Committee Minutes

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

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 2, 2005.

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


Malm noted there were more people present than normal and explained that the planning and zoning commission was an advisory group to the city council. The items discussed and voted on at this meeting will be forwarded to the city council for review. He further explained there were two sections to the agenda. The “3” items are public hearings (final approvals) and would be open for discussion from the audience. The “4” items are preliminary approval items and would not be opened to the audience. The January 4, 2006 meeting would be the public hearing meeting for the preliminary items from tonight’s meeting.


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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE; CHAPTER XVIII, LAND DEVELOPMENT; SECTION 18-0301 AND SECTION 18-0410 RELATING TO SIGNS AND NON-CONFORMING SIGNS.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the ordinance had been under review by the sign subcommittee for several years. Draft 7 was presented for final approval at this night’s meeting. The revised ordinance affects the entire sign code. Gengler said there were still several areas that needed to be reviewed or corrected but they were not issues that needed decision making from the commission. Some were technicalities that would be addressed prior to final review by the city council on December 19, 2005. The overall change in the ordinance deals with outdoor advertising or billboards and does not change the rules for on-premise business signs or advertising.

Gengler stated the existing code allows billboard signs on undeveloped lots in the B-3, I-1 and I-2 Districts. Owners and representatives from Newman Outdoor Advertising approached the planning department to change the rules. The sign subcommittee, made up of commission members, met to address revisions to the sign code. A cap of 90 total signs was set for the city of Grand Forks and the extra territorial zoning district (two miles outside the corporate limits of the city). Using the 90 signs as a cap, a policy was established for “no net loss.” That means that once a total of 90 signs is reached, no other outdoor advertising signs can be added to the entire jurisdiction until the next census is taken. For every increase in population of 566 people, one additional sign can be added to the overall inventory. There are currently 87 existing signs with the majority owned by Newman Outdoor Advertising and a few others privately owned. There will be an inventory of all signs and in the event more than 90 total are discovered, the cap will be increased accordingly.

Gengler discussed other areas where the ordinance has been changed. There are existing signs on developed lots that were in place when the sign code was originally adopted. The signs located on the developed lots became “non-conforming” because they were not permitted on developed lots; they were only permitted on undeveloped lots. The new sign code draft allows the flexibility to shift some of the signs around in various areas with the city limits and the extra territorial area, based on the cap. Signs will be allowed in the B-3 general business district, I-1 light industrial district and I-2 heavy industrial district. Another addition to the provisions would be to allow signs within planned unit developments adjacent to Interstate 29. The signs would have to be located immediately adjacent to the interstate and function as an advertising device on the interstate.

Gengler discussed several areas recommended for change:
Page 2, (2) Sign owner could build signs to overhang the public easement; however, the sign itself cannot extend into or over the public right-of-way (street). The city engineer has requested he not be the approving authority on the hold harmless agreement and indemnification clause. Instead, the application could be reviewed by the sign subcommittee or the planning and zoning commission.

Page 3, (I) Semi-trailers and advertising. Part of the paragraph has been crossed out to be eliminated and that was not intended to be omitted.

Any reference in the ordinance that refers to the two mile extra territorial zoning district should be changed to reflect the “extra territorial zoning jurisdiction” with no reference to two miles. The Land Use Subcommittee and city council are now giving consideration of going out to four miles instead of two miles.

Page 10, 4 – The sign subcommittee could possibly be the reviewing body instead of, or before, a planning commission meeting for “fitting and compatible” signs to be located on Washington Street south of DeMers Avenue.

Page 27, There is a variance process being included in the ordinance and will apply to the entire city code. In the past, a variance process was never allowed for signs. The variance would go before the planning commission and then forwarded to the city council as the final determining body. Gengler noted that he was not originally comfortable with a blanket variance process but felt more comfortable after reading (4) on page 28 which states “No variance shall be granted to allow any sign to be erected or maintained in any zone or area in which such sign is not otherwise allowed.”

Kreun, a member of the sign subcommittee, referred to page 27 and questioned (A) and (B). He noted one was for the owner and one for the petitioner. He wondered if it would not make more sense to have both be the same. He said there were several small areas that needed review and suggested the sign subcommittee meet again to clean up the areas prior to the ordinance being presented to the city council. Dr. Kweit said it appeared to be a legalese question rather than a policy question. He was concerned that the ordinance not be held up any longer.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Harold Newman, president and owner of Newman Outdoor Advertising, introduced his son, Russ Newman and Bill Kvasager, the manager of the Grand Forks division. He complimented the sign subcommittee on their diligence and fairness over the last several years in revamping the sign code. He noted they supported the ordinance as written and requested to be invited to any meeting held before presenting the final ordinance to the city council for review.

