Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

March 2, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Frank Matejcek, Sheryl Smith and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Dr. Lyle Hall, and Paula Lee. 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 FEBRUARY 2, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of February 2, 2005. There were no corrections and Malm declared the minutes approved as presented.

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

3-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, 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.

Potter reviewed the item for annexation. He said the item was before the commission as a referral from the city council. The subject of annexing the Kindness Animal Hospital has been under discussion at various times for some years. Dr. Odegard discussed the item with city staff and with the city council. When Dr. Odegard met with city council, he asked the council to consider annexing a smaller area. Potter referred members to Page 2 of the staff report to note the four options that could be considered:
1. Approve the phased annexation proposal presented to the city council on February 7, 2005 (Map A).
2. Approve the results of the discussion with Dr. Odegard related to the smaller annexation proposal (Map B)
3. Approve the original annexation proposal approved by the planning and zoning commission on December 1, 2004 (Map C).
4. Develop and approve an entirely new annexation proposal at the planning and zoning commission meeting on March 2, 2005.


Dr. Odegard stated a map was given to each member showing a scaled down version of annexation that he was proposing and would agree to annexation provided an agreement could be reached on the time line of the annexation. The map showed three lots: Parcel A – the most westerly lot; Parcel B – where the building was located; and Parcel C – the easterly lot next to the off ramp of I-29. He said there were two ways he was proposing to do it: Parcel B being annexed first on January 1, 2006, and Parcels A & C being annexed on January 1, 2009 or staggering Parcel A in January 1, 2008 and Parcel C in January 1, 2009. That would give him time to market the property or develop it. If agreed to by the city, it would eliminate the need for mediation.

Dr. Kweit said there had been discussions in the past about annexing Dr. Odegard’s property and at one point Dr. Odegard told them if they would not annex all of his property then, he would be willing to have it annexed sometime in 2000 - 2004 and signed an agreement to that effect. The commission and council agreed to that and now Dr. Odegard’s proposal puts off annexation for yet another four years.

Dr. Odegard said the previous annexation agreement was tied to another ordinance for annexation of property being platted to the west of his property several years ago. He agreed to annexation of his property as part of the proposed development to the west called J.F 1st Addition. It was to be a two-phased annexation: Phase one - J. F. 1st Addition property would be annexed when the plat was approved and Phase two – Dr. Odegard’s property would be annexed effective upon one of the following: platting of the property, rezoning of the property or five years after the recording of the ordinance. The ordinance was never recorded and the agreement to annex was withdrawn.

Dr. Odegard was asked if his current proposal had been discussed with the city council. He stated he had not come to any agreement with the city council.

Kreun referred members to Map A, Page 4 in the packet. Not only did Dr. Odegard’s proposal separate the property into three pieces, the back lot line was moved forward to reduce the amount of proposed annexation. Since there was no consensus reached at the city council level, the item was referred back to the planning and zoning commission. Kreun said the city council probably would not agree to delaying any part of the annexation to 2009.

Grasser asked Dr. Odegard if any of the other options or alternatives were acceptable to him. Dr. Odegard answered probably not.

Hagness said discussions of annexation for his property has gone on for quite some time and he felt there had been time to prepare for eventual annexation. He asked if Parcels A or C would be marketed first? Dr. Odegard said the whole property would be marketed because it would be difficult to develop around him. An option he thought about was taking a portion of Parcel A to build a new facility and market the remainder of the property. Hagness asked if Dr. Odegard would be willing to annex the Parcel B in 2006, Parcel A in 2007 and Parcel C in 2008 since there was a feeling that 2009 would be unacceptable. Hagness stated the city wanted to work with him and wanted his business to remain in the community, but they could not let it remain un-annexed with development being planned to the west of his property.

Dr. Odegard said he would not agree to 2006, 2007 and 2008 but may agree to Parcel B in 2006, Parcel A in 2008 and Parcel C in 2009. He noted the taxes on Parcels A and C would not be large but the tapping fees would be large even spread out over 15 or 20 years. The biggest value would be to annex Parcel B, the developed property. Dr. Odegard said the other proposal was to leave Parcel C as separate and combine Parcels A & B but that valued the land substantially higher and increased his taxes. The estimated property taxes would go from under $3,000 a year to over $12,000 a year. Special assessments, dike assessment, and tapping fees would be extra.

