City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

February 2, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT

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

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 5, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of January 5, 2005. There were no corrections and Malm declared the minutes approved as presented.

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 BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 11, AND LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 2, VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 AND LOT G, A REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK B OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 17 AND LOT 20, BLOCK B OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 2, VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED WEST OF NORTH 42ND STREET, BETWEEN 5TH AVENUE NORTH AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 9, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; SECTION 18-0907, SUBSECTION (2), RIGHT-OF-WAY, PARAGRAPH (L) AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS TO ARTERIAL STREETS.

Smith requested to be excused from voting on 3-1.

MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO EXCUSE SMITH FROM VOTING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler reported that the agenda items for the night’s meeting included 143 single family lots and 78 townhomes units from new subdivision plats.
Gengler reviewed the request, stating preliminary approval was granted in December, 2004 and tabled in January, 2005. He said a variance had been included in the request since receiving preliminary approval. The variance to the subdivision regulations was added to handle a slight relocation of the driveway for the Mini Mart. Originally there were issues on access for the site and it became necessary to create two driveways, one that services the site itself and one that services Mini Mart. Staff recommended approval of the plat request, subject to special conditions and the variance.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE:
1. Add Choice Financial Group as a signer in the Owner’s Certificate or submit a signed Letter of Ratification by the lien holder.
2. Extend 15-foot access easement lines between Lots 1 & 2 to the east line of Lot 4.

Malm stated the site was a mess and would not get better but there appears to be nothing else to do.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TURNING POINT LLC, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE THE ACCESS EASEMENT LYING WITHIN LOT G, BLOCK B AND ADJACENT TO LOTS 3 THROUGH 11 BLOCK B, VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Gengler reviewed the vacation request and stated it was part of the plat request in Item 3-1. The vacation is for the existing access easement for the original site layout some years ago. With the new development, the access easement is no longer needed. Staff recommendation was for approval.

Malm asked if there were any comments from the audience. There was none and he returned the meeting to the commission member for a motion.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT FOR APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST. 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 18-0204, RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SUBSECTION (2), DEFINITIONS; AND APPENDIX F, ALL RELATING TO GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS.

Gengler reviewed the text ordinance change, stating the ordinance had changed somewhat since preliminary approval in November. He referred members to page 10 of the ordinance to discuss the changes made. The original intent was to establish very specific guidelines on how the electronic message centers would function; however, after speaking to representatives of sign companies, it was determined to be very difficult to establish specific guidelines in the code. He referred members to (9) (B) 2 that would establish the process to be used for electronic message centers. Drawings would have to be submitted to the Planning Department with all details regarding the electronic message center and approval would have to be made from the Sign Subcommittee prior to any issuance of sign permit. The section also included the appeal process to be used. He said the Sign Subcommittee would tour South Washington Street and Columbia Road to get an idea of parameters to be used. Gengler noted the signs are expensive and would not be a frequent item but they would be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Grasser suggested some language should be part of the code on how the electronic message centers would operate or have the sign companies submit a general operating plan on how the signs would be used. He said the permit might need to be subject to review on a periodic basis. If the signage becomes obnoxious, the subcommittee might want to have the option to review based on intensity, timing of flashing, etc.

Dr. Kweit wondered if the item should be tabled for another month to allow the Sign Subcommittee a chance to review the electronic message centers presently operating. He talked about a new property located at 32nd and South Washington Street whose nstructed the type of bright flashing sign the subcommittee was concerned about.

Gengler said the example given by Dr. Kweit reveals a hole in the ordinance. The property noted is located in a conventionally zoned area and the intent of the ordinance is basically for planned unit developments. However, more and more of the bright, flashing type of signage had been appearing more and more because of the lack of real control in the ordinance.

MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE
UNTIL THE MARCH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR FINAL 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 was an extension of an already existing area located north of the school administration building with single family and two-family housing. The subject plat would extend the development further to the north. Gengler showed an aerial photo of the area. Staff recommended final approval subject to the special conditions and approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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 OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ALSO APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
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.
10. Label “Future 10-foot Utility Easement” west of South 25th Street.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL 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 was part of an affordable housing district. There would be twinhomes in the center of the development but would also include more single-family lots. Staff recommendation was to grant final approval subject to the special conditions and also approval of the street and highway ordinance.