Keith Lund, Deputy Director of the Urban Development Department, stated the urban development department staffs the Gateway Drive Committee established by the city council and mayor in 2004. The Gateway Drive Committee was given the task of looking at zoning and land development regulations, enforcement and jurisdictional issues as well as acting as an advocacy group for the corridor interest. He said Steve Johnson, on behalf of the committee, had appeared before the commission and a sign subcommittee meeting on the sign ordinance and the effects on Gateway Drive. Mr. Johnson did report the Gateway Drive Committee did take a formal stand to not support the changes for off-premises changes. During discussions in October, the committee felt they did not have the time necessary to review the ordinance and gave a blanket non-support rather than a point-by-point recommendation of the lengthy and complex ordinance. He said he understood the sign subcommittee’s desire to wrap up the ordinance after spending several years reviewing it; however, the Gateway Drive Committee still has concerns with the ordinance. He noted the Gateway Drive Committee intends to have a comprehensive review of the ordinance with the assistance of planning staff. He asked that the planning commission as well as the sign subcommittee allow them a forum to express any of their concerns after they have reviewed it extensively.

Malm closed the public hearing.

Hagness asked what constituted a sign under the definition of a 90-sign cap. Gengler answered there are two types of signs – on-premise and off-premise signs. Off-premise signs are generally billboard type signs.

Hagness asked if a double sided billboard would be counted as two signs. Gengler answered no, stating a double sided sign is considered one sign structure. They are limited to two sign surfaces on the sign structure.

Dr. Kweit made a comment to Mr. Lund that he knew the Gateway Drive Committee was brought in on the sign ordinance review late in the process. The sign subcommittee would like to proceed and get the ordinance passed and then review the positives versus the negatives of the ordinance once it was in place. He also noted that the Newmans did not get everything they wanted in the process.

Kreun clarified the two-sided signs by stating that there may be two or more advertisers split on one side of the sign. They count just the one sign structure.

Gengler said he understood the sign company is limited to the number of messages allowed on one sign surface.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

John Drees asked to be excused from voting on the issue. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO EXCUSE JOHN DREES FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND POINT FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 40TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 19TH STREET.

Malm asked for a motion to table the issue until the January 4, 2006, meeting.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE JANUARY 4, 2006 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-1 (LIMITED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT, THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT AND THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE HIGHLAND POINT PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF HIGHLAND POINT FIRST ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED LANDS LYING IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH 20TH STREET AND BETWEEN 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 40TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Malm asked for a motion to table the issue until the January 4, 2006, meeting.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE JANUARY 4, 2006 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DANKS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE DANKS PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF DANKS ADDITION AND DANKS 2ND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED LAND LYING IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED BETWEEN DEMERS AVENUE AND 17TH AVENUE SOUTH EXTENDED AND BETWEEN SOUTH 42ND STREET AND I-29 RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Gengler reviewed the request stating staff was recommending final approval of the zoning ordinance. At last month’s meeting, the ordinance was presented along with determination of fitting and compatible land use. The purpose of the ordinance is to clarify the land uses to be located in the events center portion of the planned unit development.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DREES TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE FOR THE DANK PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Show Amendment No. 2 in the title.
2. Show approval info for Amendment No. 1 and state the purpose of the Amendment.
3. Show approval info for Amendment No. 2 and provide the info regarding the specific changes following preliminary approval.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN FOR THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3500 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the ordinance was tabled at the November, 2005 planning commission in order to fulfil the legal requirements of advertising the item. 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 HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE FOR COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, GARRY A. PEARSON, AND LESLIE A. SOINE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S 37TH RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF ALL OF LOTS 4 THROUGH 11 OF AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 6 AND PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2 AND ALL OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 AND PREVIOUSLY PLATTED ALLEY IN BLOCK 2 AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, BLOCK 3 AND PARTS OF VACATED RIVER STREET ALL IN IDDINGS ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED SOUTH OF FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH AND EAST OF RIVER STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the name of Auditor’s 37th Resubdivision replaced the original name of Iddings Resubdivision as presented at the November 2, 2005 meeting. Subsequent to the preliminary approval, the plat was redrafted so that lot lines coincide with the actual property. There are several properties to have been sold to adjacent property owners. The revised subdivision plat shows the actual ownership parcels. Staff recommends approval of the plat request.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST AS SUBMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct plat title to read:
Auditors No. 37 Resubdivision
Being a replat of all of Lots 4 through 11 of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 6
and part of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lots 3 through7 and previously platted
alley in Block 2 and Lots 1 through 4, block 3 and parts of vacated River
Street all in Iddings Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota.
3. Add corrected title in owners certificate.
4. Add words “lands to be platted as” to owners certificates.
5. Use correct approval for city engineer.
6. Use correct dates for planning and zoning commission approval.
7. Add note that all lands within this plat lie within the 100-year floodplain.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF MLD LAND COMPANY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MOLSTAD’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 4403 16TH AVENUE NORTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the item, stating the request was for a lot split. The lot split would create Lots A and B out the current large lot. The request was fast-tracked because no additional right-of-way is involved in the replat. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request.

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

Lee asked about the name of 16th Avenue North Circle. Durrenberger said it was named that because there was not another name for it. Naming a street that way is not the norm.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include curve data for all curves.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR WEEKLEY’S AUTO PARTS FOR THE OPERATION OF A JUNK YARD, WRECKING YARD OR AUTO SALVAGE YARD, LOCATED AT 7600 GATEWAY DRIVE.

Durrenberger reviewed the item, stating the request was to continue the existing conditional use permit (CUP). Last December (2004), the conditional use permit for Weekley’s Auto Parts was extended until December, 2005. In the interim, city council task force met with owners and staff from the inspections and planning departments to prepare a new list of conditions for these types of businesses. He referred members to attachment 2 which listed the proposed CUP conditions. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions listed. Property owners from Weekley’s and Swangler’s had some concerns about the timing for completion of the listed conditions. The recommendation includes the date of July 1, 2006 to meet some of the conditions. Property owners were also concerned about the length of the conditional use permit. They wanted the CUP time frame to be at least 10 years, but staff’s recommendation was for five years.

Malm opened the public hearing on Weekley’s Auto Parts.

Shurkey Swanke, 1506 South 15th Street, stated his comments would apply to both the Weekley’s and Swangler’s businesses. He said the salvage business provided a service by allowing people to drop off abandoned vehicles that would litter the streets. He noted a great deal of public money is being spent on affordable housing and yet these businesses provide affordable transportation and does not get public funding. They are valuable businesses to the community. He wondered why they needed a conditional use permit but if one were required, he stated it should be approved and the CUP should be for the longest time possible.

Ross Weiler, 701 3rd Street, stated his comments were generally for salvage yards. When scrap metal prices reached an all-time high last summer, he brought in metal to be recycled. He became engaged in a conversation with an elderly gentlemen and the man noted that every time scrap metals were high, it was because foreign nations were buying it to build up war waging capabilities. Usually a war would break out when metal became very high. He felt salvage yards were an important use in helping people keep their vehicles running in the event of auto and parts shortage caused by war or oil shortages and other such shipping problems. He felt the salvage yards were a necessary businesses. They generate money and employment. Mr. Wiler stated salvage yards had received bad press in the past and were considered eyesores but they offer a valuable service to the community and do not rely on subsidies to exist.

Malm closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED.

Kreun said the listed action was different from the CUP permit request. He said they were looking at an auto parts operation, junk yard, wrecking yard or salvage yard and also to operate a used car sales facility under certain conditions. He stated the problem has been what really determines a used car. He read the definition of a usable used car. Kreun referred members to page 66 and the list of proposed CUP conditions, specifically noting No. 10 which refers to used car portion. He said he does not feel the businesses are used car dealers; they are salvage yards.

AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY KREUN TO REMOVE THE USED CAR PORTION OF THE APPLICATION. THE AMENDMENT WAS SECONDED BY DR. KWEIT.

Hagness asked what the committee recommended.

Durrenberger stated the committee was composed of Councilman Brooks and Councilman Gershman and the list on page 66 was the recommended conditions of the new conditional use permit.

Hagness said the conditions were agreed to by the two councilmen along with other staff and the auto salvage yard dealers.

Durrenberger said the language Kreun was referring to was in the current CUP conditions and asked if the intent was to not allow used car sales. Kreun said his intent was not to allow used car sales. He felt that had created the problems in the past. What might be an operable vehicle to one person is not operable to someone else. That definition has been in question for years. He stated that option should be extracted from the application and they should not allow used car sales at the salvage yards.

Hutchison said he thought the problems in the past had been the abandoned vehicles and he felt they had the right to have a used car dealership if they followed the recommendations made. The condition of a hard surface for the used car sales area would be an improvement.

Kreun said he agreed but wondered why they had not done that in years past. Hutchison said maybe it was wrong that they did not do that in the past but if they are willing to do it now, it would clean it up for the future.

Kreun said there is not a used car dealership under a conditional use permit. If they want a used car dealership, they can have one but not under the conditional use permit. He felt problems would continue and the city would have to spend more money to follow up on the issues. If the used car dealership were removed, most of the problems would be eliminated. Kreun said the request for a used car dealership was included in the conditional use permit as well as the list of proposed CUP conditions.

Matejcek asked for verification on what the amendment was. Malm said the amendment was to eliminate the condition (No. 10) for a used car dealership under the conditional use permit.

Lee asked what the process would be if the salvage yards wanted to have a used car dealership. Kreun said they could have an off-premise used car dealership away from the salvage yard. Kreun explained the property is not set up for a used care dealership and they are being given a conditional use permit. A used car dealership does not operate under a conditional use permit; they are set up according to zoning. His opinion was that a used car dealership should not be involved in a conditional use permit that is basically a salvage yard. The owners could be fixing up old cars and selling them.

Hagness said there was a special committee set up to study and review the conditions. He said Kreun previously talked about the sign ordinance and the need to pass it and then make any necessary changes later. Now he wants to eliminate conditions that have been studied and reviewed and he said it was not fair for the committee that worked on the conditions as well as the owners of the salvage yards.

Jeno said if the goal is to improve the appearance of Highway 2 and has been a long-standing issue, the condition of a paved used car lot would be an improvement.

Doug Christensen, Ward 5 City Councilman, asked that members read No.2 of the proposed CUP conditions. No. 2 states “The property described herein shall be zoned I-2.” He stated a used car lot could not be located in the I-2 District. He further stated a conditional use permit was being granted and wondered how long they would let the use continue. There is a five-year window on the use. It was originally a 10-year CUP and was extended for one year. He asked what would happen at the end of five years. What does the city expect to get done to remedy the condition of the salvage yards during the next five years? He would ask the question when it was presented to the city council. Why continue to grant conditional use permits? Why do you want the condition to continue? Why even grant the conditional use permit? Why would a used car lot be allowed? He stated Kreun was correct in questioning the conditions and asking that No. 10 be removed. The city is trying to remedy the condition. He asked members of the commission to consider why the condition should be allowed to continue for another five years and what they expected to have accomplished at the end of the five years. Why pass this on to our children? At the end of another five years, it will have been 16 years and what has changed in 16 years that has not been remedied in the last 10 or 11 years? He said a used car lot is not allowed in an industrial district and why should it be allowed under a conditional use permit? He asked what the members expected to see in the next five years? Why did the conditional use permit even get started?

Hagness asked if Mr. Christensen had appeared before the committee that studied the issue. Mr. Christensen replied he read the reports from the committee meetings. Hagness stated there were two other councilmen on the committee and asked why they are allowing the conditional use permit? Mr. Christensen said he would ask the questions when the CUPs were submitted to the city council for review.

Hutchison said the CUP started in 1994 and the facilities have existed longer than that. He asked how long they have been there? He was told since 1969. He asked what happened before 1994? Christensen said he had no idea and wondered why the conditional use permit was even started.

Mr. Christensen asked what changed with the salvage yards that required a conditional use permit? He stated the commission passed zoning rules and told the salvage yard owners that they had so many years to remediate certain conditions. After that, they’re gone.

Hutchison said he did not understand it that way. Somewhere in the community these facilities have to exist. People may not like them or the way they look, but they have to exist. It’s an issue that has to be dealt with. He did not think that with the conditional use permit, the salvage yards would disappear in five years. They have to follow the rules set out for that length of time and then it would be reviewed again.

Mr. Christensen asked if they had to exist on Highway 2?

