 and the special meeting held on September 15, 2004. There were no corrections noted and Malm declared the minutes approved as presented.

Malm recognized Cliff Thomforde, a former long time member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Michael Polovitz, former mayor and member of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS:

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM KNIPE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF KNIPE’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE 3000 BLOCK OF SOUTH 69TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was a large rural subdivision. He noted it was originally submitted as Berg’s Second Addition, which was approved but never recorded. The plan was submitted under the new name and the design was consistent with the separation requirements and subdivision regulations. Recommendation by staff was for final approval. However, Durrenberger noted that the plat was delayed at the council level and the public hearing could not take place until November 1, 2004.

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


MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL LAND USE STUDY BY THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) WAS COMPLETED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE SOUTHBROOK PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITH THE SOUTHBROOK PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CURRAN’S 3RD RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 4600 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the property was to be developed for senior housing. The zoning request would limit the number of housing units to 180 units. Since the proposed property was located across the street from the Southbrook Planned Unit Development (PUD), the determination was made to include it within the same PUD to allow future flexibility and design. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

Dr. Kweit asked about the density prior to the proposed rezoning.

Durrenberger said the land was conventionally zoned for agriculture.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Drop “e” from mailbox(e) in Note 4.
2. Add to General Notes: Sign regulations, parking regulations, and additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications shall generally conform to Article 3, of the Land Development Code.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, PARTS OF DEEDED LANDS KNOWS AS THE KINDNESS ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND INTERSTATE 29 RIGHT-OF-WAY EASTERLY THEREOF EXCEPT LANDS PERVIOUSLY ANNEXED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4400 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request and explained the various maps and correspondence included in commission members’ packets. He stated an ordinance by resolution was included since annexation would be involuntary.

Gengler explained the history of the area. He said Johnson’s West First Addition was recently platted and approved for the property just west of the Kindness Animal Hospital. A request was received to annex the commercial property (for the Tractor Supply Company) of Johnson’s West First Addition. East of the proposed addition is the Kindness Animal Hospital. Gengler said, according to state law, if 25% or more of the area to be annexed is protested, the annexation becomes void. The city would have other recourse, however, and all parties might end up in mediation. Staff recommendation was for the annexation area as shown on the annexation map.

Lee asked about the 25%. Gengler stated it meant 25% of the ownership of the parcel to be considered for annexation. Since there is only one property owner involved, it would probably be protested out. The city could pursue the annexation and then mediation would be used.

Drees asked how much of the 5.50 acres was actually used for the animal hospital and how much was future development land?

Gengler showed an aerial photo of the property and the tree line to the north representing the northerly annexation line, which was the same proposal in front of the commission and council in 1995 for another planned development at the same location. The Kindness Animal Hospital was included in that annexation. He referred to a letter in the packet dated May 1, 1995, and signed by Dr. Odegard.

Dr. Hall asked about the tree line. Gengler noted that Dr. Odegard owned the property that crosses Interstate 29, but the only property incorporated in the annexation was the developed portion of the property.

Hagness stated that in 1995 while annexing other property, Dr. Odegard made a good argument to the commission and city council that he was located outside the city limits and could not afford to be annexed. He asked for a five-year delay for annexation and received approval for that delay. For good orderly growth in the city, leap-frog development should not be done. In the past, the property would have been included with the most recent annexation of Johnson’s West First Addition. Mr. Potter requested that the annexations be handled separately. Hagness stated some people do not wish to pay for city services or city taxes, even though they benefit in some way. He said he was convinced at this time to take Mr. Odegard at his word that when adjoining land was developed, he would not oppose annexation. He encouraged members to move forward with the annexation even if it was not a voluntary annexation. He further stated the city had annexed land before when certain criteria were met on the services received to insure that everyone paid a fair share. He noted that all members had received a letter from Dr. Odegard on why he should not be annexed. Hagness said if the Tractor Supply Company was to be annexed, then so should the Kindness Animal Hospital. He went on to say the city has invested in infrastructure and roadways in the area. According to Dr. Odegard’s letter received by commission members, the city wants to increase the tax base to pay for the dike assessment. Hagness said that may be true but everyone should pay for the added protection of the dike system.

