Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
September 7, 2005

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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

Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Brad Gengler, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior. Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 3, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of August 3,
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 CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ALLEN EIDE FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1, PERKINS 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 3251 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was a replat of a large undeveloped parcel of land. He showed the map of the property and stated it was being replatted to accommodate a major department store. During staff review, concerns were raised about the location of the access from South 34th Street. Because of staff concerns, a traffic study was performed and recommendations of where the access should be were determined from that study. Durrenberger recognized Mark Lambrecht (CPS, Ltd) and Bob Cunningham (developer for Kohl’s Department Store).

Mark Lambrecht, 3316 Primrose Court, representing CPS, Ltd and also representing Told Development Corporation (developer of the proposed Kohl’s Department Store), showed a revised plan based on the recommended access of the traffic study. He said the tract of land was approximately 20 acres total and Kohl’s Department Store would be utilizing a 6.5-acre parcel. The store would be 68,000 square foot with associated parking of 340 spaces. Based on the city’s review of the plan and concerns on traffic issues approaching South 34th Street, the developer retained a traffic engineer to study the area. The primary change was the location of the northerly entrance to the proposed store. The access originally was offset from the entrance to the west toward the Super Target area. The recommendation was to directly align that entrance so there would be a full service intersection where the two private frontage roads meet. South 34th Street would be changed to a three-lane urban section with a north and south bound traffic lane and a center portion with opposing left turns to both directions. With the configuration change, the area of the parcel would change slightly. The replat also includes two outlots (Lot E and G) to be possibly subdivided in the future.

Hagness welcomed Mr. Bob Cunningham and the Kohl’s development. Mr. Cunningham, Told Development Corporation, stated his corporation is a preferred developer for the Kohl’s Department Store. He stated Kohl’s Department Store is a full-line, full-service discount department store for all ages and all areas of the home. He noted that preliminary grading would be accomplished yet this fall and the plan is to have the store open in October, 2006.

Grasser also welcomed the development to the city. He said that growth in the city does create impacts and the traffic study by the developer has been accepted. He further stated some of the stacking bays would be shortened off 32nd Avenue South and there may be impacts in traffic in the future, but the compromise is reasonable.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB 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. Add access control along 32nd Avenue South and South 34th Street.
3. Remove street and highway ordinance number from city council approval.
4. Change the 10-foot utility easement along the west line of Lot “E” to a 10-foot roadway and utility easement.
5. Extend the 10-foot sidewalk easement along the west line of Lot “E,” south to the private roadway.
6. A traffic analysis study along south 34th Street may necessitate driveway location changes. Revise plat based on the Benshoof and Associates Inc. traffic impact study.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF JED AND JENNIFER CARLSON, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF EAST LAKE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat was for a large lot rural
subdivision divided into 2.5-acre lots and also provides for the adjacent street.
Staff recommendation was to approve the request subject to the technical changes
shown.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO APPROVE THE
PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
Submit title opinion.
Change the word “subdivision” to “addition” in the owner’s certificate.
Check spelling in owner’s consent notary.
Modify “notes” as shown regarding best available flood elevation data and City of Grand Forks warranties.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF ICON-McENROE LAND DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF McENROE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the plat was for a mixed use commercial and residential subdivision. Access is provided from South 42nd Street via Gardenview Drive. Two lots in the front off South 42nd Street are being rezoned from residential to B-3 type uses and behind these lots would be B-1 (Limited Development) uses of office buildings and R-4 residential type units. He showed on the map where townhomes and single-family homes would be located bordering the Ray Richards Golf Course. A temporary cul-de-sac/turnaround would be required until Gardenview Drive is extended eastward to 11th Avenue South. McEnroe Court would be a private road and Gardenview Drive would be dedicated as a public street. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes as noted.

Dr. Kweit asked for clarification on Gardenview being designated as a “drive.” Durrenberger said eventually the street would be continued at some time and Gardenview Drive is the appropriate designation.

Grasser said the engineering department is still missing the general detailed concept plan and the utility layout for the area. Parcels are being presented more and more without a general detailed concept plan and utility layout and he wanted developers to know those will be required.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON 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. Submit utility master plan for all areas north of 11th Avenue South.
3. Dedicate 70-feet of right-of-way along South 42nd Street.
4. Label Gardenview Drive and South 42nd Street “dedicated as public right-of-way.”
5. Supply copy of temporary turnaround easement and 10-foot utility easement with adjoining property owner.
6. Name private drive on Lot 5 as McEnroe Court.
7. Add additional utility easements as shown.
8. Additional lot area may be needed if a stormwater holding pond is required.
9. Label missing line type.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF ICON-McENROE LAND DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE GARDEN VIEW ESTATES AREAS 6-1, 7-1 AND 7-2 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE McENROE FIRST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF THE McENROE FIRST ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating commercial (B-3) type uses would front onto South 42nd Street, then office buildings and apartments (B-1) type uses that would transition into single-family properties or condominiums. He discussed the density levels for the residential levels saying they were just slightly higher than Gardenview Estates. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to technical changes shown on the review copy.

Hagness questioned the single-family area located across from a commercial area. Durrenberger said it would depend on the final plan. The transition would include a higher buffering of trees, etc. based on the land uses proposed.

Kreun spoke to that issue and said commercial already abuts to R-1 on South 42nd Street. But there is a heavy buffer of mounding, trees and distance and that would partially be required for the new development. It is important to the neighbors that there is a buffering between the land uses. Durrenberger said he received a call from a property owner concerned about commercial along 11th Avenue South, but there is no proposed development there at this time. He received a total of two calls on the issue.

Kreun said the area was in his ward as councilman and he had only one call regarding the proposed development. He said the area covered for notices of the proposed development was approximately 600 feet, so a wide area was notified of the development. There were only three phone calls regarding the development.

Kerian asked if the B-1 land uses would be built first. She said it seems to help if the business development is built first so that single-family homebuyers are aware from the beginning what is in place as far as businesses. Durrenberger said the developers did not indicate the sequence of development.

Dr. Kweit suggested another condition be added that commercial property be posted so everyone is aware of the land use.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REQUEST AND TO ADD ANOTHER CONDITION THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BE DEFINED AND POSTED AS COMMERCIAL SO THAT PEOPLE IN THE R-1 AREA WOULD BE AWARE OF WHERE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WOULD BE LOCATED AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING OTHER TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Label 11th Avenue South as a collector.
2. Rename McEnroe Drive to McEnroe Court.
3. Provide drawing legend.
4. Provide development summary table for individual sub areas showing designation (C-1, SF-1, M-1 etc.) zoning (R-1 Type Uses, B-3 Type Uses, etc.), acreage—gross and net, the number of units and development densities for residential housing areas, and development sequence. Enter NA for B-3 Districts under density and maximum-number-of-units columns.
5. Provide map showing the Garden View PUD with areas of zoning changes.
6. Final approval of CDP subject to resubmission of annexation petition with all property owners’ signatures and CDP completed application.
7. Provide copies of cross over agreements for access and utility use.
8. Provide utility plan for entire area north of 11th Avenue South. Show any proposed runoff holding areas.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR GREENBERG, JR., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COLUMBIA PARK 28TH RESUBDIVISION (FORMERLY SUBMITTED AS COLUMBIA PARK 32ND RESUBDIVISIONAND BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 28TH ADDITION AND UNPLATTED LANDS SOUTH THEREOF) TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the area was located south of the Truck Plaza on I-29. He showed where the city limits line was located and said a request was made to extend the subdivision further south and add an additional local road between 36th Avenue South and proposed 38th Avenue South which would be South 43rd Street. The road was added by the owner who felt additional access was needed. The lots are planned as offices for contractors with adjacent storage yards. Durrenberger also discussed the buffering of the area. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

Grasser stated the area is beyond the typical city utility services for sanitary sewer and wanted it known that some unusual or unique things might have to take place.

Malm said he wanted everyone to understand it is intended for construction storage of materials and equipment. The offices would be located on the east side and the construction storage would be on the west side of the street and would be surrounded by a chain link fence with slats in it to camouflage the area.

Drees asked Grasser if the ground water would be a problem in the area and asked if it would be possible to open up a drainage to the ditch on the east side of the interstate. Grasser said 43rd Street would probably drain into the holding pond to the west of the area but was unsure if there was adequate capacity in the pond. He said there would probably be a need for holding ponds on the west side because of the drainage issues.

Potter apologized to the Commission and stated he had been lax in his review of the request. He said he just realized the area was being considered for outdoor contractors’ storage yards and the screening is only six feet high. He said there would be a junkyard there. His recommendation was to change the six-foot screening to a 10-foot screening and require no visual sightline of stored stuff above the fence.