Scott Weekley, owner of Weekley’s Auto Parts, spoke to the issue of the amendment regarding the removal of the condition to operate a used car lot. He stated they have had a North Dakota State used car dealership license and they abide by all the rules and regulations of the North Dakota State. They have had the license for over 50 years and are inspected every year. His understanding is the conditional use permit is to establish certain conditions for the property and its use. Whether or not the I-2 District can or cannot by regulation have a used car lot, that should be addressed by the CUP. He stated they have been working on cleanup for a year and a half to make the business easier on the eyes. They are in the process of tearing down unsightly buildings closer into town. When they were located closer into town, the city wanted them to move the business where there was less traffic. They moved three miles outside of town and the city was happy for them to be there. They were operating prior to that without any conditional use permit and after the conditional use permit process was started, he has tried to abide by it. He asked that people keep in their mind that he does not produce the cars; the cars are produced by everybody in the city. In the 38 years he has been picking up cars in the city, he has never received a thank you for removing the debris or abandoned cars from the city streets, back yards, front yards and parking lots. He noted that many of the cars in their facility are not pretty and do not run. He has not always moved the abandoned cars in a timely manner due to the day to day running of the business, but he has tried to keep up. He basically works seven days a week in order to keep up. Sometimes it becomes overwhelming and he noted he still had two cars to pick up after the meeting. He wants the used car lot paved and wants to work with the agreement that has been made with the committee. The conditions have teeth and he stated he would have to work harder to keep up with the conditions as stated. He does not want to remove the condition of the used car lot.

Malm asked the secretary to read the amendment.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO AMEND THE MOTION BY REMOVING THE USED CAR LOT PORTION (NO. 10) FROM THE APPLICATION AND LIST OF CONDITIONS.

Malm asked for a vote on the amendment.

MOTION WAS DEFEATED.

ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE THE CUP AS PRESENTED CARRIED WITH KREUN VOTING NAY.

Kreun asked if the approval was for the conditional use permit on 63 and 64? Malm said the conditions being approved were listed on page 66 of the packet.

There was some confusion on what the vote entailed. Malm called for another vote on pages 67 through 70 and Attachment A on page 71.

MOTION CARRIED WITH KREUN VOTING NAY.

Malm explained to Mr. Christensen that the planning and zoning commission had worked on the conditional use permits previously but they were not part of the committee review this time.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR SWANGLER AUTO WRECKING FOR THE OPERATION OF A JUNK YARD, WRECKING YARD OR AUTO SALVAGE YARD LOCATED AT 7596 GATEWAY DRIVE.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was an extension of the conditional use permit for Swangler’s Auto Wrecking, located east of the Weekley’s facility. They share a joint access road. He noted Mr. Swangler is planning to make improvements by residing a building that has become unsightly. Mr. Swangler’s situation is slightly different from Weekley’s because he does not have a frontage road in front of his business. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions noted.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DREES TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH ATTACHMENT “A” AS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH KREUN VOTING NAY.

3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, ON BEHALF OF KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO SECTION 18-0309 (1)(C) OF THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATING TO THE REQUIRED FENCE FOR A BUFFERYARD E, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN LOT F, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1, PERKIN’S SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Durrenberger reviewed the request from the company contracted to develop the Kohl’s store to eliminate the fence requirement from the bufferyard E. The transition between commercial properties such as the Kohl’s and the multiple family development to the south, the code requires a bufferyard E which also includes the requirement of a fence. Durrenberger said he had talked to the townhomes owner and the concern was the upper stories of the apartment being buffered from the commercial. Currently, there is a row of garages behind the townhome development along with surface parking and refuse container storage. The first floor of the townhomes are effectively screened but the upper stories present a screening issue. Durrenberger said he had talked to the park district regarding bufferyards. The townhomes have a row of evergreen trees behind the garages. The recommendation is to place a fence behind the existing evergreen trees and plant blackhill spruce north of the garages. The owner of the townhomes recommended planting poplars but the park district staff said that although the poplars were fast growing, they do not provide effective buffering. Their recommendation was for the blackhill spruce to provide greater buffering and effectiveness. Staff recommendation was to place a fence behind the evergreens and plant a row of blackhill spruce on the south side of the Kohl’s store at 20 feet intervals.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED.