Hutchison asked what city services the Kindness Hospital utilizes. Gengler said he did not know what services Kindness Hospital used, but full city services did extend beyond the property.

Grasser indicated the animal hospital does not receive city services at this time.

Drees said Dr. Odegard’s letter indicated the last chance for him to be annexed would be in July 2005. Since Johnson’s West First Addition was allowed to annex only a small portion of their development, Kindness Animal Hospital should be allowed to do the same thing. Also, the commission did not make Johnson’s West Addition change the zoning in the area so that their county taxes would not go up. He asked why Kindness Hospital could not receive the same courtesy. Dr. Odegard has been there for 25 years and now they’re forced to annex the 5.5 acres plus the 4.38 acres. Drees stated that Dr. Odegard should be given a month or two to divide their property into a lot the animal hospital could use and the rest of the acreage be afforded the same advantage as Johnson’s West First Addition. If it is not developed, it should not be annexed. The animal hospital was there for many years and paying school, county and township taxes, but then the property is developed next to them and Dr. Odegard is forced to annex his property.

Dr. Richard Odegard, 3566 69th Street South, stated the letter signed by him to be annexed was tied to the original development and annexation of the property in 1995. That project did not go through so in his opinion, that would make the agreement to be annexed in five years (2000) null and void. He stated Mr. Bushfield, the planning director at that time, told him the annexation would be null and void because the project never materialized. Dr. Odegard said he did not receive any services from the city. In 1998 or 1999, he approached the city about water service and agreed to pay the tapping fees and also at that time agreed to annexation on development or sale of the property next to his property. He stated the engineering department told him he would have to annex all of his property and the city would delay tapping fees for five years, or they would annex it all in five years and he would pay all the tapping fees and all other fees. He said he just dropped the matter at that time. He tried to work with the city a couple of times for services and they could not come to an agreement. Dr. Odegard said he was strongly opposed to the annexation and would do whatever was necessary to keep it from happening.

Dr. Odegard stated that when development took place on the opposite side of the road, he had a strip of land annexed in front of his property for the roadway. He said that strip was a compromise and continuity and that should be the continuity for Tractor Supply Company property. Leaving his property out of annexation would not be leap-frogging. Dr. Odegard stated the tapping fees for water and the sewer and roadway would be around $90,000. The dike assessment is $.17 a foot and would be an additional $7,400 an acre times 5.50 acres which would be another $30,000 - $40,000. He told the commission that eventually that would all be paid because his land would be valuable enough to sell and at that time annexation would take place. He stated he would like to delay annexation until he has the funds to pay for all the fees. Whoever buys the property would need the services at that time. He said the property would be sold within the next two to five years.

Kreun asked about his timeline.

Dr. Odegard said his property was on the market for sale although it was not formally advertised. The property would then be platted.

Kreun questioned his remark about receiving no benefit. He said he received benefit from the levy system that was in place now because of the coulee diversion and the water does not run through his property. The street that already has been constructed has tapping fees but those fees are being paid off over a period of time. The longer Dr. Odegard waits, the less he has to pay. The remainder of the citizens in Grand Forks have had to pay his share. Kreun said Dr. Odegard did receive benefit from the city of Grand Forks and that was the reason for annexation.

Dr. Odegard stated he did not say he received zero benefit. He said he did not receive any services. He further said paving was not better for him; he gets more snow problems now than ever before. He preferred the two lane paved county road over what he has now.

Dr. Kweit read the last paragraph of the letter from May 1, 1995 “In that agreement I have requested that the above named property be annexed upon platting, rezoning, request for services or at the end of a five-year period ending July 1, 2000.” Dr. Kweit said the commission was not premature in annexing, but actually four years behind the time. He said it appeared Dr. Odegard agreed to the conditions at that time and the city was trying to work with him by giving him the additional five years he requested.

Dr. Odegard said the agreement was tied to the development in 1995.

Dr. Kweit stressed the word “or” in the sentence. He further said that Bob Bushfield was not in the city in 2000.

Dr. Odegard said he talked to Bob Bushfield in 1995 when the development was dropped and was told then that since the development did not happen, the agreement was null and void.

Dr. Kweit said that he did not believe Mr. Bushfield had the authority to do that.

Dr. Odegard said he was trying to do the same then as now because of the tremendous cost involved. He said he gets some benefit from the road but getting hooked up to water and sewer was ridiculously high in cost. The “or” in the agreement was to delay for five years from the time the property next to him was annexed.

Dr. Kweit said that was not what the letter said.

Dr. Odegard said that was the agreement though.

Dr. Kweit said that was not what he signed.

Hagness asked Dr. Odegard if he recalled having the same discussion in prior years and the benefits to be derived from annexation. He said Dr. Odegard’s argument at that time had nothing to do with a time limit of five years; it had to do with not being able to afford the fees and costs associated with annexation. He clarified the talk about services by saying the reason the city did not hook Dr. Odegard up with services was because he was not annexed to the city. The services are available in the area and as soon as he becomes annexed, the services are there for him, plus fire and police protection. He asked if it was fair for the rest of the citizens to be paying for him and that he not be annexed into the city. Hagness said he remembered people asking for five years not to be annexed and then came in and asked for further extensions. They did not get those extensions. Dr. Odegard has had nine years to amortize his investment. Hagness told him he would not have to pay for some of the city services that others have had to pay. However, Hagness stated he did agree with not annexing any undeveloped area. He asked if Dr. Odegard would agree to annexation only of the area where his business is located?

Dr. Odegard said he would have to look at that. He said it would depend on the amount of property and the tapping fees.

Hagness said Dr. Odegard should pay his fair share as other citizens do. He asked if he would meet with planning staff and work something out. He suggested delaying the annexation for a month and so Dr. Odegard could work with the city on the annexation.

Dr. Odegard said he would look at it but would not say he would not oppose it.

Hagness said the part of his property that brings the most benefit is his building and that part should be annexed. Hagness talked about meeting with the State Board on annexation and if Dr. Odegard met the point values, he should be annexed.

Dr. Odegard mentioned that he has been in his location for 30 years (property was built in 1974).

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND SUGGESTED DR. ODEGARD WORK WITH THE PLANNING STAFF AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED.

Dr. Hall said a point system was not included in the packets and he wanted to see the point values for annexation.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DREES TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE DECEMBER MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR DR. ODEGARD AND STAFF TO WORK ON THE ANNEXATION AND ALSO TO PRESENT AN ANNEXATION POINTS VALUATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK A OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1, KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED IN THE 2500 BLOCK OF PINEHURST DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating it was a simple lot split. There were originally three lots and the proposal was to create four lots. Staff recommendation was to approve the request.

Malm asked about the size of the lots.

Gengler replied that 11,000 square feet and would be the biggest lot and 10,400 square feet would be the smallest.

Malm asked how big they were prior to the replat.

Gengler said they were approximately 13,000 square feet.

Malm reminded members of someone that built a large house and infringed on someone else. If approved, there should be no variances because the house doesn’t fit.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show dimension for North and South plat boundary.
3. Show “new lot line” in legend.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM EASTER SEALS GOODWILL NORTH DAKOTA, INC., FOR DETERMINATION OF USE THAT A TEMPORARY DONATION COLLECTION FACILITY IS A FITTING AND COMPTABILE USE IN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT.

Gengler reviewed the request for a fitting and compatible land use determination. The determination was made by staff when request was received from Easter Seals Goodwill of North Dakota to establish a temporary collection facility at the former Waterworld site that they have purchased. In the spring they plan to construct a new facility at that site. Current zoning code does not speak to the issue. Gengler stated there will be an 8x8 office building and a standard semi-trailer for donations. Staff felt since there were no exact rules for it in the code, they would seek a fitting and compatible determination from the commission.

Kerian said the notes indicate a facility would be constructed in the spring of 2005. She suggested a date certain for the facility to be built. That would allow all the neighbors to know the temporary situation would only be for a stated length of time.

Gordon Hauge, President of Easter Seals Goodwill and the state office address is 211 Collins Avenue, Mandan, North Dakota, stated a date of August, 2005 would not be a problem. If there are construction issues or problems, he would present the issues to the planning and zoning commission in 2005.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO GRANT A FINDING OF FITTING AND COMPATIBLE DETERMINATION FOR A DONATION COLLECTION FACILITY UNTIL AUGUST 31, 2005. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE R-2 (ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT, LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, BLOCK 2; BLOCK 3; AND BLOCK 4, KELSEY’S 3RD ADDITION; BLOCKS 1 THROUGH 18, EXCLUDING LOTS 6 TO 11; BLOCK 12; AND LOTS C AND D OF A REPLAT OF LOT 14; AND LOTS 23 TO 29, BLOCK 17, SWANGLER SUBDIVISION; LOTS 1 THROUGH 9, UNIVERSITY PARK PLACE ADDITION; LOTS 13 THROUGH 24, BLOCK 17, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION; AND BLOCKS 1 AND 2, WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION.

Malm explained to all residents in attendance that the meeting on the rezoning was preliminary and planning and zoning commission was only a recommending body. The recommendation is passed on to the city council and they could accept, deny or change the recommendation of the commission. He asked Potter when the city council would hear the preliminary request. Potter replied the item would be sent to the City Council Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 11 and formal consideration by the city council on October 18, 2004. If the issue received preliminary approval, it would return to the planning and zoning commission for final approval in November.

Malm announced that planning staff would present the item and if anyone from the audience wanted to speak, they should line up and do so, but he requested they keep the comments brief.

Durrenberger announced there was a list of frequently asked zoning questions that had been compiled and were available to anyone who wanted one at the back of room. He also indicated the aerial photos with homes highlighted of the people who signed the petitions.

Durrenberger stated that several months ago residents of the area approached the planning department and voiced a concern on the trend in their neighborhood. There were an increasing number of rental properties showing up in the neighborhood. Prior to bringing the rezoning request to the planning commission for consideration, the residents, with the help of planning staff, were directed to canvass the neighborhood and to obtain signatures on a petition to seek a change of R-2 to R-1 for the various areas.

Durrenberger explained the differences between an R-1 and R-2. The R-1 district does not allow duplexes or homes with more than one unit. The side yard setbacks would be different and the impervious surface area in an R-1 would be less - 35% as opposed to 40% in an R-2 district.

Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval. There was a further recommendation that a committee be established by the city council consisting of the following council members: Gerald Hamerlik, Chairman; Dorette Kerian, and Curt Kreun. The committee would also include the Planning and Zoning Commission Land Use Subcommittee members: Dr. Robert Kweit, Paula Lee, Gary Malm, Sheryl Smith, and John Drees. The committee would meet with residents and property owners of the neighborhood to discuss and resolve the issues leading to the request for rezoning.

Kerian asked about the zoning questionnaire and also asked if all residents in the neighborhood were notified of the meeting.

Durrenberger said the list of questions were prepared for the meeting. Residents in the affected neighborhoods were notified of the meeting as well as property owners within 400 feet of the affected areas.

Dr. Hall asked if planning staff reviewed the areas to determine how many of the residents would be in non-conforming homes if a zoning change were made. Durrenberger said no.

Malm asked Durrenberger to explain to the people what happens when a residence is deemed non-conforming.

Durrenberger answered that non-conforming indicates a property that does not meet some zoning regulation. The Land Development Code, which consists of the zoning regulations and the subdivision regulations, had a specific chapter that outlines the implications of non-conforming uses. Not only would there be a change in the land uses, there is also a change in conditional uses and changes in some of the dimensional requirements such as lot sizes, setbacks from property lines, and impervious surface areas (area under the house, garage, sidewalks and driveways).

Durrenberger stated that if a single family residence is determined to be non-conforming and the current lot coverage of impervious surface is 38% (single family maximum is 35%), the property owner would have to go before the Board of Adjustments to get a variance before any additions could be made to the home. However, in order for the Board of Adjustments to grant a variance, a specific hardship has to be shown. Generally, the non-conforming residence cannot be made more non-conforming.

Durrenberger explained about duplexes that are non-conforming. The land uses allowed for a single-family area restrict it to one family unit. The city regulations define a family as individuals related by blood or marriage, or four or less unrelated individuals. If a property owner had a single family house and rented it out with a zoning of R-1, the residence could only be rented to four or less unrelated individuals. In an R-2 district, eight unrelated individuals could live in a duplex. He explained there are other codes that limit the number of people to a room.

Malm asked if he owned a duplex and the zoning change is made, would he get to stay there?

Durrenberger answered yes.

Malm asked if he could build on to the residence?

Durrenberger answered no.

Malm asked if there was a vacant lot, could he build an R-2 dwelling on the property?

Durrenberger answered no.

Kreun asked if a duplex could be sold as a duplex and keep renting the property?

Durrenberger answered yes.

Kreun asked what happened if the property burned down?

Durrenberger answered that if the property were to be destroyed by fire or natural disaster to 60% of replacement value, the house could not be rebuilt as a duplex. It could only be rebuilt as a single-family residence.

Kreun asked about general maintenance.

Durrenberger said general maintenance could be made and an accessory building could be constructed. But a property owner could not expand the non-conforming use. He reiterated that a non-conforming residence could not be made more non-conforming.

Kreun asked if a property owner owned the home and it was non-conforming because of a zoning change, could the home be expanded?

Durrenberger said it depended on the non-conformity. If the setback on the property makes the home non-conforming, and a property owner wanted to add an addition, they might be able to do so, but they would still have to meet the setback requirements of the new zoning district. If an addition was made and made to align to the current wall, the property owner would have to go to the Board of Adjustments and get a variance. But once again, hardship had to be shown and there were specific criteria to determine hardship. A non-conforming duplex in an R-1 district cannot be made more non-forming.

Hagness noted the large rezoning area that covered several subdivisions in the city. People bought property in good faith knowing the areas were zoned for one and two family residences. One of the concerns he heard was the number of people that are moving into the neighborhood and a residence might go from four to eight unrelated people, there are eight vehicles and they disrupt the neighborhood. He asked if there was some way to help out the situation without doing the rezoning.

Durrenberger explained that a zoning violation could be reported to the building inspections office. If there were six people living in a single family house and not related, that is contrary to the definition of a family.

Hagness said most of the people already know that. The reason the people are concerned was not because they are meeting the guidelines for the units, but because it is an R-2 zone, more people are allowed to live in a residence of what was considered family neighborhoods. He asked if that could be limited in some way without the rezoning.

Potter stated there was no alternative mechanism. The process of asking for a zoning change and getting all the parties together to talk about the problems hopefully will answer the following questions : Is this the way to deal with the issue? Is there another way? The hope is that with the smaller group of council people and commission members, a dialogue of discussions and ideas might be helpful while the normal 60-day cycle for a rezoning request is also met.

Lee asked about the accessory building and if that counted against the impervious surface percentage. Durrenberger answered yes.

Jeno asked about the boundary of the area. Durrenberger replied the boundary went around any R-4 (multi-family) area.

Malm asked for members of the audience who wished to speak to come to the lectern.

Jerry Harmon, 2108 9th Avenue North, stated he purchased a home four months ago and has six renters in his unit although there was talk earlier about eight renters. He stated he had spent approximately $9,000 on the unit to meet the codes. He said the primary target for the rezoning appears to be the college students and rental property and he felt that was discriminating. College students pay high tuitions and they rent in that area because they can walk to school. He felt if the ordinance was approved, property values would suffer but taxes would remain the same. Any time there are serious restrictions on single-family homes, it’s harder to sell them. If there is a problem with college students, the neighbors should be calling the authorities. The area with R-2 zoning has been rented out to students for years because of the proximity to UND.

Gerald Hamerlik, Councilperson for Ward 2 (area under discussion), stated the comments were not about people buying and selling homes but more about co-existence. The main concern seems to be eight people, not related, living together. In the past three months, he stated there were approximately 15 single family properties that were sold, bought by investors, and converted into rental properties. He noted the council has been discussing affordable housing and the area under discussion is the best example of affordable housing. Most of the homes would sell between $80,000-$110,000. He also said some investors have gone door to door asking people to sell them their home. Some of the property owners do not live in the area and still others are buying the homes for their student and then they sell the home. Unfortunately, what happens when 8 people are living in a duplex is that they have eight cars and eight parking spaces are not required so they end up parking on the street. Parents have become concerned about the safety of their children with the increased traffic. Mr. Hamerlik stated he could see the investors side and could also see the single family residents’ side. When a home is sold to an investor, the home next door goes up for sale. It is the deterioration of the neighborhood concept. He noted that most of the rental property is kept up very well but is concerned about the deterioration of properties and neighborhoods.

Connie Osowski, 2405 10th Avenue North, stated she was a duplex owner. She called her insurance agent to see about property insurance if a zoning change was made. The agent said her home could not be insured if the zoning was changed to R-1 because of the 60% factor. The agent told her it would not take much damage to reach the 60% but they would not pay beyond the 60%. She said she would have to find another insurance carrier that would cover 100% of the home if 60% were damaged. With the R-1 zoning, and if 60% of the home were damaged, it could not be rebuilt. The home was built in 1970 in an area approved for a duplex. She asked to be removed from the zoning change.

Gordon Iseminger, 2420 9th Avenue North, said he was in favor of the R-1 zoning change. He discussed the damaged homes in the area that were removed after the flood in 1997. There were investors who tried to buy the lots and construct duplexes and four-plex units on the properties. When homes close to him were put on the market to sell, the first investor there to buy them was a construction company. He stated he lives next door to someone who has turned his home into a rooming house and probably doing it without the proper permit from the city. Mr. Iseminger said there were no off-street parking areas for the people who are residing in the house. One weekend he had seven cars parked in front of his home. When he came to city hall to have something done about it, he was told the city did not want to get involved in a squabble with two neighbors and he should work it out himself. Sometimes the renters will start grilling at 4 a.m. in the morning and the patio is next to his bedroom window. The only way to stop it is to rezone to R-1.

Tim Egeland said he owns a duplex at 2112 9th Avenue North and wanted to add comments in defense of the multi-family owners. Not only will rezoning affect insurance but will affect financing because it is a non-conforming property. A duplex owner will not be able to ensure that the non-conforming property mortgage would be sold on the secondary market. That would also affect others with a single-family property that does not meet all the rules and regulations for an R-1 zone. When the underwriter from the secondary market sees that the property does not conform to the zoning for the city, they will not re-finance it. The person buying the home would have to go to a local bank and that would affect property values. Mr. Egeland said he was against “reverse” zoning because that creates division among the parties. Even though the duplex can be used and lived in, if it is destroyed more than 60% of value, it cannot be rebuilt. He noted some concerns were brought up about parking. The city code requires certain parking amounts for the size of the rental units. He said the duplex owners are sympathetic to the single-family homeowners. He stated he was willing to work with the other homeowners but did not feel rezoning was the way to go.

Don Poochigian, 716 N. 24th Street, said the benefit to the community is the neighborhood. He stated he has rental property across from him. There is a movement toward greater use of rental properties and it is changing the neighborhood. He noted the neighborhood is an older neighborhood and the streets are more narrow than others. Parking has increased as well as traffic. The homes are in the $85,000 - $120,000 range and makes it affordable for first time buyers. He talked about grandfathering in the multi-family dwellings.

James DePaolo, 153 Columbia Court, said he moved to the area because of the neighborhood. A single home two houses from his was sold and has already been turned into a duplex. It appears there might be a third family there. He called the city but no one came out to investigate. He was told “when construction starts, call.” He did but was told the person who handles the complaints was on vacation. He called back the following Monday but nothing was done. He stated he made a total of four calls. There was no permit visible in the home. The neighbors want to restrict anymore rental properties. He asked if the neighborhood could be rated as an R-1 district but still remain R-2 and anything sold has to conform to R-1.

Steve Gander, part owner of two duplexes at 913 and 915 24th Street North, said he is on the planning commission in East Grand Forks and understands what the commission members are going through. He and his partner own six small residential properties, each of them multi-family in both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. He said he insisted on knowing whether or not the property was a conforming use before he would be involved in the purchase of the property. He stated he could not borrow money from his local banker for a non-conforming use because of the equity risk if a house is 60% destroyed. He was concerned that a zoning change could cause a forced degradation of the property. If the culmultive building permits on the property such as roof repair, siding, windows, etc. when 61% of the property value from the time the property becomes non-conforming, the owner would not do more repairs. Investors bought property in good faith and changing now would not uphold the public trust.

Brad and Carlene Croy, 415 North 25th Street, stated when they purchased their home years ago, they were aware of the zoning. They rented out the lower level of their home to UND students and generally had good renters. They discussed the problems with some of the renters having parties late at night; the police were called and the situation was handled. He suggested having fewer people in a unit. They talked about having a home business and wondered if they could sell their home and let the new buyer continue with the home business if desired. They were not for the rezoning but hope that something can be worked out that’s agreeable to the whole neighborhood.

Greg Krause, 718 North 25th Street, a single family owner, said most people know when they buy if a house is an R-1 or R-2. One home behind them was a beautifully maintained home but the husband died and the woman moved. He felt their home added to the value of his home but that home has been sold and converted to a rental property. The value of their home now as a single family home is considerably less than it was originally. He spoke about the sense of community in their area and about the schools and park. They want to keep it as a community.

Judy Klaus, 2104 9th Avenue North, spoke on the parking concerns and said most of those concerns had been resolved. Ms. Klaus said they told the Inspections Office there were eight kids living in a single dwelling home. A letter was sent to Mr. Harmon (owner of the rental) and was told he was to be in conformance by September 30. Mr. Harmon got his work order on September 30. Does that make him in conformance? He still has a single family home but did get a work order.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated a letter was sent to Mr. Harmon to contact the Inspections Office by September 30 with plans for the work to bring the home into compliance. The Inspections Office tried to allow a reasonable amount of time. Ms. Collings said Mr. Harmon responded immediately and has been very receptive of whatever was required. Deadlines are not set for specific jobs until it gets out of hand and the property has not gotten out hand.

Kathleen Dixon, 2016 9th Avenue North, said there were eight houses on her side of the street and three have now become multiple units. There are a lot more people on the street and the alleyway, originally quiet, has become more like a street. She spoke about someone being in her garage and car one night. It’s not a horrible place to live and it is not out of control but she would like to make sure it doesn’t get any worse.

Michael Polovitz, 2529 9th Avenue North, said he bought his home in 1954 and raised four children. At one time in the neighborhood, there were 54 children in one block. He said there was a real change in the area, from a neighborhood that existed for families, close to schools and churches, now it seems to be a neighborhood for rental property. All of the problems being talked about is actually happening. Living close to the hockey arena makes it difficult at times to find a parking place in one’s own driveway. Traffic is much higher now and the community has changed in a very short time. He does not want to see the neighborhood deteriorate. He and his wife have said when they move out of their neighborhood, they move out of Grand Forks. Some of the rental property is not being kept up and he wants to stop the deterioration of the area.

Kim Novak, 2103 9th Avenue North, said she was one of the people to pursue a zoning change. She commended the investors that try to keep up their places. The problem seems to be the landlords that do not live in the area. The college students renting in the area do not have the same feelings of family and community. It appears the renters have more rights than the homeowners in the community. She stated Mr. Harmon said he only has six renters in his unit but she wondered why there are 12 cars parked there. The homeowners are at a level of frustration so that was the reason for pursuing the zoning change. Property owners are not living on-site and renting out a portion of the property and the out-of-town landlords are not in the area to control the situation in their units.

Phil Vanyo said he owns a property at 425 North 26th Street. He stated things are changing throughout the city; not just in the neighborhood being discussed. UND has removed homes and that changes a community. He stated he is an investment property owner, but includes “no loud parties would be tolerated.” Changing the zoning does not change the problem if there is a bad neighbor. There can be single-family housing and still not have the people one would want living next door. He stated he wanted to work to make the situation better. No one would complain when the value of their homes go up because of the Engelstad Arena. He pointed out the new businesses being built by the Engelstad Arena. That was not what people had in mind when they moved in the area 20 or 30 years ago. There are issues with cars and traffic in the area but that should not affect the zoning of the property.