Hagness stated because of the past agreements on his property, the city would like to lock in the dates for annexation of his property. Dr. Odegard said he was offering that with his proposal.

Kerian said the taxes were a significant reason for Dr. Odegard to offer something different than what the city wanted. One of her concerns was that Parcel A was contiguous to the proposed development and that was not the direction the city wanted to go. She noted that Dr. Odegard had made Parcel B (developed parcel) as small as possible because of the taxes. She said she understood his concern on the taxes but Parcels A and C should be annexed as soon as possible with Parcel A being the more important one.

Drees said Dr. Odegard is not a developer; he is a business owner. If he were a developer, he would have the opportunity to bring in each square foot he wanted to develop since that was the options developers used in the area. As long as he does not sell his land, he is not a developer. Dress said he did not totally agree with annexing Parcel B, but that is the only parcel the city should be considering for annexation and that is only because of city services. In response to the contiguous statement, Drees said all the land around the city is contiguous. Parcels A and C are not being utilized. He questioned the land remaining un-annexed that surrounds the proposed development for Tractor Supply Company (located just west of Dr. Odegard’s property).

Grasser spoke to the matter of tapping fees, stating there had been discussions on how the tapping fees would be handled and Dr. Odegard would not be assessed tapping fees unless he was tied into them. Tapping fees are not the driving cost for the annexation; there are taxes and dike special assessments that would be applicable. Grasser stated that Parcel B had been reduced to the point that anything less would be to physically survey the perimeter of the building and only annex the building. That would set a precedent the city would not want to follow. Parcel B on Dr. Odegard’s proposal shows to be .94 acres and there are residential lots that size in the city. Grasser noted the city had expressed interest in annexation in the area since the mid-1990’s and there had been plenty of warning to that regard.

Matejcek said developers in the city only annex the pieces they wish to develop. Dr. Odegard is a small business sandwiched between the interstate and new development. The increase of taxes for the property would be a financial hit for a small business. Dr. Odegard has submitted a proposal and is willing to work with the city. It is better to work with a small business than forcing a small business into annexation.

Dr. Kweit said he was offended by Dr. Odegard’s attitude that the city should accept only what he proposes. If the city agrees with what he wants, it is fine but if not, he would fight it.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE DECEMBER 1, 2004, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

Potter presented a map and pointed out the current city limits area (dashed line) around Dr. Odegard’s property. The original proposed annexation line was the solid line shown on the map - east going west through the tree line to the west line of the property and then south to the existing city limits line to close the loop. That would include Dr. Odegard’s property and the interstate highway right-of-way.

Grasser asked Potter if the annexation was tied to the plat development and annexation of Tractor Supply Company? Potter replied no.

Hutchison asked about the date of annexation for the motion and what happens if there is a protest?

Potter answered if the motion was approved, the item would go back to the city council with a public hearing and assuming there is no protest, it would be effective when council approves it. If Dr. Odegard submits a protest, then the item would go before some type of mediation.

Matejcek said the mediation was called an Annexation Review Board made up of the Attorney General, a member of city council and a member of the township board.

Dr. Kweit noted that the annexation points system was part of the packet. Matejcek said the points system was a guide, not the law.

Dr. Odegard said he had already filed a protest and initiated the petition for the Annexation Review Board. Dr. Odegard said he had proposed annexation of Parcel B in 2006 and Parcels A and C in 2009 but would go along with annexing Parcel B in 2006, Parcel A in 2008 and Parcel C in 2009.

Matejcek said he had served on Annexation Review Boards and the Attorney General sets a time for the board and would preside over the hearing. It is similar to a trial with both sides presenting an argument for or against annexation.

Drees said he also had served on the Annexation Review Boards. He further stated that Parcel B could be enlarged somewhat but if the total land is presented (as presented in December, 2004) for annexation, the township and Dr. Odegard would have a good chance of winning. Dr. Odegard’s land does not need to be annexed all at once.

Hagness said he had served on an Annexation Review Board for the Anderson Addition and one of the main stipulations the board members looked at was the number of points on the annexation point system the city has followed for 30 years. If an area is receiving the benefits and a business benefits from the community, the owner should pay as other citizens pay. The taxes assessed to Dr. Odegard are the same taxes that others have to pay. Dr. Odegard has had 15 years to plan for the annexation. If Dr. Odegard would agree to annexation in 2006 and 2007, the city might agree to that. Hagness said he did not think Dr. Odegard would win with an Annexation Review Board because the point system shows the property should be annexed.

Dr. Odegard said he was not arguing against some annexation but he was arguing on the size and scope of the annexation.

Grasser said he wanted to correct the perception that the city has been uncompromising and inflexible on the issue. He pointed out the original proposed annexation included approximately 240,000 square feet. He said there was another proposal before the city that dropped the annexation area down to approximately 110,000 square feet, more than a 50% reduction. It delayed one parcel and eliminated another parcel so the city had not been totally inflexible. Grasser said he was not sure if that would have been acceptable to the city, but the option was on the table for discussion and the city had been negotiating in good faith on the issue.

Kreun stated the value of the property was increased because of the proximity to the city and because of the benefits the city brings to the property. Taxpayers have increased the value of his property and it would be only fair for him to pay his share. Dr. Odegard would benefit from police protection and continue to have his customer base closer to his property. All of the property is protected by the flood protection project and Dr. Odegard should pay a fair share of that. Kreun discussed the tax base of the city and the county. Both entities are in the process of re-appraising all under-appraised values and sometime in the future Dr. Odegard’s property values in the county would be very close to what they would be in the city.

Kreun referred members to page 4, picture A in the commission packet.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO ACCEPT THE AREA OF THE BUILDING AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING AND ALSO THE SECOND PART. KREUN SAID THAT WOULD BE TWO LOTS AND THE BACK LOT WOULD BE ELIMINATED AND DRAW THE PROPERTY WITH THE SECOND ONE. THE THIRD PART COULD BE LEFT OUT, BUT HE FELT THE AREA WHERE THE BUILDING WAS LOCATED SHOULD BE ANNEXED NOW AND THE NEXT PART IN 2007. THE TAXES ARE NOT PAID UNTIL THE YEAR AFTER SO THEY WOULD NOT BE DUE UNTIL 2008.

Malm said he would accept the motion as a substitute motion.

Drees asked Dr. Odegard if he would go along with that.

Dr. Odegard said it was better than taking the whole thing. He had talked to Mel Carsen about the taxes for different options. He stated he knew the county was re-assessing property but it would not go up four times. He was trying to keep the developed part as small as possible to help control the taxes. The annexed portion would still be assessed the flood assessment which is based on a per square foot basis.

Drees said he personally thought Parcel B should be enlarged but there was not much fire, police or flood protection needed on farmland. He would not vote for annexation but could understand other people thinking the developed portion should be annexed. Drees talked about how far out the city should go into the county and voiced his feelings against annexation.

Dr. Kweit said he could support Kreun’s motion except for the fact that the city has reached out several times and tried to present alternatives. The only alternative Dr. Odegard is willing to accept is his own option. Dr. Kweit said he did not like his option and the commission should send another message to the council on taking what is right. Dr. Odegard can then deal with the city council again and possibly a middle ground can be found. Dr. Kweit stated that Kreun’s motion was not a bad one, but is one that Dr. Odegard is unwilling to agree to and if the city goes into negotiations, they would go in from a weak point rather than a strong point. The point system indicates Dr. Odegard’s property should be annexed. The fact that the city has grown out to him indicates his land is worth much more money and if he has to pay more money for taxes for a few years, he would recoup it because of the increased value. He also stated that even though Dr. Odegard’s business might not need the police protection, it becomes more attractive for development if the protections are in place. The remainder of the city is subsidizing his portion of the flood protection as long as he is left outside of the city.

Drees said Dr. Odegard had come a long way by presenting a plan for annexation of his property.

Kreun said his proposal was for approximately 93,075 square feet and approximately 365 by 255 feet. That equates to just over two acres and the original request was for over five acres. The square footage proposed is average for a business and cuts the project almost in half and also gives him two more years to work on the remaining portion. Kreun said he could not guarantee he could sell it to the council but he would try.

Kreun asked Dr. Odegard if that would be acceptable; otherwise they would probably end up in arbitration and that doesn’t help anyone.

Dr. Odegard stated he had come a long way from nothing to give the city something with timelines and he was going to fight the annexation.

Kreun stated that if the issue ended up in arbitration, and whether Dr. Odegard won some or all of it, the city would continue with the annexation process and he would be annexed within the next five years because of the development that was occurring.

Potter showed a map and said he wanted to make sure about the area for annexation based on the substitute motion. He said the motion was based on map A. Parcel A would be annexed, assuming the issue is passed at council, immediately and Parcel B on January 1, 2007.

ROLL CALL FOR THE MOTION INDICATED THE FOLLOWING:
VOTING AYE: WHITCOMB, MALM, KREUN, JENO, HUTCHISON, HAGNESS.
VOTING NAY: SMITH, MATEJCEK, KWEIT, KERIAN, GRASSER AND DREES.

MALM ANNOUNCED THERE WAS A TIE VOTE OF 6-6 AND THAT THE MOTION FAILED.

MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR A VOTE.

MATEJCEK CALLED THE QUESTION.

ROLL CALL VOTE INDICATED THE FOLLOWING:
VOTING AYE: SMITH, MALM, KWEIT, KREUN, KERIAN, JENO, HAGNESS, AND GRASSER.

VOTING NAY: WHITCOMB, MATEJCEK, HUTCHISON, AND DREES.

MOTION PASSED 8-4 TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE MAP AND PRESENTED AT THE DECEMBER 1, 2004 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.


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

Gengler asked that the item be tabled and continued until the Central Business District Task Force has sufficient time to complete its findings.

MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO TABLE THE ITEM. 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 request, stating the ordinance had been tabled several times and amended from the original version. The ordinance was written to establish the ground rules to cover electronic message centers on ground monument signs. One of the main changes was to remove the reference for the ability for corner lot and double frontage lots to have two ground monument signs. He referred members to page 18, (9) (B) 2. which reads “Each message displayed on an electronic message center must be static or depicted for a minimum of two (2) seconds. Messages that do not meet the minimum display period shall be considered flashing and prohibited under this section.” The change came from a field trip taken by Gengler and the sign subcommittee members. The members toured the city and reviewed the newer electronic message center signs. Number 3 was also added previously. All proposals for electronic message centers on ground monument signs must be reviewed by the sign subcommittee prior to obtaining a sign permit.

Grasser asked if the definition for the signs related to the signs that include changeable backgrounds and messages or text only? The language appears to only apply to the text and the flashing backgrounds cover more area. He wondered if that needed to be addressed.

Gengler said the ordinance would include a sign that could display numbers, letters, or other graphics. The definition would have to cover a broad category and the sign subcommittee would be reviewing each sign. Gengler said the ordinance could be expanded to include message background or anything that would be in the parameters of the message center.

Jeno asked if rolling or scanning text applied to the two-second rule. Gengler answered it may apply if the message is scrolling.

Kreun said the most obtrusive signs were the ones that flashed very rapidly and were very bright. He mentioned the new bank with the very large sign that flashes very bright and fast.

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

Dr. Kweit commended staff for the field trip and also for the proposed ordinance that will help to curb some of them while still allowing businesses to advertise. Although they city wants to be business friendly, there is the need not to offend others with the signs.

MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITH NOTED CHANGES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL 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.

Gengler reviewed the plat, saying it was part of the overall concept development plan and consisted of approximately 80 acres. Staff recommended final approval subject to the special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

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

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show and dimension access control lines in correct locations as shown.
3. Label south and west lines of Section 22.
4. Rotate rights-of-way width text on street to read from right side of page.
5. Label South 11th Street.
6. Properly dimension 47th Avenue South rights-of-way west of South Washington Street and east of South 11th Street.
7. Plat is subject to 8% park dedication.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL 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 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED EAST ON SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET BETWEEN 40TH AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating that almost 400 notices were mailed to the surrounding area, primarily east of the property. He said he received three phone calls regarding clarification on the map sent with the letter.

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 GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
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?

NOTE: F.Y.I.:

40th Avenue South: As stated in section 18-0907, subsection (L) paragraph 2, relating to access to Collector streets:

· No single individual residential dwelling (established pursuant to this chapter) shall be permitted direct access to collector streets.

· All uses with one hundred fifty (150) feet or more of frontage may take direct access to collectors.

· Uses with less than one hundred fifty (150) feet of frontage shall not be permitted to take access directly to major collectors and shall be required to share common drives.

· No use shall be permitted to take direct access to a collector at any point within one hundred twenty (120) feet of any intersection.

Kreun commended the developer for the design being planned. The only comments have been about the holding pond. He asked the developer to make sure that it is built in a manner that it could easily be maintained.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF PRAIRIEWOOD FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED SOUTH OF ADAMS DRIVE AND EAST OF BELMONT ROAD.

Gengler reviewed the plat request. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Plat is subject to 8% park dedication.
3. Extend access control along the sides of Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 8, Block 1.
4. Add City of Grand Forks as owners of Lots 5 and 16, Block 2 to owner’s signature line..
5. Show arc length on curves 1, 4, 6-16.
6. Show radius of 70-feet in cul-de-sac in Block 3.
7. Name all streets as shown.
8. Label Adams Drive as a collector and Belmont Road as a minor arterial street.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND REZONE FROM A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT FOR ALL OF PRAIRIEWOOD FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED SOUTH OF ADAMS DRIVE AND EAST OF BELMONT ROAD.

Gengler reviewed the request. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-8. (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, ND, AND LOCATED IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF DEMERS AVENUE.

Durrenberger requested the item be tabled for one month.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE APRIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-9. (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 stated the owner could not attend the commission meeting and asked that the item be tabled.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DREES TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE APRIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD., ON BEHALF OF VERNON AND JUDITH GORNOWICZ, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF VERN’S SOUTHERN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1900 BLOCK OF 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger stated the owner’s representative requested the item be tabled for one month.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE APRIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-11. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SOUTHBROOK THIRD RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SOUTHBROOK SECOND ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED IN THE 1500 BLOCK OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat is for townhomes. The roads would be private. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the special condition.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITION:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-12. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF WALLY RODGERS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, BLOCK 14, MCKELVEY’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED AT 613 8TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the owner wanted combine four existing residential lots into two lots and construct a twinhome on the property. Staff recommendation was to approve the request.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Peg O’Leary said there was no problem with the division of the plat or with the owner/building, Mr. Rodgers. She showed pictures of in-fill housing in other areas constructed by Mr. Rodgers and said they fit into the neighborhood. Ms. O’Leary stated the area for the proposed twinhome is an older neighborhood and showed a picture of the modern twinhome to be constructed in the area. She requested that the style of twinhome not be allowed in the neighborhood. The twinhome is front-loaded and very large with the side entrances being barely visible. She asked that the item be tabled in order to discuss the issue further with Mr. Rodgers. She suggested a 150-foot easement across the back of the lot to allow construction of rear garages and a normal streetscape in the front with green space instead of seeing only garages.

Wally Rodgers, owner, said he respected what was said, but the area is zoned R-2 and the proposal is for a duplex. He asked for approval of the replat regardless of what is constructed on the site. He did ask for alternatives from Ms. O’Leary and Urban Development and said he would consider what they offer him, but he thinks the best use for the property is a twinhome.

Hagness agreed with a twin home being allowed in an R-2 and asked if there was way to re-locate the garages on the property without facing the street.

Mr. Rodgers said an easement across the back would create another stumbling block and he was trying to build affordable housing. The buyers for the neighborhood would be using government type loans and city-funded restrictions on party wall agreements and easements creates more stumbling blocks.

Hagness said the area was an old area but not historical and the twinhome would improve the area.

Mr. Rodgers was asked if an alley exists. He said there was one to the east side of the property. He continued to say there was a market for affordable twinhomes. The average elderly townhome buyer could not afford to pay $180,000 to $200,000 with $15,000 special assessments in the newer parts of town. People displaced by the flood like to live in the established neighborhoods and he is trying to provide that.

Grasser said he agreed with the comments on aesthetics, but the item before the commission is a replat and he wondered if a decision could be made on the platting process based on what may or may not be constructed. The plat needed to be treated as a plat.

Potter asked Mr. Rodgers if he owned the property and Mr. Rodgers answered yes. Potter said his suggestion would be to send the plat to the city council and Ms. O’Leary should discuss her concerns with the city attorney.

Dr. Kweit spoke on the issue and encouraged Mr. Rodgers to find a way to make the housing fit and be aesthetically pleasing. He wanted it noted in the minutes to city council to consider allowing a variance for an alley in the back to make it easier for Mr. Rodgers to create a more aesthetically pleasing twinhome.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Use shortened version of city council certificate as shown.
3. Show existing building limits if applicable.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:


4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COUNTRYVIEW THIRD RESUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED NORTH OF ADAMS DRIVE AND EAST OF BELMONT ROAD.

Durrenberger explained the area for the development is not properly zoned and is not located within city limits so would have to be annexed. Engineering staff review noted an existing plat replatted along Belmont Road with an existing alley that would require vacation. The plan, as proposed, requires further study as to future development in the area. The noted issues, as well as others, need to be addressed prior to presenting to the commission. Staff recommendation was to table the request.

MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY KREUN TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF JOHNSON’S WEST FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TWP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST, OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request stating he needed to define and described the plat after it had already been approved. The plat is for the proposed Tractor Supply Company development. The plat was approved showing a lot depth of approximately 470 feet. Later, the property owner and the buyer agreed on a purchase of an area less than was approved. The current plat, if approved by the commission and city council, will supercede the previously approved plat. The lot for the development would be 24 feet shorter than the previous version. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add ordinance No. 4029 to lands to be dedicated as right-of-way.
3. Show square footage and acreage for Lot 1, Block 1.

Drees asked about the area to the west of the proposed development. Gengler replied it was part of the Columbia Park West PUD but it was not included within the plat and would remain in the current A-2 status.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM CRARY DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, ALL THOSE LANDS TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, JOHNSON’S WEST FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, EXCEPT PARTS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP INCLUDED HEREIN, WHICH IS BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF AND LOCATED IN THE 4400 BLOCK OF 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the change in annexation was due to the plat change. There is a reduction from the previous annexation amount by .19 acres but does reflect the newly established parameter of the Johnson’s West First Addition.

Drees noted the annexation is exactly the size of the proposed plat, not the amount previously platted.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED WITH KERIAN VOTING NAY.


4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WARREN AND COLETTE LECLERC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE YOUNG RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, YOUNG SUBDIVISION INCLUDING A PLATTED STRIP OF LAND 30 FEET BY 306 FEET LYING BETWEEN THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY 81 AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1, PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS AN ACCESS ROAD AND INCLUDING AN UNPLATTED STRIP OF LAND 123 FEET BY 508 FEET LYING SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO SAID BLOCK 1 AND SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7274 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating it was for a two-lot residential subdivision. The request was denied by the commission last year based on a decision by the city attorney that the lot size did not meet the requirements for two and one-half acres for a rural residential lot. City council denied the request. The owner proposes to buy additional land to the south to create the two and one-half acre lots required by ordinance. Durrenberger said one of the requirements would be to extend the access road into the lot. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show spot ground elevations and note for origin of benchmark.
3. List county street address as shown.
4. Include lot square footage and acreage.
5. State basis of bearings.
6. Plat requires an ordinance to amend the street and highway plan for the south 123 feet of the 30-foot access road.
7. Add under Notes:
1. Add: (access road) after right-of-way .
2. Add benchmark elevation.
3. Basis of bearings.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF REPORT ON AGRICULTURE TOWERS BY FRANK MATEJCEK. (FOR INFORMATION ONLY).