Durrenberger said all parties were in agreement with the recommendation.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE MEADOW RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE MEADOW RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED LANDS LYING BETWEEN 47TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 51ST AVENUE SOUTH AND BETWEEN SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND THE WESTERLY PLATTED BOUNDARIES OF NORTH PINES RESUBDIVISION AND SOUTH PINES ADDITION.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the Planned Unit Development (PUD) was recently approved. The only change of substance with the PUD amendment is to allow the developer to show the future proposed street network and the proposed utility layout in order to assist the city engineering department in planning the overall infrastructure in the area. The future utilities and roads shown represent the development intent only and are subject to approval upon submittal of subsequent plats and detailed construction drawings of the utility layout for the unplatted portion of the PUD.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PUD REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Show parcel numbers for each sub-area.
2. Show acreage for the R-O-W in the data summary chart.
3. The preliminary drawing is subject to further review by the Planning and Engineering Departments to be completed prior to final submittal.

Hutchison asked about bikepaths along the area. Gengler said they would look at it in the future.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE R-2 (ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT, DESCRIBED AS ALL OF BLOCKS 1 THROUGH 18, EXCLUDING LOTS 6-11, BLOCK 2 AND THE REPLAT OF LOTS 14 AND 23 THROUGH 29, BLOCK 2 IN SWANGLER’S SUBDIVISION; ALL OF BLOCKS 1 AND 2 IN WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION; LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, BLOCK 2 AND BLOCK 3 IN KELSEY’S 3RD ADDITION; LOTS 1 THROUGH 9 IN UNIVERSITY PLACE; STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO LOT 5, BLOCK 16 AND LOTS 13 THROUGH 24, BLOCK 17 IN WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the Neighborhood Concerns Committee had worked approximately a year on the rezoning issue. The committee was formed after a petition request was received from several of the single-family homeowners in the area. Their concerns were over-crowding in the neighbor, loud parties and parking issues. Staff was directed by city council to present seven ordinances to be reviewed by the commission and city council and hopefully rectify some of the issues. It was decided to present two rezoning ordinances with the first one rezoning the area known as “A.” The subsequent agenda item will cover area “B.” Gengler stated Area “A” is the original petitioned area. Early on in the process, rezoning was discussed and it was decided that rezoning may not be the answer. Recently, Area “B” was added for rezoning and he noted that Area “B” has never officially been any part of the petition or drive from the property owners. Staff was directed to add Area “B.” Public hearing notices are normally not sent out at the preliminary stage but 500 notices were sent out to notify the neighborhoods about the rezoning. Staff was directed to present the rezoning requests to the commission indicating it would all convert to R-1 single family district. Gengler discussed some of the consequences involved. The main impact is that once the ordinance is passed, no other future structure within the designated areas could be converted from a single-family into a two-family unit. Any dwellings already converted can maintain that use forever even if sold. There are non-conforming issues as part of the rezoning. If a two-family dwelling within the designated areas is damaged or destroyed beyond 60% of the replacement cost of the structure, a two-unit structure could not be rebuilt. Once destroyed beyond that point, it must revert to the land use designated in that district, or R-1 single-family district.

Gengler stated there were other issues to consider before final approval by council; issues such as financing and insurance. Staff was not in favor of mass rezonings because of the difficulty of establishing a line for rezoning. The R-2 area is fairly large. Rezoning in and of itself is a small bandaid for the perceived problems. Enforcement is the bottom line. A community resource officer was recently hired to handle some of the enforcement issues. The ordinance will be sent to the city council and final action by the planning commission will be on January 4, 2006.

Hutchison said rezoning was studied early on and was decided against. He asked what changed to make rezoning the answer. Gengler answered the change occurred over time. Hutchison asked about including Boyd Drive where he lives and also stated he did not agree with changing the zoning. He asked if other mass rezonings would take place. Gengler said that could happen and stated Boyd Drive was also considered for rezoning but decided against including it at this time. Wherever there is an R-2 and the neighbors campaign for rezoning, it could be done.

Hutchison asked if the planning department thought that was a good way to go. Gengler said his opinion was that rezoning in and of itself was not the cure, although rezoning would stop the conversions to rental property.

Hutchison said he had talked to some of the people that pushed for the rezoning and they have also said that several of the landlords in the area are not a problem because they take care of their property. Gengler said the landlords have an investment in the area with their rental property and also incorporate in lease agreements that if a renter is a problem, they are evicted.

Dr. Kweit said four of the commission members were on the initial committee and their feeling was it was trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. It is a problem but appears to be a problem of enforcement. Most of the landlords care about their property and their investment and want to police the area. Most of the students are very responsible but there’s always the one or two who create the problems. The ordinances dealing with enforcement will probably solve 90% of the problems. The enforcement ordinances should be approved and see if they work. However, he did not feel the rezoning was appropriate.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST.