Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

January 5, 2005

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, Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Tom Hagness, Dr. Robert Kweit, and Sheryl Smith. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 1, 2004.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of regular minutes of December 1, 2004. It was noted that the minutes should be changed to reflect Frank Matejcek, Dr. Lyle Hall and Dorette Kerian as being present and to also reflect that John Jeno and Marijo Whitcomb was absent. With those changes made, Malm declared the minutes approved.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 4 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED NORTH OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND WEST OF NORTH 42ND STREET.

Potter requested the item be continued and stated the developer also agreed to the continuation.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO CONTINUE THE ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 2, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (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), DEFINITIONS; AND APPENDIX F, ALL RELATING TO GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS.

Gengler said the required information from the sign companies had not been received and he requested the item be tabled until the February 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY LEE TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE FEBRUARY MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (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 18-0217, B-4 (CENTRAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT; SUBSECTION (2) USES PERMITTED, RELATING TO APARTMENT DWELLING UNITS.

Gengler asked that the request be tabled. The request was forwarded to city council after preliminary approval by the Commission. After discussion by the council, there was confusion on what the existing ordinance allowed versus what the proposed ordinance would allow. City Council members decided to table the issue and form a task force to study the matter. To date, the task force has not been formed. Gengler said that staff would present the item to the Commission at a later date.

Kerian asked if there was a timeline on the issue and Potter answered the timeline was 60 days.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO TABLE THE ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JAKE SOPER, BUELL CONSULTING, ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED IN THE RAY RICHARDS GOLF COURSE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF DEMERS AVENUE.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the item was tabled at the December meeting, after discussing several aspects of the request, in order to provide additional notices to property owners adjacent to the golf course. The issues discussed at the December meeting were the exterior appearance and aesthetics of the proposal and the location of the building and tower. Since the December meeting, the consulting firm submitted a new proposal of the building and landscaping. Durrenberger noted that the Commission had discussed the possibility of locating the building and tower (flagpole) across the street on city owned property that houses a water storage tank. Based on the notice sent to property owners, staff received several calls about locating the building/tower on the Ray Richards Golf Course.

Kreun asked if the tower had to be constructed a certain distance from other structures. Durrenberger answered that city requirements stated a cell tower has to be located a minimum of the cell tower height. The proposed tower is 56 feet and the proposed site plan shows the facility setback from the south property line of the golf course to be 56 feet.

Lee asked what the main change would be from last month. Durrenberger replied it was the landscaping and the building rendering. In December, the rendering did not show the building to be brick. The measurements remain the same.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Jacob Soper, Buell Consulting, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, stated the ring was originally centered at the Columbia Park Towers. The Verizon Wireless engineer and other decision-makers in the business determined the Columbia Park Towers building was too tall for what they wanted to accomplish. The Verizon Wireless group decided the Ray Richards Golf Course would be the most advantageous place based on population and projected growth. He stated there were other monopole or communication sites in the vicinity but the radio frequency engineer determined they would not work. Based on the very specific area they are trying to cover, the best option would be Ray Richard Golf Course.

Lyle Beiswenger, resident of the Garden View Townhomes and board member of the Garden View Townhome Association, stated his main concern was the timing of the issue. He stated he did not receive a notice of the Conditional Use Permit and most notices were received on Monday. He requested that a recommendation to the council be postponed to give the residents and board time to discuss the issue. He did state that the new drawings were more aesthetically pleasing than the drawing he saw earlier in the day.

Blair Henry, resident of Garden View Townhomes, stated the proposed building would be just outside his window. He said he was representing not only himself but also Dr. Charlotte Hovet and Earl and Erwin Herzog. He stated notices were not received until 48 hours previously and there has been insufficient time for residents to meet and decide what they needed to do. He asked that no decision be made on the issue until all the residents had time to review the proposal and present their views on the matter. Mr. Henry said he had not reviewed statutes but did not think the timing was legally sufficient notice for a hearing. He said he had only lived in the development for two years, but other residents in the area had stated there were restrictive covenants on the property of Ray Richards Golf Course. He was told that when Ray Richards donated the property to UND, it was with the understanding that it was to be a golf course and only a golf course. Mr. Henry said he has tried to research the records on the property and after talking to several present and former UND officers, he was told they knew the property was not to be used for anything other than a golf course. However, the records from the 1950’s were not readily available. Other UND personnel have said the property did not have any restrictions. He was told there was a plaque on the wall of the Ray Richards Golf Course clubhouse stating the property was donated by Ray Richards and was only to be used as a golf course. Mr. Henry said there was conflicting information about whether or not the University has the authority to use the property for anything other than a golf course. He noted it would take some time to research all the information. He further stated the University would be receiving lease payments from Verizon Wireless but he could not find out how much the lease payments were. He felt that might be a conflict of interest. Mr. Henry stated the restrictions at this point are rumor but many of the residents understood there were restrictive covenants on the golf course and they bought their residence with that understanding. Mr. Henry said he informed Mr. Soper about the understanding of restrictions and Mr. Soper was not aware of it. Mr. Henry noted that three of the residents have Verizon Wireless telephone plans and their phones work fine. The question arises as to the need of looking at a building rather than the golf course for a perceived problem of phone coverage. He also stated if the city wants a tower, then it should be placed on city property. Mr. Henry said he had written questions that he wanted the city to respond to in writing. The questions were given to Dennis Potter for his written response.

Kerian stated she wanted it understood that it not the city who wanted the tower and also that the Commission had discussed Verizon’s ability to use the tower already in place to the north.

Mr. Henry said he asked Mr. Soper about utilizing the existing tower and was told there were still blind spots in the area and although some are covered, others are not. Mr. Soper told him there were also capacity issues they were trying to address with the proposed tower.

Kreun spoke on the city property located across the street, about the proposed communication tower and also about the various towers presently located in the city. He stated he was becoming concerned about the number of towers presently located and the future requests for more.

Mr. Henry asked if each tower belonged to a different company or if they were shared towers. Kreun replied they were shared towers. He said some are located on the water towers because of the height. Now the desire seems to be the shorter local towers to accommodate inner-city usage.

Grasser asked if the association would be willing to meet with the Verizon representative and try to work out the concerns. The city would assist in whatever manner possible to help resolve the issue.

Mr. Henry said they would be willing to meet and voice their concerns but said that UND should also be involved in the meeting.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE ISSUE FOR ONE MONTH SO THAT ALL PARTIES COULD MEET AND DISCUSS CONCERNS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Soper said he was very willing to meet with the residents and try to work out any concerns they had.

Kreun asked that planning staff be the facilitator for the meeting to make sure that all residents were notified of the meeting and offer a conference room for the meeting.

Kerian asked about the timing of the notification sent to residents.

Durrenberger stated regulations do not require a notice. A notice of public hearing is required for the newspaper but the notice to residents is mailed as a courtesy. There were 118 notices to residents located within 400 feet of the golf course. Mr. Beiswenger did not receive a notice because he was located outside the 400 feet buffer area. Durrenberger said a new mailing could be sent out before the next meeting that includes the entire association and also coordinate any meetings between Mr. Soper and the area property owners.

Kerian asked about the newspaper notice. The secretary noted that the public hearing notice was in the newspaper prior to the December meeting and it was considered a continued item so was not published again. However, a new notice in the newspaper could be placed for next month’s meeting.

Hutchison asked Mr. Soper how bigger cities handle the issue. Mr. Soper answered that there were many sites ranging from the Minneapolis and twin city area out to Medora, ND. Options such as water towers and other existing towers are utilized to cover densely populated area. Verizon Wireless supports co-location and are currently co-located (antennas located on existing towers) at three or four other sites in Grand Forks. Most towers are built for three carriers and the Grand Forks city code requires that any tower built must accommodate three carriers, unless it is below a certain height. Because the proposed tower was short, an exemption from the co-location requirement exists. Mr. Soper stated it was unlikely that other companies would be able to use their tower because of the shorter height. Verizon Wireless needs the high towers as well as the shorter towers to get the coverage they desire. Mr. Soper further said they are currently in negotiations with Western Wireless to place antennas on their towers.

Hutchison asked about the city property. Mr. Soper showed an aerial map of the proposed location, off 34th Street. The advantage for that location was a 50-foot access drive to the site. He also showed where the city property was located that housed the city water reservior. He said he drove to the site after the last meeting but noted that anytime a company tries to provide coverage in densely populated area, there will always be those who prefer the tower to be located some place else. There were also other residents located near the city owned property. Mr. Soper stated that Verizon meets all aspects of the code in the currently proposed area. He said he would check on the restrictive covenants for the property but was unaware of that possibility until this meeting. He stated that any pole in town was not a good example of what was being proposed by Verizon Wireless. Any other pole would have antennas on the exterior of the pole. For aesthetic reasons, Verizon Wireless chose to use a stealth site company where all the antennas are located inside the pole. It is more expensive, but Verizon understood the need to be aesthetically pleasing and to place as small an impact as possible on the surrounding area.

Malm closed the public hearing.

Mr. Soper thanked the Commission for their time.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN RESOLUTION AMENDING ACCESS CONTROL RESTRICTIONS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE NORTHSIDE OF 62ND AVENUE SOUTH ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, OAKWOOD THIRD RESUBDIVISION.

Durrenberger said a request was received from the property owner to table the item until next month.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE FEBRUARY MEETING. 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.

Durrenberger reviewed the request for rezoning areas adjacent to the university and said the item was first considered in October, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Commission report recommended a committee to address some of the neighborhood issues. He referred commission members to a report from the task force. Staff recommendation, based on the report, was to deny rezoning of the area and forward the UND Rezoning Committee recommendations to the City Council.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY LEE TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST.

Malm stated the task force had spent many hours discussing the issues and finally determined that rezoning was not the answer.

Hutchison asked if the residents were happy with the outcome. Durrenberger answered that after much discussion, residents realized that rezoning the areas to R-1 was not the appropriate action at this time. Durrenberger said the item had received preliminary approval from the Commission and the issue was before them for final review.

Kim Novak, resident appointed to serve on the task force, stated she, along with Kerian, Kreun, Lee, Malm and Dr. Kweit from the Planning and Zoning Commission and other members from other departments and owners of property in the target area, had met and discussed all the issues. The report included the findings and the recommendations of the task force. She said the recommendation not to rezone the target area was agreed to by all members.

Kreun and Kerian spoke on the issue. Kerian said although some of the issues were solved, there were still others that needed more work.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, SOUTHBROOK FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN CURRAN COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the replat would accommodate 30 single-family lots. It is one of the affordable housing districts designated by city council. The developer proposes to provide local access roads connecting between east and west sides of Curran Court. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval of the replat and the street and highway ordinance.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show and dimension existing utility easements on surrounding lands.
3. Increase utility easement widths along all 10-foot wide rights-of-way to 15-feet of width as per city Ordinance No. 3652 relating to affordable housing development areas.
4. This platting requires a street and highway ordinance.

Kerian asked what had already been developed. Durrenberger showed on the map the area already completed.
Kerian asked if the road around Curran Court was built. Grasser noted that not all of Curran Court has been built. The easterly loop was scheduled to be constructed and completed in the summer of 2005.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SOUTHERN ESTATES FOURTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 20TH STREET AND NORTH OF 44TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the plat area was north of the school administration building on 47th Avenue South. The proposal for the plat was single-family lots.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include spot ground elevations.
3. Provide backyard drainage plan.
4. Show scale as 1”=100’.
5. Plat requires street and highway ordinance and new annexation area.
6. Label South 20th Street as a future collector.
7. Plat is subject to the 8% park dedication.
8. Eliminate rear-yard drainage easements along the north line of Block 2 and the south line of Block 1.
9. Enlarge all north-south side-yard drainage easements from 10-feet of width to 15-feet of width.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS’ ATTENDANCE FOR 2004.

The report was provided for information only.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Matejcek asked to be notified of the communication tower meeting in order to be in attendance. He said this appeared to be an issue for the future. He also said there might have to be a tower committee established to discuss the different requests. Malm said if a tower committee was needed in the future, he wanted Matejcek appointed to it. Dr. Hall said he would also be on the committee.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:53 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


___________________________
John R. Drees, Secretary


___________________________
Gary K. Malm, President