Hagness said he agreed. He said there were water problems out there now and was concerned about more paving in the area causing more water problems. Grasser said there were unique challenges to face when areas are pushed beyond the development limits of infrastructure. The engineering department will proceed with handling the issues once the development is approved by the council.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Doug Herzog, CPS, Ltd., stated they had been working for three years with the County Water Resource Board, City of Grand Forks, ND, ND Highway Department and the Federal Highway Administration in dealing with the water issues that had been noted. The plan is to cut off some of the water from the campground and allow it to flow into the ditch before it travels north past the proposed facilities. He noted there is one last hurdle to overcome and that would be constructed this fall. He said the holding pond is being studied for capacity and currently 36th Avenue South (partially paved) goes to the holding pond as well as the future 43rd Street when and if the development takes place. Mr. Herzog said he took exception to the term “junkyards” since they were planned to be similar to those constructed in Congressional 1st Resubdivision. He also stated the 10-foot fencing would not be a problem but should not be considered as part of the plat. That would be addressed on the detailed development plan.

Dr. Kweit asked if there would be a problem to tabling the request for one month. Herzog answered that it would slow down title to the land for a buyer. The detailed development plan and building permits, as well as the infrastructure plans, still need to be presented and would offer an opportunity for more review and changes. He said it probably would not affect the development if tabled for a month but questioned the need to do so when other mechanisms are in place to stall development until all questions are answered. The plan only configures a piece of ground, dedicates right-of-way and plans for infrastructure. Herzog also noted that many times a platted piece of property sets for years before being developed. The property is properly zoned I-2 and is zoned for those types of facilities.

Potter said he felt as long as a condition was added requiring an opaque fence 10-feet high and no stacking or storage visible above the fence, the issue could be finalized. He felt the condition should be added to the plat.

Herzog said that would not be a problem but many times the use changes and the fencing requirement would be on the plat. The review process, depending upon the land use, is through the detailed development plan process; not the platting process.

Malm closed the public hearing and returned the issue to the Commission members.

Drees said he agreed with Mr. Herzog and said until they knew exactly what would be the use of the property, it is unknown what the height of the fence should be. If one is needed, it can be added.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

Lee asked if the property was conventional zoning and Durrenberger replied it was in a PUD (Planned Unit Development). The land uses would be B-3/I-2 type uses.

Hagness said he agreed with Drees. Since the property is only being platted and Mr. Herzog has heard the concerns voiced by the Commission members and the fear of “junkyards,” he would be responsible and not bring in that type of use. He felt the Commission had the cart before the horse.

Dr. Kweit said that since the zoning was in a PUD, there would be a site review before anything was allowed to be constructed in the area. If a “junkyard” type use were planned, there would be the means to impose additional conditions.

Durrenberger said if the fencing condition was added to the plat, it would carry forward from now on. It could be made as a condition on the detailed development plan.

Potter said he was not sure under the PUD, detailed site review, he had the ability to raise a fence above whatever is required for that zoning and he did not know how high the requirement would be. He stated that was the reason he was asking for the condition now. This would be the only mechanism the planning staff has to insure the fencing would be added. Otherwise, he said he would request the agenda item be moved to the bottom of the list to allow Durrenberger to research the fence height issue and determine whether or not planning staff could require an opaque fence at a certain height. If the plat is approved without his recommendation and the site plan is submitted with fencing only five or six feet high (by code), a requirement of a higher fence might not be possible. The only way the Commission would see the issue again would be if the decision were to be appealed.

MOTION TO AMEND BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE UTILIZED AS OUTSIDE STORAGE IN THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF AN OPAQUE FENCING MATERIAL AT A HEIGHT OF 10-FEET BE USED AND ALSO THAT NO STORAGE BE VISIBLE ABOVE THE SIGHT LINE OF THE FENCE.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add access control to legend.
3. Include total platted acreage in owner’s consent.
4. Access control all of the east side of Lot D, Block 1.
5. Add utility easements as shown.
6. Provide written document for the 15-foot wide utility easement south of 38th Avenue South as it is outside the plat boundary.
7. Label South 42nd Street as a future arterial.
8. Provide utility master plan for area.
9. Add note: Exterior storage shall be screened with a ten (10) foot high sight-obscuring fence. No storage shall be visible above visibility fence.

ORIGINAL MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVEN L. ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR GREENBERG JR., FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL OF COLUMBIA PARK 28TH RESUBDIVISION NOT CURRENTLY ANNEXED, INCLUDING 140 FEET SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 38TH AVENUE SOUTH LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Durrenberger reviewed the annexation request which also includes 140 feet south
of 38th Avenue South as required by city code and to allow for spreading of
special assessments for improvements. Staff recommendation was for final
approval of the request.

Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. The meeting was returned to the Commission for a decision.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE AND REZONE FROM THE WEST CAMPUS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE WEST CAMPUS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF WEST CAMPUS RESUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND DEMERS AVENUE AND BETWEEN NORTH 42ND STREET AND INTERSTATE 29.

Gengler reviewed the request for a wind turbine (otherwise known as a wind energy conversion system) on UND property. He noted there were still some details to work out. The request is to add a wind turbine to the list of permitted uses under the West Campus PUD (Planned Unit Development). The approximate location of the facility is somewhere in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the property on DeMers Avenue and North 42nd Street. Gengler further noted that the wind turbine could not be constructed any closer than 130 feet from any property line in the southwest corner of the property. Notifications of the change were mailed out and there were no responses to that notification. Approval from the Hilton management would be sought before any construction takes place. If the Hilton does not approve the location, the request could be withdrawn. If the request is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, a site plan would be required.

Kerian asked for a specific siting. Gengler said there has never been a precise spot on a map.

Kreun stated his understanding was that there would be a grant for the research and after the grant ran out, more grants would be sought to continue the research. He said if there was a period of one year where the wind turbine was not in use and the grant money had run out, it should be removed. He did not want to see a deteriorating piece of equipment on the property. Gengler said that condition could be added since it was a PUD and not a plat.

Grasser said there had been issues on lavoratories and sewer and plumbing and asked if the issues had been resolved.

Gengler stated inspections and planning staff met with the petitioner and discussed the various issues and felt a remedy to the various issues could be found.

Hagness asked about the research trailer being proposed to set on the property.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Kevin Harrison, 3904 University Avenue, University of North Dakota, stated the research trailer is a shipping container that has been retrofitted to house instrumentation and testing equipment. He said the picture of the trailer included in the packets is one located at the National Wind and Energy Lab in Colorado where he has been interning. He said the research trailer (20-foot) would be similar but would only have one access door on the side and would not include as much hardware as shown in the picture. The end doors would be in place in order to get in the large equipment but would not be used as personnel access doors. Lee questioned if one door was enough for safety in case of a fire.

Bev Collings, Superintendent of the Inspections Department, stated that unless the facility were over 400 square feet, a second access would not be necessary.

Hagness asked if it would visible from all roads and Mr. Harrison answered yes.

Mr. Harrison stated the Energy and Environmental Research Center Graphics Department had presented ideas to utilize the UND logo on the side and other writing that would indicate it to be a research facility.

Hagness asked that the trailer be dressed up since it would be very visible. Mr. Harrison said they were in discussions with the Hilton management with all of the plans for the facility.

Kerian agreed that appearance was very important and asked that the trailer be made as attractive as possible.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF ADDING A WIND TURBINE TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES UNDER THE WEST CAMPUS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Kerian said she forgot to add the condition of having the facility and wind turbine removed after one year if it were no longer in use.

Malm said if parties making the motion agreed, that would be added.

Hagness noted that Mr. Harrison and Mr. Zitzow had already left and they should be noticed on the condition.

Hutchison said two years would be more appropriate than one year. He noted this was an important project and they should be allowed more time to obtain more grant funding.

Malm reopened discussion on Item 3-7.

Kreun said the facility and wind turbine should not set unused for more than one year without being removed.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND TO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT IF THE BUILDING OR WIND TURBINE SETS UNUSED FOR ONE YEAR, THE FACILITY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.

Jeno pushed for the two-year limit. He said it was quite common for a project to stand down for a year and then begin the budget process for the following year.

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
VOTING AYE: GRASSER, HAGNESS, KERIAN, KREUN, DR. KWEIT, LEE, MALM AND WHITCOMB.

VOTING NAY: DREES, DR. HALL, HUTCHISON, JENO, AND SMITH.

MOTION CARRIED 8-5.


3-8. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A DEDICATED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4, GREAT NORTHERN FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT ALPHA AVENUE AND NORTH 6TH STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating there were some recent replats in the northern part of the city. He noted a small portion of existing right-of-way and stated it was no longer needed. Staff recommendation was for approval of the vacation of the street right-of-way as shown on the map.

MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 5100 TO 5400 BLOCKS OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request, showing a map of the entire area, including the golf course, park property and other developments. He referred members to the technical change form and discussed some of the issues. One of the issues was the permanent 30-foot bikeway easement established on the northerly portion of the property. The plat required some adjustments because of the easement and through negotiations, the easement has been identified on the plat. However, after further review it was determined to be a large portion of property on the rear sides of the properties. Staff has recommended as a technical change, to accept the strip as a dedicated public right-of-way versus a standard easement. He addressed the access control on the westerly edge of the area identified as Lot 18, Block 1. A driveway would be allowed for that property but no other access points would be allowed. The access control is to eliminate many driveways backing onto South 14th Street. Access control is also recommended on the south side of the area identified as Lot 18. At some future point, a lighted intersection is expected at the intersection of 55th Avenue South and South Washington Street and the access control would allow more space for future turn lanes. There would be approximately 180-feet of access control from Washington Street going west and approximately a 40-foot wide break to allow one driveway and the remainder would again be under access control. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to the technical change shown.

Hagness asked what would be included in Lot 18, Block 1. Gengler stated it was in a PUD but zoned for R-3 type uses; a single-family area would be a permitted use. A specific plan has not been presented to determine if it would be single-family or townhome development in Lot 18, Block 1.

Gengler was asked about the bikepath easement east of Lot 17 as noted in No. 7 of the technical changes. Gengler said a connection needed to be established for the proposed development and anything else that might occur to the south. The suggestion is a bikeway connection east of Lot 17, a single-family lot that abuts the large lot off South Washington Street. Gengler also pointed out the 60-foot roadway and utility easement located between Lots 9 and 10 in the northwestern corner of the property. That area would offer a roadway connection in the future to the school and park property. The details have not been worked out but it was determined that the roadway easement should be secured for the future.

Dr. Hall asked about requirements for streets names. He wondered if Kings View Drive would be confusing for city services since Kings Cove already exists in the Medvue Addition. Gengler said that was something to consider and help eliminate confusion.

Grasser said a condition should be added that the master utility plan needs to be submitted in order to address the area down to 62nd Avenue South.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Doug Herzog, CPS, Ltd., stated he was surprised about the access control of residential area accessing a very minor residential street. Until a plan is in place for townhomes, he asked that the access control be added to the PUD without the lines being drawn on the plat. If that statement were added to the PUD, there would be more flexibility in the design process. He questioned the bikepath easement east of Lot 17 and noted there was 260 feet of right-of-way along South Washington Street. The bikepath already in place to the north is located in the right-of-way. Having the easement along Lot 17 creates traffic next to a single-family home which has been a problem in the past.

Gengler agreed that some of the issues could be handled through the PUD and detailed development plan process rather than including them on the plat.

Further discussion ensued on where the bikepath should be located.

Hutchison asked where the bikepath would continue to the south and wondered if plans had been made for the future of the bikpath. Herzog answered he did not know what the bikeway committee was planning. Hutchison said he would like to see a better plan for the bikepath than the one planned on the other side of the golf course. The bikepath hooks into the cart path at Kings Walk.

Dr. Kweit asked Mr. Herzog which conditions he wanted changed. Mr. Herzog answered that access control (Technical Change No. 3) along 55th Avenue South would be acceptable, but does not think access control is necessary along 14th Avenue South. He said he would like to see the bikeway and walkway easement removed from Technical Change No. 7. Gengler said the access control could be handled through the PUD process but removing the bikeway/walkway easement on No. 7 should be discussed further. Gengler stated the bikeway/walkway connection should be established on the plat now; in the future it would be difficult to establish one.

Grasser said the issue could be addressed in various ways. Even though it is addressed as a bikeway/walkway easement does not mean an 8 or 10-foot wide area would be constructed. One option would be to build a five foot sidewalk instead and allow a gradual transition into the larger bikepath. Grasser stated the community has made a big investment in the bikepath around the city and noted the bikepaths are heavily utilized. He said he felt the people in the development would want access from their homes to the north to the bikepath. He said it is a frustrating issue because so many of the bikeways or bikepaths that were not built first were vacated because people did not want them being built by their homes. Grasser said he did not want to fight for the bikepaths and bikeways if the community did not want them, but the existing bike areas are utilized. It should be a community discussion on whether to include them within developments or not.

Further discussion continued.

Kreun talked about the greenway and the two trailheads that were eliminated. He suggested the homeowner of Lot 17 put up a fence along the side of their home. He stated the bikepath easement should remain until it is determined it is not needed.

Hutchison said he agreed with Mr. Herzog and the bikepath should remain on South Washington Street in the right-of-way. He stated he wanted to see a comprehensive plan for the bikepath south of the proposed development.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES, AMENDING TECHNICAL CHANGE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE “AND SOUTH 14TH STREET”, LEAVE TECHNICAL CHANGE NO. 7 INTACT. ALSO, ADD TECHNICAL CHANGE NO. 11 REQUIRING SUBMITTAL OF A UTILITY MASTER PLAN:
1. Submit title opinion.
2 Show existing south line of Lot 4 (Centerline of 55th Avenue South).
3. Add and dimension access control along 55th Avenue South and South 14th Street as shown.
4. Include spot elevations or contour lines.
5. Include total square footage and acreage in land description in owner’s consent.
6. Dedicate to the public, the 30-foot sidewalk, bikepath and utility areas along the north line of Block 1.
7. Designate 20-foot easement east of Lot 17 as “bikeway/walkway and utility easement.”
8. Correct plat title as shown and add to owner’s certificate.
9. Change Kings View Parkway to Kings View Drive.
10. Add 15-foot screening easement along the east line of Lot 18.
11. Submit utility master plan.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE KANNOWSKI’S PUD AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE KANNOWSKI’S PUD, AMENDMENT NO. 2 ALL OF KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION, ULLAND PARK FIRST ADDITION, DEACON’S GARDENS ADDITION, FOUNTAIN VISTA PARK RESUBDIVISION AND ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Gengler reviewed the request and showed a map of the overall PUD of the Kannowski’s which would now include the Zavoral’s development. He said the area is approximately 125 acres with 97.9 acres designated as R-3 type uses, 5.5 acres designated as commercial uses and 22 acres of floating commercial. The 22 acres of floating commercial would be located somewhere in the southeast corner of the PUD. The floating commercial property was negotiated in meetings with the Land Use Subcommittee, developers and planning staff. Gengler referred the Commission members to Special Condition No. 11 – Notes that would be added to the PUD. Gengler said Note No. 6 might need to be added to address access control on South 14th Street.

Dr. Kweit thanked Mr. Zavoral and Mr. Herzog for their cooperation in working with the Land Use Subcommittee on the development.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND TO DIRECT PLANNING STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. HERZOG ON ACCESS CONTROL LOCATED ON SOUTH 14TH STREET AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Access control along 55th Avenue South should reflect the access control established on the plat of Zavoral’s First Addition. Refer to the plat for exact dimensions.
2. In addition to showing the bikepath on the north side of Zavoral’s 1st Addition, also show and label the 30-foot permanent sidewalk, bikepath and utility easement. (document no. 612420)
3. Label S. Washington Street and Columbia Road South as Principal Arterials.
4. Add approval information for Amendment No. 1.
5. Too many M’s in Ammendment in the title block.
6. Remove reference to “future” water tower.
7. Perhaps reference to parcel #8 should be removed and the area be included within the D-1 sub-area. Does this make sense?
8. Label Southbrook First Addition.
9. Show full legal description for the entire PUD.
10. Show the break down parcel #5 as follows:
#5: the main 97.98 acre R-3 area.
#5-1: the 22 acres of floating commercial property.
#5-2 the 5.5 acre commercial property.
In the data summary chart, show the info for each sub-area. Let me know if this makes sense, or if you have other ideas on how to make distinctions between these areas.
11. Add the following to the notes section on the drawing:
· 2) Mixed-use developments shall be permitted, subject to the provisions stated in section 18-0215 (11) (D) of the Grand Forks Land Development Code.
· 3) In addition to the submittal of required Detailed Development Plans for commercial/office and mixed-use development sub-areas within the PUD, the developer shall also submit architectural design plans to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Land Use Subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
· 4) Unless otherwise shown or stated hereon, commercial/office developments shall conform to the development regulations stated in section 18-0216, B-3 (General Business) District of the Land Development Code.
· 5) Unless otherwise shown or stated hereon, residential developments shall conform to the development regulations of the equivalent conventional residential zoning district as provided for in the Land Development Code.
· 6) Future driveway access locations on South 14th Street serving Lot 18, Block 1, Zavoral’s First Addition, shall be so located as to minimize traffic congestion. Proposed driveway locations shall be approved by the City Planner upon the review and approval of detailed development plans for Lot 18, Block 1, Zavoral’s First Addition.


MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE