Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
July 6, 2005

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 1, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of June 1, 2005. There were no corrections or additions noted 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, INC., ON BEHALF OF LOIS MAIER, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF REAL PRESENCE RADIO ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT DEMERS AVENUE AND SOUTH 69TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating a new plat in a different location had been received for the Real Presence Radio Addition.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO DENY THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM REAL PRESENCE RADIO, ON BEHALF OF NOR-AGRA, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BLOCK 1, LOT 1, OF THE REAL PRESENCE RADIO ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating an alternative site was selected for the radio tower and equipment shelter. Some concerns were expressed for the radio tower at the original site of South 69th Street and DeMers Avenue. The request for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a site located along 32nd Avenue South approximately 500 west of the railroad right-of-way. One of staff’s concerns was access to the site from 32nd Avenue South. As a result, one of the technical changes addresses the issue. There is an existing access west of the potato warehouses that runs by the property. The request is for a temporary access so that in the future if the property to the west is developed or a road put in by the property line, the temporary easement would be cancelled and the site would be accessible by a regular access point. Recommendation from the staff was for approval of the CUP conditional on a site plan being submitted and approved and also subject to the temporary access agreement.

Dr. Hall asked why the CUP was being requested for approval prior to the plat and also asked if Real Presence was the owner of the property. Durrenberger answered that they did not own the property yet, but could not have ownership until the plat was given final approval. The CUP approval would be attached to the plat when it was approved.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Judy Custer 1021 11th Street NE, Thompson, ND, said she owned the property just west of the site and wanted to know to know if the access affected her property or if the access was located totally on the Nor-Agra land. Durrenberger said the access was on the Nor-Agra land and would not affect her property.

Steve Loegering, 16055 35th Avenue, Casselton, ND, on behalf of Real Presence Radio, stated they had an access clause included in the purchase agreement. Potter reviewed the agreement and said it would be sufficient.

Public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTIGENT ON THE ACCESS BEING PART OF THE PLAT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PERKINS 1ST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3200 BLOCK OF SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat shows the right-of-way purchased by the city for the 32nd Avenue South/Columbia Road improvements. Recommendation by staff was for final approval subject to the technical changes.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, PERKINS 1ST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3300 BLOCK OF SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request explaining the plat showed the 5-feet of additional right-of-way acquired by the city of Grand Forks, ND. Recommendation by staff was for final approval subject to the technical changes.

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

Lee questioned the plat and Grasser explained that although the plat showed the entire area, the city only acquired 5-feet for additional right-of-way.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5 (PUBLIC HEARING) .MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, PERKINS 3RD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF COLUMBIA ROAD AND NORTH OF 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.


Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat included additional right-of-way acquired by the city in conjunction with the reconstruction and widening of South Columbia Road. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to technical changes 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 HALL AND SECOND BY LEE TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. In Columbia Park 31st Resubdivision, label Lot “A” as Lot “I.”
3. Extend access control along 36th Avenue South to 260 feet from Columbia Road to match south side of street.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA MALL SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF COLUMBIA ROAD AND SOUTH OF 24TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat showed the additional right-of-way acquired by the city of Grand Forks, ND for the reconstruction and widening of South Columbia Road by the LaBelle’s Subdivision. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the technical changes 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 HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show correct replat location in the vicinity map.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE STADTER CENTER, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF STADTER SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat had been modified from preliminary approval. The plat design was amended removing the small individually platted lots because it would create difficulties in meeting required setbacks. The new plat shows one lot for the Stadter Center property and one lot for the Stone’s Mobile. Staff’s recommendation was for approval subject to the technical changes 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 HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Extend 10-foot utility easement along the south line of 44th Avenue South to the west line of Lot 1.
3. Provide 10-foot utility easement along the east line of Lot 2.
4. Add dimensions to sanitary sewer ingress-egress areas through Lot 1.
5. Move South 16th Street label to right-of-way area north of 47th Avenue South.
6. Add name and title to owner’s certificate.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, ON BEHALF OF KERMIT AND PATRICIA RICKFORD, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 1, COUNTRYSIDE ACRES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED ON COLUMBIA ROAD AND MERRIFIELD ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat showed the property acquired for the flood protection property and also additional right-of-way acquired along South Columbia Road. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to technical changes 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 DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add document number for 27-foot roadway easement.
3. Add Block 1 to the plat title and in the owner’s certificate.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, ON BEHALF OF LAWRENCE JOHNSON, ETAL, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 2, 3 AND 6, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2 OF WHEATLAND ACRES SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT COLUMBIA ROAD AND MERRIFIELD ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat showed the property acquired for the flood protection property and also additional right-of-way acquired along South Columbia Road. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to technical changes 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 DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Label South Columbia Road as a future principal arterial.
3. Provide copy of 60-foot roadway easement and include recording number on plat.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PACES LODING CORPORATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT, A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CURRAN’S SECOND SUBDIVISION AND TO ALSO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINES) DISTRICT, ALL OF THE STADTER SECOND RESUBDIVISION AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE STADTER CENTER PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CURRAN’S SECOND SUBDIVISION AND ALL OF STADTER SECOND RESUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, BETWEEN 44TH AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was the rezoning for the previously discussed property of Stadter Center facility. The request allows agricultural land and B-3 uses to be under a planned unit development and allow better flexibility of design. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

Lee asked what portion was A-2 and what portion was B-3. Durrenberger showed the different zoning areas on the map and also indicated the property purchased for a parking area.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Provide copies of cross over agreements for parking and utility use.
2. Extend CDP boundaries to centerline of adjacent streets.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-11. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH SMITH NOLTING AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF BOB COWGER AND JIM HANSEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS A, D AND E OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HANSEN’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED AT 3531 AND 3499 13TH AVENUE NORTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the site was located south of the Hansen dealership on Gateway Drive. The replat was needed because the east two lots extended too far north into the property that contained the owner’s storage building. The replat would allow the lots to be developed into more apartment buildings. He pointed out the private access easement on 13th Avenue North and explained that access onto Boyd Drive was prohibited by access control approved as a condition of approval on the previous plat. The current replat would continue the restriction of access onto Boyd Drive. Staff recommendation was for approval of the replat request subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

Kreun noted the previous apartments constructed on the property raised a question about fire hydrants and whether there would be enough. If more apartments were being built with higher density, would there be enough fire hydrants to accommodate the fire department? He questioned the problems that could be incurred in the future without enough fire hydrants. Kreun requested the fire department review the issue to determine if there were enough fire hydrants for the area. Durrenberger stated that issue would be addressed on the site plan review.

Dr. Kweit asked about the density. Durrenberger explained the apartment buildings would be constructed for smaller (two bedroon instead of three bedroom) apartments and density remained the same.

Dr. Kweit asked if the neighbors were notified about the (fast track) replat. Durrenberger stated property owners were not notified for plats or replats.

Hagness said the only concern he heard about the apartments dealt with the possibility of accessing onto Boyd Drive. The private access easement answered that concern.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Remove company name or logo from drawing.
3. Include elevation contours or spot ground elevations.
4. Show existing easement, 5-foot on either side of the line common to Lots G & H.
5. Define area of ingress-egress across Lot G to provide access to Lot H.
6. Add utility easements or common area agreements for utility lines common to Lots G & H.

MOTION CARRIED WITH LEE VOTING NAY.


3-12. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 24TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED EAST OF COLUMBIA ROAD AND SOUTH OF 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the replat was in conjunction with the reconstruction and widening of South Columbia Road and showed the additional right-of-way acquired by the City of Grand Forks, ND. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-13. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM HHD, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF PERKINS 12TH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED ON BALSAM CIRCLE, EAST OF SOUTH 34TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the property owner wants to replat and rezone the property to accommodate R-2 (two-family) type dwellings. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

Dr. Kweit asked what the change would do to the density.

Gengler said density from R-1 to R-2 would not raise concerns as opposed to multiple family dwellings. There are two cul-de sacs currently zoned for single family dwellings and the proposal was to change to townhouse developments. The density would change from 7 to 10 units.

Whitcomb said she received a call from an individual owning property next to the proposed change. The current homeowner was very concerned because they were told the property surrounding them would be single-family dwellings. She also noted a notice for rezoning was received on Thursday before a long holiday weekend and some of the concern neighbors were unable to be at the meeting.

Kreun noted the proposed change faces 36th Avenue South and the current property to the east was a cul-de-sac with single family homes and would remain a single-family area. He asked if the rendering showed the twinhomes to be compatible with the neighborhood. Gengler said planning staff does not request a rendering of the proposed dwellings for a plat.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Scott Stauss, 3973 Shady Lane, representing HDD Development, stated they had discussed the proposed change with the single-family residents to the east and they had no concerns about the change from single-family to townhomes. The proposed plan would be a combination of ranch style and a split with a common wall. The price range would depend on what the homeowner wanted in the dwellling and the size of the dwellings would be approximately 1600 square feet. Stauss stated the proposed dwellings resemble a single-family home. Instead of seven single-family dwellings there would be five twin home units.

Greg Dufault, 3781 Ruemmele Road, said his property abuts the south side of the area proposed to be rezoned. Mr. Dufault noted that a year ago the developers of the area changed the zoning on lots to the north of them from low-density multi-family to a higher-density, rezoned three lots to the west from single-family to low-density multi-family, vacated and rezoned a cul-de-sac to the east from single-family to multi-family. His concern was that the character of the neighborhood was changing radically. They purchased their property in April, 2003 and at that time, it was predominantly a single-family development. With the replat and rezoning, the area would predominantly be a multi-family development. Mr. Dufault said that HDD had not talked to them about any of the changes. The Dufault’s property would abut the very south and east corner of the proposed rezoning. When asked if other neighbors were concerned about the rezoning, he answered yes. He felt others would have been at the meeting, but the long holiday weekend prevented them from doing so. The neighbors have been unable to get together and discuss the issue and he wanted to be able to do that.

Kerian asked Mr. Stauss about the timing of the development change and he answered it was set for August 15, 2005. None of the lots have been sold as yet.

Kreun asked Mr. Stauss the reason for changing the zoning on the cul-de-sacs. Stauss answered the lots have been for sale for several years and the problem with selling them has been the increased traffic along 36th Avenue South. Building single-family homes on the lots without having them sold would make it more difficult and that was the reasoning for changing the zoning from single-family to twin homes.

Kreun stated something had to be changed to accommodate the buyer or they lots would set without any tax base for years to come. He also noted the twin homes would be a better buffer from the multi-family and commercial businesses. He understood Mr. Dufault concerns but the majority of his property did abut next to single-family dwellings. The twin homes would look like single-family homes and the changing from seven single-family lots to five twin homes would not be a dramatic difference.

Mr. Dufault said the concern was not about whether the property would be single-family or twin homes; the concern was about the direction the development in the neighborhood appears to be taking. Other lots are still available and his concern was that next year a request would be made to change the zoning for those also. They were told informally that when the apartments were constructed to the north and the townhouses to the west, they were creating a buffer between the commercial and single-family homes. They purchased their property with the expectation that it would be a single-family development. Mr. Dufault said they invested money in their home and expected to live in it for a very long time. Part of the purchase agreement included building a home of a certain size, with a certain size of garage in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood. They agreed to that, but the character of the neighborhood was being changed by the developers.

Kreun said the developers put in the streets and they tried to sell the lots as single-family for several years but supply and demand creates changes.

Dr. Kweit talked about the density issue in a PUD area. The idea was to balance all the issues, land uses and buffers. The developers have continued to make changes in zoning and land uses in the development and each time the density has increased. By doing that, the character of the entire development was changed. He stated the PUD needed to be viewed as a whole and what impacts are made when changes are approved. He suggested the remainder of the property in the development should be carefully reviewed.

Grasser said it was one thing to change the character of the development behind Mr. Dufault’s property and quite another thing to change the area to the side of him. He felt the property facing 36th Avenue South was one thing but if a proposal was presented to change any of the property facing Ruemmele Road, that would be an very different situation. He would be concerned about that issue from a planning standpoint.

Hagness stated his main concern was changing the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The homeowners want to protect the area from future changes and he did not see a problem with tabling the issue for one month to allow more discussion among the homeowners and with the developers.

Whitcomb said she understood the short building season, but felt that in all fairness of the single-family homeowners in the area, the request should be reviewed for one month.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO TABLE TO REQUEST UNTIL THE AUGUST 3, 2005, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Hagness suggested Mr. Stauss meet with the neighbors in the development and discuss the issue.

3-14. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM HHD, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE AND REZONE FROM THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4, ALL OF PERKINS THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDITIONS AND ALL OF PERKINS SIXTH THROUGH TWELFTH RESUBDIVISIONS TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Gengler stated the request was for the zoning change of the previous item discussed and based on the tabling of that request, the rezoning issue should also be tabled.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO TABLE THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-15. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM CRARY DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 16 AND 17, BLOCK 3, SOUTHBROOK FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 4814 AND 4820 CURRAN COURT.

Gengler reviewed the request stating there was a 10-foot utility easement on the common lot line of two adjoining properties. He referred the request to Grasser to explain the technical issues involved with the vacation.

Grasser said there was an existing 24” storm sewer pipe that discharges between the properties. The request was to vacate 2-feet from each easement and Grasser said the technical challenges of doing repairs would probably be the same. In either case, the working area would be very restricted. If a leak occurs in a storm sewer pipe and soil seeps in, a void could be created. He wanted to make sure that if that situation, though rare, were to happen, it would not cause a catastrophic failure. He spoke on the issues that with four-foot type footings, a 45-degree angle of soil loss from the pipe could intercept the footings. Grasser said he visited with Mr. Crary and his engineer and felt that extending the footings down to eight-feet would help mitigate the problem. That would put the footings almost to the level of the pipe and generally eliminate the potential for catastrophic failure to the footings. He suggested that if the vacation was approved, it should be contingent upon the buildings on the adjacent lots being constructed with a minimum eight-feet to the top of the footings.

Kerian said Grasser appears to still have some concerns about the issue and wondered if it made sense to approve the vacation.

Grasser said there is a very tight location and there would be challenges in getting equipment in the area. He further stated his first preference would be not to develop in that type of situation, but sometime it cannot be avoided. Grasser said he prefers lots of room and safety. Reducing the easement by two feet on each side probably would not be a problem beyond what already exists.

Tim Crary, developer, stated there were 26 townhomes built on Curran Court. All were identical and with the 10-foot utility easement, the plan would have to be changed to make two of the buildings smaller. He felt it would change the aesthetics of the block. He stated they would do whatever was needed on the footings as stated by city engineering if they could vacate two feet on each side of the easement.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST CONTINGENT ON THE ADJACENT LOTS BEING CONSTRUCTED WITH EIGHT-FEET FOOTINGS. MOTION CARRIED WITH KERIAN VOTING NAY.


3-16. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM HOUSTON ENGINEERING, INC., ON BEHALF OF TIM AND FRANK PROPERTIES, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 27, BLOCK 1, BOYD’S SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT 3805 GATEWAY DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed the request by explaining the background of the area which would include information for the current item and also Item 4-1 since both items were related. He spoke on the issue from last month of a developer who requested to increase the density from 16 units to 32-units on property just adjacent to the proposed development of Advance Auto. It was approved by the Commission but denied by City Council. That property remains at a 16-unit density.

The current request was for a single platted lot stretching from Gateway Drive to 13th Avenue North by Advance Auto in order to construct a new auto parts store adjacent to Gateway Drive. The entire property would not be needed for the development and a request to replat and rezone (Item 4-1) the property was received. The request would be to rezone the southerly portion to a residential area with density to be determined. If the rezoning were to be denied and the property needed to maintain the B-3 commercial status, access would not be allowed onto 13th Avenue North because of the R-2 status on the south side. If the rezoning were denied, access control would be applied to the south lot line. If the rezoning were approved, it would revert to residential and could have access onto 13th Avenue North. If the lot were to remain commercial, Advance Auto’s lot would have to provide access to the southerly lot as a platting requirement. Gengler noted the property could be developed today without a replat and rezoning request.

Kreun asked about the R-4 zoning and density cap on the adjacent property discussed last month and asked about the use and density for the southerly portion behind the Advance Auto property.

Gengler said there was an interested party in developing the southerly portion of the Advance Auto lot up to a maximum of 12 units. Density analysis of the property to the west (16-unit cap) would be approximately 9.5 unit per acre. The current proposal, if approved for residential use (R-4), could be capped at 12 units or 10.5 unit per acre (one more unit per acre than the property adjacent to the west). Gengler said Councilman Brooks was meeting with neighbors to work out a solution for development of the property. Should the property be kept in a commercial status for future development or rezoned to a residential area for development?

Kreun said the property has been vacant for years although he noted a gas station was built years ago on the north half of the property. Kreun favored changing to a R-4 district, if the neighbors would be receptive to the change.

Kerian asked if there was a connection between the two properties (southerly portion of proposed Advance Auto property and property adjacent to the west. Gengler said the properties were separate, but the two parties involved have been talking about the development of the properties. Changing the zone to R-4 on the southerly portion of the current request would be consistent.

Kerian asked if the developer from last month was still considering constructing the 16-units. Gengler said he did not know, but the cap would still set at 16 units since it was denied at City Council for an increase.

Gengler said although the platting request was a fast-track item, the following item (4-1) would require a two-month process for rezoning.

Hagness stated the plan would be good orderly growth with the R-2, R-4 and B-3 Districts and the proposed development would eliminate commercial on 13th Avenue North.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion to establish ownership.
2. Letter lots as “A” and “B.”
3. Show iron monument set at lot corners common to Lots A & B.
4. Remove company name from plat.
5. Add addition names to adjacent lands.
6. Show all existing easements adjoining plat area.
7. Add access control line to legend and drawing.
8. Include existing easements as shown across Lots A & B.
9. Add a 20-foot ingress-egress easement on Lots A & B as shown to provide access to Lot “B.”