There was no discussion from commission members. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ALSO APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
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.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM RANDY GRAM, ON BEHALF OF MILLER AND HOLMES, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOTS 1 AND 3, BLOCK 5, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ADVERTISING READER BOARDS ON THE M&H GROCERY AND AUTOMOBILE SERVICE BUSINESS, LOCATED AT 419 NORTH FIFTH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the commission approved a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) a year ago for the M&H neighborhood grocery to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building on the corner of 4th Avenue North and North 5th Street. One issue not addressed at the time of the CUP was signage. The owners have requested approval to install 4’x8’ lighted reader-boards on the east side of the building and the southwest corner of the building. The non-scrolling reader-boards would allow them to advertise specials or new products with 8” lettering. Staff recommendation was to approve the amendment to the CUP to allow the reader-boards.

Kreun asked if the sign was computer controlled and Durrenberger answered no. The lettering would have to physically be attached to the boards.

Malm asked Durrenberger to explain why the owners were not present. Durrenberger explained there was a scheduling conflict with the owners in Minneapolis, MN.

Dr. Hall asked what would prevent the owners from changing to a scrolling type sign. Durrenberger stated the approval would be very specific since the zoning district in which they are located (R-4/multiple family district) does not allow signage. The pole sign they presently have was a non-conforming sign that was grandfathered in. If the sign were ever removed for any reason, it could not be replaced. If approved by the commission, the request would be tied to the CUP request.

There were no more questions from the commission members.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Peg O’Leary, 907 Oak, said she was the Coordinator for the Grand Forks Historical Preservation Commission. After talks with the owners and architect, they were very amenable to constructing a building that fits into the area, but stated she had concerns regarding the signage. Adjacent to the M&H property are two national register properties, St. Michael’s Church and the Washington School; St. Michael’s school is eligible for the Register for Historic Places. Ms. O’Leary said the renderings shown by planning staff do not give a good sense of how much signage was already located on that corner. She showed photos and noted the very large pole sign that was grandfathered in, but also said there were sandwich signs located on the pole, one attached high and one on the ground, facing both sides. There was also a sandwich board adjacent to the sign on the ground and a sign on the column holding up the canopy. She stated there were also rather large M&H signs on each of the three fuel pumps at the bottom and then signage across the top indicating the type of fuel and price. Ms. O’Leary stated there was a large M&H sign on the end of the building that was also repeated on the front and back of the building. She noted there were other signs not readily apparent and a potential for more signage in the windows. She reiterated the willingness of the owners to construct a nice building, but stated there was too much signage on that corner. She questioned whether or not that amount of signage would be allowed in other sections of the city. The concern was not only for the historic district but also for the residential district. She mentioned the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB) and noted that two blocks south of the location, the signs would not be allowed. She asked that the commission consider the signage and asked for more research on the signage issues.

There were no questions for Ms. O’Leary from commission members.

Durrenberger reported he had not calculated the amount of existing signage. However, if they were in a standard B-3 District, they would be allowed three square feet for each one foot of lot frontage so they would be allowed 300 square feet of signage.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated the signage was reviewed during the CUP process and site review process. The reader-board was a surprise to everyone and she stated that would be a lot of signage on that corner. Ms. Collings further said her office personnel and inspectors continually talk to gas station owners about the little signs attached to poles and other areas; it continues to be a problem. She said she remembered a reader-board already attached to the pole sign and the owners can advertise with the existing reader-board. If needed, the calculations can be made for the amount of existing signage.

Kreun said although he knew the sign was grandfathered in, it would be helpful to have the calculations of what they could have with today’s standards, with or without the reader-boards. Collings replied she did not have the calculations to show at the meeting but could get it for the members. She noted the pole sign was not exactly grandfathered in but was actually part of the conditional use permit. Collings said some of the calculations used were for B-3 type uses.

Kreun said if they knew all the calculations maybe they could do some give and take on the signage with the owners. Collings said there had already been some give and take on a billboard sign located on the property. The M & H owners removed the billboard, but were allowed to keep the pole sign. She also noted that no variances are given on signs since a sign is a use.

Dr. Kweit said he concurred with Kreun. If the owners wanted to have the new, more aesthetically pleasing reader-boards as proposed, then they might be willing to remove the existing one.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR ONE MONTH. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL (FAST TRACK) APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF FLAATS SIXTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED IN THE 3100 BLOCK OF ELMWOOD DRIVE.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the replat was one of the flood related resubdivisions. The city purchased the property and now the city was in the process of turning the property over to the adjacent property owner. There was no right-of-way involved with the property so it could be processed as a fast track replat. Staff’s recommendation was for final approval subject to the special conditions.

Kerian asked if the lots were buildable. Durrenberger said there were three lots and may already have buildings on them.

There were no other questions from commission members. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Move dimensions for easement areas on Lots 1 & 2 as shown.
3. Include 100-year floodplain line and note in legend.
4. Label owner’s consent and dedication.
5. Correct wording in owner’s consent as shown.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUESTFROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL (FAST TRACK) APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF SPRUCEWOOD RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED ON SPRUCE COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the replat was another city flood related subdivision. Adjacent property owners to the area have bought back the property from the city and added it to their existing property.

There were no questions from the commission members. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Remove disclaimer from bottom left corner.
3. Add elevation and origin of floodplain information.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND IVAN JENSEN FOR FINAL (FAST TRACK) APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF JENSEN’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT 3707 BELMONT ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the city had purchased rear property for flood protection and the plat would add the remainding property back to existing property owners. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to special conditions shown.
Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include square footage for Lot 2.
3. Include total square footage for Lots 1 & 2 in the owner’s consent.
4. Correct spelling of “Jensen” in owner’s consent.
5. Add document numbers for deeded lands in Lot 2.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-10. MATTER OF THE REQUST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL LANDS PLATTED AS SOUTHERN ESTATES 4TH ADDITION AND A 140-FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND WESTERLY THEREOF NOT PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 20TH STREET AND NORTH OF 44TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the annexation request, stating the annexation coincides with Item No. 3-4, approved earlier.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF HOMESTEAD GROVE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 4600 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Malm read an e-mail received from Doug Christenson, Councilman for Ward 5 as follows: “This is to inform those who attend the informational session for the Crary proposed PUD, dealing with the 80-acres east of South Washington and south of the pet hospital on February 2, 2005, that I could not attend the public meeting because I am out of town from Wednesday through Saturday of this week. If any of my constituents have any questions or concern, please have them contact me at my office or by e-mail. Thank you.”

Gengler stated Items 4-1 (plat), Item 4-2 (Concept), and Item 4-3 (annexation) are all related to the same piece of property but he wanted to focus on the overall concept plan first. He presented a colored map of the proposed concept located between 40th Avenue South and 47th Avenue South and bordered on the west side by South Washington Street. He explained the same property was proposed for development two years ago by a different developer. After several months of trying to get approval, the developer withdrew from the project. The name of the development was the same as presented by the former developer. He indicated on the overall concept map the different land uses proposed. All of the commercial property would front on South Washington Street, with multiple-family residences (R-4 District) located behind the commercial properties and then single-family type uses in the rear adjacent to existing single-family residences and one and two-family residential uses adjacent to existing one and two family residential uses. The proposed plan presents the best of transition zoning with single or one and two family residences in the back, to the higher density of multiple family and then commercial fronted on a major corridor. Many of the concerns from the previously proposed development were eliminated on the proposed plan.

After showing the overall concept plan, Gengler then presented the proposed area to be platted at this time, stating only the commercial area located between 44th Avenue South and 47th Avenue South fronting onto South Washington Street would be the plat area. The plat area being proposed would be the first development for the concept plan. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to special conditions shown and also approval of the street and highway ordinance.

Kreun asked about annexation of the proposed plat and asked if a larger portion of proposed commercial land from 40th Avenue South to 47th Avenue South should also be considered for annexation. Gengler said the commission and city council have the discretion to include more property.

Kerian asked since the only portion being platted would be Block 1 and Block 2 between 44th and 47th Avenue South, how would the neighborhood be assured that the development would be as proposed as far as streets and land uses?

Gengler replied the concept plan map, as shown, minus the colors, would be the actual Concept Development Plan that establishes the PUD (Planned Unit Development).

Kerian said density and water issues were concerns on the previously proposed concept plan two years ago. Would the perceived lower density deal with the water issues?

Gengler said it was not addressed on the plan but there would be a retention pond to handle the storm-water run-off on the site and also act as an amenity to the site.

Malm spoke to the audience stating the plan was for preliminary approval. The plan would be forwarded to city council who would also give preliminary approval and then it would be on the Commission agenda next month for final approval, if preliminary approval was granted. He said if anyone lived in the area and wanted to make a comment, they could speak.

Stan Miller, 748 Great Plains Court, said his single-family home directly borders the proposed development. He said there was a serious water issue and the proposed development area acts as a drain area from the south and east. Whenever there is a heavy rain as well as spring runoff, water backs up significantly in the area. He said that issue needed to be carefully addressed. He further asked about the transition between the single-family area and the much higher density of multiple-family housing. He also commented on the R-2 area located next to 40th Avenue South and across from a commercial area. He asked about the density for the area and said he would be interested in knowing that. He commented on the retention pond and said he hoped it would be an attractive area and not a mosquito breeding area.

Steve Kirchoffner, 4502 Homestead Circle, said his only concern would be if the plan changed and what that change would be.

Todd Espelien, 758 Great Plains Court, said his concern was the retention pond and possible mosquito-breeding problem. He also questioned how the pond would look and whether or not it would be aesthetically pleasing; not an eyesore.

Kreun spoke to the comments about retention ponds and stated there were many of them throughout the city. The ponds were made to hold the water run-off until the city’s stormwater sewers could catch up, otherwise there is flooding in the streets and in basements. The ponds are developed to be aesthetically pleasing with grass and landscaping and most people do not realize they are retention ponds. The main concern would be that the pond would be in place and doing what it was intended to do. This type of retention pond would not be like the ones behind the commercial establishments. Except during times of heavy rain, the pond would be dry.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ALSO APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show arc lengths on all curves.
3. Label South Washington Street and 47th Avenue South as arterials.
4. Show access control as noted.
5. Plat requires annexation.
6. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
7. Plat requires 8% park dedication.
8. Land description in owner’s certificate needs to be consistent with data shown on curve chart.
9. Verify location of rural waterline and golf course irrigation line along 47th Avenue South to place utilities in an easement.
10. Change easements along 47th Avenue South to read: 10-foot water, sewer and pedestrian/bikeway usage easement and 5-foot utility easement.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-1 (LIMITED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE HOMESTEAD GROVE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF HOMESTEAD GROVE FIRST ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 151 RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED EAST ON SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET BETWEEN 40TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler said the more creative a development gets, there would not be a perfect system as far as density transition. He explained that in the conventional R-3 (median multiple-family area) District, 16 units per acre would be allowed and in the R-4 (common apartment type setting) District, up to 50 units per acre would be allowed. The proposed concept shows multiple-family areas at 28 units per acre. Gengler said there would be a total of 35 acres of commercial area, 21 acres of multiple-family, 16 acres of one and two family-residences and 6 acres of single-family area.

Dr. Kweit asked that the concept be placed before the plat on the agenda next month. His concern was that the densities stated on the concept stayed within the parameters as shown.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT (ZONING) REQUEST, SUBEJCT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING ORDINANCE:
1. Show the full legal description.
2. Use a heavier line-type for the PUD boundary.
3. In the legend show a line-type for the sub area boundaries.
4. Label 44th and 46th Streets.
5. Label 47th Ave. as a Minor Arterial and 40th Ave. as a Collector.
6. Increase the font size for the land use designations for the properties east of Washington Street.
7. Show additional access control lines. See review copy.
8. The SF1 sub area should refer to R-1 type uses and the SF2 should refer to one and two family. See review copy.
9. Data Summary Chart: Make the changes as shown on the review copy.
10. Identify the lots and blocks and label Homestead Grove First Addition.
11. Will all streets shown on the overall CDP be public?
12. Does the developer anticipate any restrictions, other than standard permitted uses, on the types of land uses for the areas shown as B-3?

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR APPROVAL TO ANNEX ALL OF HOMESTEAD GROVE FIRST ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE 4600 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the annexation area covers only the area shown on the map and also includes a portion of property south of 47th Avenue South. He explained that when right-of-way was included with a plat, the city takes in an additional 140 feet past the right-of-way line. The property owner to the south of 47th Avenue South is different from the property owner developing the Homestead Grove First Addition. An ordinance to annex would be a voluntary request for annexation and the owner did request annexation of the platted area. A resolution to annex would include the parties who do not wish to be annexed. Staff recommendation was for approval of the annexation ordinance as presented.

Kerian asked about the area around the proposed annexation that was developed. Gengler stated there were islands of property across South Washington Street still undeveloped, but development was taking place across from the proposed development. Malm referred members to a rezoning map that showed the proposed area to be rezoned as well as the surrounding properties with noted land uses.

Kerian said that answered most of her questions but still wanted to know about the annexation of a portion of the A-2 area South of 47th Avenue South. Gengler said that portion was zoned A-2 and included 1.9 acres, but that property owner requesting annexation of the Homestead Grove 1st Addition did not own the additional area being considered for annexation.

Dr. Hall said he understood the two business/commercial areas would being included in the voluntary annexation, but he had a problem with including adjacent property not owned by the same developer and not sought to be annexed by the owner. He felt the annexation should end at 47th Avenue South.

Matejcek asked if the adjacent property owner south of 47th Avenue South had been notified about the inclusion of a portion of his property in the annexation. Gengler answered no. Matejcek said the property owner should have been notified if only as a courtesy.

Potter said the process used for annexation at the planning level was not the formal public hearing process. That was established by state statute and would be the responsibility of the city council to set the public hearing and make the proper notification.

Grasser spoke to the issue of annexing additional property adjacent to a platted right-of-way. The city adopted that process because of infrastructure installation needs to serve the newly platted area. He said a storm sewer pipe would have to be installed along 47th Avenue South to help with drainage and water flow. The city special assessed those projects and adjacent land needs to be annexed. Although not a comfortable process to go through, it gives the city the mechanism for financial participation from the people who would benefit from the project even though the property may not be developed.

Malm stated agreements were made with people in the area going south when annexing property for the golf course and asked Gengler about those agreements. Gengler said he was unaware of those agreements.

Kreun asked about the watermain or sanitary sewer that travels across South Washington along 47th Avenue South on the south side. Grasser said that was set up for a tapping fee which means that all other uses in the sanitary sewer system get to front the money for the installation and delay the collections to a later date.

Kreun spoke to the concern voiced for annexing property that does not seem to be necessary, but the policy put into place was designed to install infrastructure in a more economical manner and better design than to go around properties. He stressed the area being included was 140 feet and did not include the entire lot. He noted on 42nd Avenue there are several areas within the city limits but not annexed to the city and he thought all those areas should be annexed. He also stated he would like to see the entire proposed development annexed, but he would definitely like to see all of the area along South Washington Street between 40th and 47th Avenue South being included in the annexation. There would be infrastructure needs all along the area and it would end up being piece-meal projects. He offered that for consideration.

Grasser said there were sanitary sewer and water lines paralleling 47th Avenue South on the south side of the street.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH DR. HALL AND MATEJCEK VOTING NAY.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE , CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18-0906, PROCEDURE; RELATING TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES.

Gengler stated the proposed intent of the ordinance would be to amend the subdivision regulations on how plats are approved and would relate to both major and minor subdivisions. Major subdivisions include dedicated public rights-of-way. He showed a large three-month calendar to indicate the existing process of plat approvals. He used March, April and May dates for 2005 to explain the process. Gengler said that 14 days prior to the Commission meeting, the applicant or representative, submits application and plat drawings to the planning staff (March 23). On April 1, agenda packets are mailed to commission members for the meeting on April 6. After members take preliminary action, the item goes forward to a Committee of the Whole meeting for discussion, followed by preliminary action by city council on April 18, 2005. On April 20, applicant or representative turns in revised plats to planning staff and staff notifies the Herald of public hearing notices (final approval items, 14 days prior to the meeting) that will occur at the next Planning Commission meeting (May 4, 2005). On April 29, the packets are once again mailed out to members for the May 4, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The items that need to go through city council for approval are processed for the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 9th and final action by city council on May 16 for plat, street and highway ordinance and any other provision attached to the plat. That would be what is known as the two-month cycle.

The Standby Committee for Finance and Development has been meeting with planning staff in order to expedite the approval for plats. The outcome was to process all plats the way minor subdivisions are presently processed. Minor subdivisions are usually fast-tracked, which means there would be no dedicated roadways and the plats are reviewed at one Planning Commission meeting and one City Council meeting. The new process would include reasonably strict provisions. If the strict deadlines were not met, the plats would not be on the agenda and essentially would be held until the following monthly planning meeting. Twenty-eight days prior to the planning commission meeting, applicants or representatives must submit everything required to the planning department. If it comes to the planning department 27 days prior to the meeting, it would not be accepted as an item for the upcoming meeting and would be held to be processed the following month. Nineteen days prior to the meeting (this would always be on a Friday), there would be a mandatory plat review meeting with applicant and/or representative and city (planning and engineering) personnel to go over the technical changes or other concerns noted in the plat review already accomplished by city staff. Twelve days prior to the meeting, applicant or representative resubmits a final version. The change for commission members would be that packets for the next meeting would be mailed out seven days prior to the meeting (the Wednesday before). Then items would once again go before the Committee of the Whole and then on to City Council.

Gengler noted that no change has been planned for changing the zoning process. If a plat was accompanied by a rezoning or an annexation (as in the case of Homestead Grove 1st Addition) and the plat was approved under the new expedited process in a month, the rezoning (two-month cycle) and annexation would still not be approved and no building permits would be issued.

Kerian asked if people in surrounding areas to a plat would be fully aware of meetings based on the change. Also, what process would be utilized to notify people under the new proposed process?

Potter said from a zoning standpoint, state law requires a public hearing notice at least 10 days prior to the meeting and in order to meet the Herald’s deadlines, the notices must be at the Herald 14 days in advance of the meeting. Planning staff notify property owners within 400 feet of the rezoning by letter. For plats, state law requires a public hearing notice in the main newspaper, again 14 days prior to meet the 10-day law and the Herald’s deadline. Property owners are not notified of new plats in a 400-foot radius. That may have to change to accommodate the acceleration of the process. For conditional use permits, city law requires what state law requires which would be the 14 day public hearing notice. City law does not require the notification to surrounding property owners, but as a department policy, notification is sent to property owners within 400 feet of a proposed conditional use permit request. Detailed development plan appeals are noticed in the Herald on the 14 day cycle and surrounding property owners within 400-feet are notified as a matter of department policy.

Kerian responded that notification regarding the plats might be needed as well. Potter said that would be done if the process was accelerated.

Kreun commented that he was in favor of the change but with the change comes responsibility. The responsibility would be on the person processing the plat. The developer or representative would be responsible for making sure that all paperwork would be in the planning department on time. What will happen when the people responsible are not ready and do not follow the deadlines? Planning staff and commission members and city council members would all have to stick to the schedule and dates. Developers and others get angry and say Grand Forks was not business friendly when they decided to start a project and yet, do not or cannot meet the deadlines.