Hutchison asked if there would be a continuation of similar development to the east. Gengler said interested parties have asked about the property to the east of the current request, but after bore samplings were accomplished, it was discovered that a dump ground of concrete was on the property and that may hinder any development.

Hutchison asked about the neighborhood concerns on the development of the property. Gengler noted there were concerns about the 16-unit development from last month. The neighbors for the current rezoning request would be notified later this month about the rezoning request. Hutchison agreed that the development was a good plan.

Malm stated he was a resident in the area and neighbors should consider the proposal. If another developer were to put a street on the north side of the property, the visual view would be the rear of commercial development.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM AND FRANK PROPERTIES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-4 (MULTIPLE-FAMIY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT, LOT B, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 27, BLOCK 1, BOYD’S 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED IN THE 4000 BLOCK OF 13TH AVENUE NORTH.

Gengler reviewed the request and showed the rendering of the proposed development. With a conventional rezoning, no density caps are specified. The R-3 District would allow up to 16 units per acre and R-4 District would allow up to 50 units per acre. Gengler suggested the proposed development should have a cap of 12 total units.

Kreun asked why the R-4 zoning instead of R-3. Gengler said that was discussed and felt the R-4 would be a logical connection as long as the density cap was in place.

Mr. Gregoire, developer of the proposed request, stated the lot was 1.1 acres. They have built the same development in the cities’ and the 12-unit development at the proposed site would create a compatible development to the planned 16-unit development to the west and to the neighborhood.

Staff recommendation was to limit the overall number of units to 12 and that was also the request of the developer.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST AND SET A CAP OF 12 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD., ON BEHALF OF LPF PROPERTIES, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 8 AND LOTS 13 THROUGH 20, BLOCK 1, NORTH PINES RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 4718 THROUGH 4778 PINES CIRCLE.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the property was formerly the site of the Christian School. The school was torn down and re-developed. Pine Circle was platted for two-family lots. The developer wants to convert the remainder to sing-family lots. The 16 townhome lots would be converted to single-family lots.

MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion to establish ownership.
2. Add arc lengths to all curve segments in cul-de-sac.
3. Check distance on the south line of Lot “M” and the south line of the platted area.
4. Use shortened city council certificate as no right-of-way dedication is necessary.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, INC., ON BEHALF OF STEVE LOEGERING, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF REAL PRESENCE RADIO ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the item was discussed under the CUP request (Item 3-2). He talked about the temporary access easement. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion to establish ownership.
2. Change 44th Avenue South to 40th Avenue South.
3. Show monument placed at the south corners of Lot 1.
4. Label 32nd Avenue South as Grand Forks County Road Number 32.
5. Provide legal access to Lot 1, Block 1.
6. Label 40th Avenue South as a future collector.
7. Supply copy of temporary access easement and include document number on plat as proof of legal access to this site.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

Potter announced that the ordinance dealing with the issue of single-family dwellings in the downtown was approved by the City Council on July 5, 2005, and would be on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda in August.

Smith stated she sat on the task force studying the issue at the request of the mayor. The recommendations of the task force were sent to the City Council and those recommendations were tabled from a planning perspective. It was forwarded to the Finance Committee. She stated the members of the task force were very disappointed in the Council action. She requested the recommendations and draft staff report from the task force be included in the August packet for the commission members to study.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Dr. Kweit spoke on two subcommittees. The first one was the Land Use Subcommittee. He announced that the consultant from the MPO working on the Land Use Plan would be in town to work with focus groups on July 21. Earl Haugen, GF-EGF MPO Executive Director, has requested a meeting with the Land Use Subcommittee on July 21 after 10:00 a.m. (this would be after the consultant has met with the focus groups). Dr. Kweit asked the members to let him know if they could meet on that date and time.

The second subcommittee was the Sign Subcommittee. Dr. Kweit stated he had received communication from the Gateway Association of their concern on the proposed ordinance on billboards. Their desire was to have the Gateway corridor look similar to the South Columbia Road corridor and they requested to have some input before the ordinance was finalized. He requested that members of the Sign Subcommittee, Dennis Potter and Russ Newman (Newman Outdoor Signs) consider attending the next Gateway meeting or Beautification Committee. The Sign Subcommittee needs to meet and ask for participation and input from the Gateway group before the ordinance could be finalized.

Malm said someone would need to contact Rick Duquette regarding the date since the Office of Economic Assistance, Washington, D.C. representatives would be in town on July 21, 2005 to deal with the BRAC realignment and closing. They want to meet with the city and county officials that day and he was unsure of the time. Dr. Kweit answered he would notify Earl Haugen about the conflict and see what could be worked out.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



___________________________