Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
January 4, 2006

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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

Staff present included Brad Gengler, Interim Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior; Cindy Voight, Assistant City Engineer; and Julie Romig, Senior Planner for the GF-EGF MPO. Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of
December 7, 2005. There were no corrections or additions noted and Malm
declared the minutes approved as presented.


Malm turned over the chair to the new president, Paula H. Lee.

Lee turned over the meeting to Gengler, who presented Mr. Malm with a plaque for his dedicated service of nine years as president of the Commission. Malm received a standing ovation from the Commission.

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

3-1. (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.

Gengler stated the item was tabled at the December meeting due to unfinished business. The plat is subject to the park and open space dedication. Staff recommendation was for final approval subject to the special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

Lee asked if there were any questions from commission members. There were none. The public hearing was opened. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Plat requires park dedication and annexation.
3. Show monument set at the point of curve on the west line of Lot 6, Block 2, and of curve No. 1 on south 20th Street.
4. Extend access control line 15-feet into Lot 1, Block 5 from South 20th Street.
5. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
6. Change easement along the west line of Lot 1, Block 5 to 10’ water, sewer and pedestrian/bikeway usage and five-foot utility easement to total 15 feet.
7. Submit utility master plan for all undeveloped lands north of 40th Avenue South and east of South 20th Street and included proposed roadway network.
8. Provide easements for rear yard drainage as necessary.
9. Revise Planning and Zoning Commission’ s President’s name to Paula H. Lee and Secretary’s name to Lyle A. Hall.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-2. (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.

Gengler reviewed the concept plan for the Highland Point Planned Unit Development. Subject to the technical changes, staff recommended final approval.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Recalculate the development data. There appears to be minor discrepancies.
2. Show parcel numbers on each sub-area within the PUD.
3. Show current land use designations of adjoining properties.
4. All sub-areas that are not platted should be identifies as unplatted.
5. Provide the following statement in the general note section:
It shall be the responsibility of the developer to display signs within the PUD that depict the overall intent of the development, to include the approved future land uses and roadway network.
6. Show 36th Avenue South extending to South Washington Street.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL 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 concept plan, stating the plan amended the previously approved concept plan, however, there were no changes in land uses. The developer was asked to show the proposed roadway network and the future utility layout.

There were no questions from the commission to planning staff. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AS PRESENTED, 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. Final drawing is subject to final review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Departments.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL 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 12; AND EXCLUDING LOTS C AND D OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 14 AND 23 THROUGH 29, BLOCK 17, SWANGLER’S SUBDIVISION; ALL OF WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION; LOTS 21 THROUGH 40 BLOCK 2; AND ALL OF BLOCK 3 AND 4, KELSEY’S 3RD ADDITION; ALL OF UNIVERSITY PARK PLACE ADDITION; LOTS 15 THROUGH 24, BLOCK 17, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION; ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED PARTS OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST; ALL THOSE PUBLIC LANDS DESCRIBED AS UNIVERSITY PARK; ALL OF KELSEY’S 2ND ADDITION; LOTS 1 THROUGH 13, BLOCK 1, UNIVERSITY PARK ADDITION; AND ALL OF BLOCKS 3 THROUGH 6, DACOTAH PLACE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Gengler reviewed the issue, stating the rezoning had received a considerable amount of attention and controversy while it was being studied. The commission denied the request for rezoning at the December meeting and the city council overturned the recommendation by the planning and zoning commission. Gengler stated that some clarity had been received on the issue since the council meeting. There were three changes made to the ordinance since the December commission meeting. 1) Originally there were two rezoning ordinances for two different areas and two different legal descriptions. At the city council meeting, the two ordinances were combined with one map showing the entire area combined; 2) Gengler said he felt rezoning the entire area in one broad sweep was essentially penalizing the owners of duplexes when there was no need to do so. The penalty came in the way of creating a non-conforming structure that, if destroyed by 60%, could not be rebuilt. Changing it to an R-1 area created a non-conforming land use for the duplex. With direction from the city council, the city attorney and staff would draft language that would exempt duplex owners from the undue hardship created by the 60% rule. The new language would allow an owner of an existing duplex to rebuild the structure as it was. The only change would be that the owner would have to follow the present day building standards for a structure in an R-2 area. He noted that a building setback might be changed by one foot. He did not feel this was an unreasonable request. In the event of problems with rebuilding, variances could be requested; 3) Gengler stated the last change was to remove the two properties (four plex) immediately adjacent to the existing boundary. With the changes as noted, Gengler recommended final approval of the rezoning ordinance, subject to the final wording of the ordinance.

Kreun asked how the individual homes would be affected after the area is changed from R-2 to R-1. He also asked if there were differences in setbacks between the R-1 and R-2 areas. Gengler replied there were minor changes but the two terms to focus on were non-conforming uses and the non-conforming structure. There may be existing single-family homes that are conforming uses, but could be non-conforming structures. This becomes more common in older parts of town where lots have shifted. He gave an example by saying in the R-1 there may be an minimum of a six-foot side yard setback and in the R-2, the figure might be seven feet. The differences are minimal. Gengler noted that in the R-1 a owner is allowed up to 35% lot coverage (impervious surface area) while in the R-2 area, an owner is allowed up to 40% lot coverage. The setbacks and lot coverage would be the two major changes.

Kreun asked if the single-family homes would have the ability to rebuild if the structure were damaged beyond 60% and would they have to rebuild using requirements for the R-1 or R-2 zone? Gengler answered that would be a policy decision. Kreun stated that if flexibility is being given to the duplex owners to rebuild, it should also be given to the single-family owner.

Gengler said the intent was to convey the message of the changes and it would be discussed again at the January 17 city council meeting. The language for the ordinance would have to be worked out by then. He also stated they have to deal with a handful of existing three and four unit dwellings within the area and decide how they would also be treated.

Hutchison asked if the ability to rebuild was tied to the owner or the land. Gengler answered it would be tied to the land; not the owner. Hutchison said there had been talk in other R-2 areas to request changing to an R-1 District. He stated there were going to be problems in the future with all the requests for change and wondered if rezoning was really the answer. He felt the problems in the target area could have been addressed with better enforcement and not by rezoning.

Malm said he agreed with Hutchison. Many of the homes in the outlying areas have single car garages and people buying homes today want three-car garages. To increase garage space in most of the areas would be very difficult. Changing the area to R-1, it will be even more difficult. Gengler agreed and said variances would be required. Malm said he used to live in the area and they lived on top of one another. He voiced the opinion that rezoning the area creates more problems for the future. Variances can be sought but it takes time and money. He said he was not in favor of the rezoning.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Charles E. Orange, 1701 University Avenue, said he owned a duplex in the area to be rezoned. It is an up and down duplex and has no garage, but off-street parking is provided off 22nd Avenue North in a designated backyard parking area. He talked about the city ordinance of keeping a 25-foot easement on corner lots. If the duplex were destroyed 60% or more, he questioned whether or not he could infringe on the 25-foot easement, plus he had to allow five feet for his neighbor on the side yard and that left him 20 feet in width with which to rebuild the structure.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, clarified questions on side yard and said the rules were identical for front yards in the R-1 and R-2 zones, but the side yards are slightly different. She noted a side yard is considered a front yard for corner lots.

Mr. Orange said he was not comfortable with the language in the city ordinance and was concerned about the new language in the amendment. He stated his duplex was built 50-60 years ago and he has owned it for 30 years plus. He said he would never be able to rent the second apartment if the rezoning passed. At the present time Mr. Orange said he was opposed to the rezoning because it would be too restrictive for replacement of the property if destroyed by 60% or more.

Kerian explained to Mr. Orange that the ordinance would allow him to be grandfathered in and he would be able to rebuild his structure as it exists today, with the only change being that he would have to abide by the building requirements in an R-2 zone. She also said Mr. Orange would be allowed to continue renting out his unit and even sell it to someone else. The new owners can continue to rent out the units. Anything that exists today as a duplex, three-plex, and four-plex can stay that way as long as the building remains.

Mr. Orange said he wanted to see that in writing.

Gengler explained that in Chapter 18 of the city code, there is a section regarding non-conforming uses, non-conforming structures, signs, etc. The basic premise is that anything that is changed due to a change in zoning or other rules, whatever is existing today can continue in its entirety in the future, subject to the 60% rule and other non-conforming provisions.

Hutchison asked if the rule would allow a property owner to rebuild what he has today and Gengler said they would have to sit down and review the site plan. Gengler said it depends on the policy adopted by city council but the language could be worded to indicate that the structure could be rebuilt “as is.”

Collings said if the structure burned down today, the owner could not rebuild it in the same place in an R-2 zone. She said going from an R-2 to an R-1 zone and based on the amendment being written by the city attorney, Mr. Orange would be under the restrictions of the R-2 zone and would not be able to rebuild today or in the future. The rezoning did not affect that. If the council chooses to make a statement for the target area, it would be very unique and very unusual. That would not be proper. However, when disaster strikes a home and destroys it and the owner comes in for variances, it is usually acceptable.

Gordon Iseminger, 2414 9th Avenue North, said the objections he heard were “what if.” This is no way to plan for “what ifs.” The people who live in the area are talking about “what is”; not “what if.” He invited the commission to visit the neighborhood. He stated there are several rental units around his home. The students abandon their units for several weeks during the Christmas holidays as well as cars just left in the street. The sidewalks around the rental units have not been shoveled since the students left the area. Mr.Iseminger said the objections he heard come from a very small minority. The majority of the people living in the neighborhood want to protect their homes and the area.

Marvin Hodny, 2001 2nd Avenue North, stated there is always talk about affordable housing. The most affordable housing in Grand Forks is to rent out the basement and now the council wants to remove that from the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood is 20-25% rental. Although he appreciates the problems some homeowners have endured with noise and parking, most of the issues could be handled with the enforcement ordinances. Changing the R-2 areas to R-1 would not eliminate the problem areas and grandfathering does not mean everything was the same as before. With the passage of the rezoning ordinance, the city creates challenges for the properties that are non-conforming. The city is also taking away his right to rent out his basement. He stated he had rental property in the rezoning area and rents mostly to UND students. Mr. Hodny said his area was established as an R-2 area and his property is not close to being considered as an R-1 zone and the city is forcing an established R-2 area into an R-1 area. He asked that the commission not support the rezoning.

Greg Kraus, 718 North 25th Street, said he has been involved in the discussion of rezoning the area since the beginning. He mentioned the research he had done regarding the rezoning issue and stated the same thing had taken place in Provo, Utah. The area is full and does not need more rental units to make it worse. He is not anti-student; however the University area is getting over-crowded and is at a saturation point.

Phil Vanyo, 18553 440th Avenue SW, East Grand Forks, MN, said area B was added arbitrarily by the city council without a thorough investigation of the people living in the area. He stated the planning and zoning commission had lost power. Originally it was only area A that was being considered for rezoning and then the council expanded the area and included area B. People living in these areas are not necessarily for the change and he expressed the wish that the commission had more power for governing the city and not the majority rules city council. He had no problem with the rezoning of area A, but asked how area B could be changed back from R-1 to R-2. Do they have to petition to stop the inclusion of area B? He felt many of the issues that people complained about were not rezoning issues; they were about enforcement. Many of the people who got a letter about the rezoning did not know what was going on.

Gengler said the people would have to petition the area and request a rezoning from R-1 to R-2.

Matejcek asked if there was a fee involved in requesting a rezoning and Gengler said there was with the amount increasing from $200 to $300.

Lee closed the public hearing.

Kerian made comments about the rezoning process. She said the rezoning issue had been studied and reviewed for more than a year and originally it was felt that rezoning would not be the answer. It was felt that other avenues should be tried first and many of the proposed changes for parking, noise, etc. are being addressed by city council. One of the things that convinced her for rezoning is that people have voted with their homes in the area. If one compares the number of multi-family homes to the total number of properties, it is only 16%. The homes are operating as single-family residences. Some are rental and some are owner-occupied. There are 496 properties in the area and 80 of them are multi-family. She understood that people knew they were buying a home in an R-2 area, but she noted that times change. The ordinance will keep the status quo. It allows some rentals in the area but the idea is to keep the rentals from increasing. This is the right thing to do for the 84% residing in single-family homes. She said this is a good compromise.

Hagness said he had been a member of planning and zoning for many years. He hated to disagree with the city council members because of all the work they do. He stated the autonomy that planning and zoning once had no longer exists. It used to be that three-quarters of the city council vote had to be in place to override a zoning ordinance, but that is no longer the way it is. Now zoning is only an advisory committee to the city council. Whether it is liked or not, that is the way it is and he respected that. However, once the city starts rezoning people’s properties that have not requested it, they are messing with people’s sacred right to do what they want with their property. Individuals have not requested to be rezoned; the city council has decided for them. Once the rezoning takes place, other areas are going to request the same thing because a precedent has been set. Hagness recommended that the commission stand by the denial vote and the city council can choose to do otherwise. By denying the request, the commission sends a message to council that rezoning is not the answer.

Malm stated that planning and zoning has changed a lot. The commission has to look at “what will be” and “what is best for the future” so that other problems are not created. He said the rezoning would pass at the city council but he was not willing to give up the right to say that from the commission’s perspective, the rezoning should not take place. The commission is right, but the city council has to do what they feel is right.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION PASSED WITH KREUN AND KERIAN VOTING NAY.


3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 3, RULES AND REGULATIONS; SECTION 18-0302 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; SUBSECTION (5) YARDS; ALL RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING.

Durrenberger reviewed the ordinance that originated from the process of the UND neighborhood to address some of the problems noted by homeowners in the area. The ordinance would restrict parking in the front yards of one and two family (R-1 and R-2 Districts and U-D) districts to paved areas. Currently parking occurs on lawns. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

Kerian noted the ordinance is city wide; not just for the UND area.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE TEXT ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 3, RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECTION 18-0302 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; SUBSECTION (14)(B) – ALL RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RENTAL RESIDENCES.

Durrenberger reviewed the ordinance, stating the ordinance was a result of the process for the UND neighborhood to address some of the problems noted by homeowners in the area. The ordinance increases the parking requirements for one and two family residential rental units to one stall per bedroom. The current regulations are based on standard parking requirements for residential and multiple family units. Council members decided this was one way to improve the parking problems throughout the city. Since there is a restriction of no more than four unrelated persons living together per unit, the maximum amount of parking spaces required would be four for a single family rental unit. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

Malm verified the ordinance was only for rental property. If a family is not renting and have seven children and three bedrooms, there can be seven cars around the property. Durrenberger agreed. Kreun said the family would still have to abide by the rule of not parking on the yard. Cars had to be parked in the driveway or on the street.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE TEXT ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GRAND FORKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, (2004 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES ELEMENT, BIKE SECTION) TOGETHER WITH ALL MAPS, INFORMATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DATA CONTAINED THEREIN.

Lee asked Cindy Voigt, Assistant City Engineer, to discuss the issue.

Ms. Voigt said she sought preliminary approval from the commission in December on the issue. After receiving preliminary approval, she discovered another public input meeting was needed which required a 10-day comment period. She said the plan was to have the council approve the PCR before seeking final approval from the commission. Because of the comment period, she could not present the PCR to the council until Monday, January 9, 2006. She noted it is still a formality and nothing has changed since the December meeting. An agreement has tentatively been worked out with the neighborhood and they will end up with the eight-foot bikepath from Belmont Road to Cherry Street and a 10-foot bikepath from Cherry Street to South Washington Street. However, nothing is official or approved until city council takes action on the PCR on January 17, 2006. If the vote is not as planned, she needs to have approval from the commission in order to have the non-vehicular mode in the project when 47th Avenue South is constructed. If she did not cover all the bases, it would have delayed the project for three months and would have prevented the whole project during 2006.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Julie Romig, Senior Planner for the Grand Forks East Grand Forks MPO, said that staff will recommend to the MPO Executive Board to deny the request to have a bike lane as stated in the report. She also asked that the commission deny the request since the eight-foot path seems agreeable to all parties. Ms. Romig said Ms. Voigt was asking for approval to keep the process moving. She also noted the MPO supports any bicycle facility. The 10-foot bikepath was controversial so a bike lane was discussed. However, the alternative of an 8-foot bikepath appears to be agreeable with the neighbors and counts as a bikepath to allow North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) to provide funding. The MPO is in favor of an 8-foot bikepath rather than a bike lane.

Hutchison agreed a bike lane was not safe.

Romig stated the report includes a bike lane and the MPO’s position is to deny the request for anything that includes a bike lane.

Kerian spoke to the issue and encouraged commission members to vote against the report. A bike lane is not what the city wants. The neighbors did not want the 10-foot bikepath and also eventually spoke against the bike lane. The eight-foot bikepath would be a good compromise and would be safer for the community. Grand Forks should be a bike friendly community, but with the bikepaths, not lanes. She asked that the issue be denied.

Kreun stated Ms. Voigt is trying to cover all the bases. When the package was put together, the plan was to put in a 10-foot bikepath in place. Neighbors were against the 10-foot bikepath and at one time, the only acceptable plan to the neighbors was a five-foot sidewalk. A five-foot sidewalk does not meet the MPO’s federal requirements for bikepaths, bikeways or bike lanes. The compromise was to build a bike lane which would keep the project progressing on time and funding would be eligible. The NDDOT would accept an eight-foot bikepath as a compromise. The eight-foot bikepath would be proposed to the neighbors originally opposed to it. He said Ms. Voigt needs all three options approved. If one of the components is not approved, the street would not be constructed because the funding has to have a bike facility in place. The three options were a 10-foot bikepath, an 8-foot bikepath, or a bike lane. The city strongly recommends the 10-foot bikepath but the compromise appears to be for the 8-foot bikepath. If the request is not approved tonight and the neighbors do not accept the compromise, the street project will not be constructed this year.

Voigt said the ordinance is Plan B. If the plan is approved and the neighbors agree to a compromise, the city clerk will just not file the ordinance. She is submitting Plan B as an option in case the council does not agree with the plan.

Romig said the MPO is not against bike lanes but the eight-foot bikepath was the best compromise. The MPO would prefer a 10-foot bikepath, but in this case, the eight-foot bikepath appears to be the best option. She further stated the requirement comes from the federal government to receive federal funding.

Kreun said Voigt was covering her bases and recommended final approval of the ordinance.

Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DREES TO APPROVE THE OPTION PRESENTED.

Voigt said if approved by the commission, it would have to be reviewed and approved by city council. If they get a compromise from the homeowners for the 8-foot bikepath, the ordinance does not need to go any further.

Kerian said the only reason to approve the ordinance was if a bike lane was wanted. If a bike lane is not wanted and the request is denied, it would go to the council without the option of a bike lane. The road can still be constructed and they get either the 8-foot or 10-foot bikepath. Approval of the ordinance is not needed for the project. She said Voigt was doing the right thing to cover all her bases, but the plan should not be approved with a bike lane in the report. The report only gives approval for the bike lane. If the bike lane is not an option, the council will have to decide on something else. Without approval of option B, a bike lane is not a choice. Approving the option leaves a bike lane in as a choice.

Lee called for a vote on the motion.

Roll call vote was as follows: Voting aye:
Whitcomb, Smith, Malm, Kreun, Dr. Hall, and Drees. Voting nay: Matejcek, Lee, Kerian, Hutchison and Hagness.

MOTION CARRIED 6-5 ON ROLL CALL VOTE.

3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH SMITH NOLTING AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF EASTER SEALS GOODWILL NORTH DAKOTA, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK D, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 12, BLOCK 1, LANDECO ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED AT SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 38TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating it was a three-sided lot. When Easter Seals purchased the property, they knew the lot was more property than they needed and had always intended to sell off the southern portion. After further review of the replat, easements were added and would necessitate a variance. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

Malm asked about the zoning. Durrenberger said it was in a PUD with commercial land uses. There was a discussion of the access control.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Label existing drainage and utility easement.
3. Show lengths of lines L1 and L2 on the drawing.
4. Show entire lengths of lines on the plat boundary.
5. Use bearing datum from previous replat or if bearings are based on North Dakota state plane coordinates, so state.
6. Increase access control on 38th Avenue South to 110-feet.
7. Add 10-foot utility easements along 36th Avenue South and 38th Avenue South.
8. Revise Planning and Zoning Commission’ s President’s name to Paula H. Lee and Secretary’s name to Lyle A. Hall.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM GRAND FORKS LAND LLC AND RPSI LLC FOR APPROVAL TO A VACATE SMALL PORTION OF SOUTH 16TH STREET ADJACENT TO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, STADTER SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.
Durrenberger stated a request to vacate a portion of South 16th Street was heard in June, 2005. The plat came in with a different area and Durrenberger noted the item was a housekeeping request to make sure the area vacated matched what was shown on the plat.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-10. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM SOUTHERN ESTATES, LLP., FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SOUTH 22ND STREET AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SOUTHERN ESTATES FIFTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 20TH STREET, BETWEEN 40TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 43RD AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the vacation request and said it vacates portions of previously dedicated South 22nd Street. The plat for Southern Estates 5th Addition has not recorded. Gengler noted the vacation would be dealt with in the future once the plat has been recorded. He requested the item be tabled.

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

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF PROMENADE THIRD RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 18, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4, PROMENADE FIRST ADDITION, LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH AVENUE NORTH EAST OF NORTH 55TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat, stating it was part of the affordable housing area being developed by the city. The original plat was for single-family homes only and the proposed plat would allow more housing types such as townhomes. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to the list of special conditions.

Durrenberger answered questions and showed on the map where the changes would occur. The townhomes would provide more varied types of housing for first time buyers.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include lengths of curves 44, 45, and 46.
3. Scale should read 1” = 60’
4. Add total plat footage in the owners’ certificate note.
5. Revise Planning and Zoning Commission’ s President’s name to Paula H. Lee and Secretary’s name to Lyle A. Hall.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE AND REZONE FROM SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 6, ALL OF COLUMBIA PARK 24TH AND 26TH ADDITIONS, COLUMBIA PARK 29TH RESUBDIVISION, ALL OF SOUTHERN ESTATES FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED EAST OF COLUMBIA ROAD, BETWEEN 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the rezoning was similar to the Meadow Ridge Concept Development Plan. There were no substantive changes to the zoning; changes occurred in the configuration of existing proposed future roadways. This would coincide with the plat of Southern Estates Fifth Addition and tie in some of the remaining unspoken for areas. Staff’s recommendation was for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. The preliminary Concept Development Plan, as submitted, generally conforms to the Land Development Code. Staff will provide the Commission with necessary technical change requirements at the February meeting.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF ATTENDANCE RECORD IN 2005.
Gengler noted the attendance record sheet for 2005 included in the packet was slightly incorrect. The correction would be made and included in the February, 2006 packet.

6-2. MATTER OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE ZONING TRANSITION MEETING.

Lee announced a special zoning transition meeting would be held as a joint meeting with the city council on January 23, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in city hall council chambers.

Gengler explained the MPO/city was in the process of updating the 2035 Land Use Plan. One main issue was whether or not to extend the extra-territory limits to four miles outside the city limits instead of the current two miles. State law allows cities of 25,000 or more in population to extend out four miles. After many discussions between city leaders and the land use plan subcommittee, the city is pursuing the extension of the additional two miles. To start the process, state law requires the planning and zoning commission to call a special zoning transition meeting. Lee has informed commission members that the meeting has been set for January 23, 2006 and Gengler stated he was working with the mayor’s office on advertising the meeting on behalf of the council. Council members have requested to be included in the meeting. The township boards will be invited to the meeting as well as the county commissioners, county planning and zoning members, and county planning staff. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the existing zoning rules and regulations in each area. They will also discuss the potential zoning regulations as the areas come into the city’s zoning jurisdiction. The issue is being discussed in the Land Use Subcommittee meetings also. The consultant hired by the MPO has worked on the issue and if a decision is not made on whether or not to extend the jurisdiction, the plan cannot be continued or completed. Following the transition meeting, the necessary ordinances will be presented to the commission at the February 1, 2006 planning and zoning meeting with final action in March. It is hoped that the completion of the land use plan will occur in March also.

Malm asked who is in charge at the meeting. Gengler said he understood that it was a meeting of the planning and zoning commission as indicated by state law and later it was requested that council be included as part of the meeting.

Matejcek asked if President Lee would be in charge of the meeting. Gengler said his understanding was that it would be a planning and zoning commission special meeting and the meeting would be run by the planning and zoning commission. The meeting will also be an informational presentation for the township boards and county commissioners and planning staff.

Malm asked if public input would be allowed at the meeting. Gengler said his understanding was that public input would not be allowed at the meeting. Malm said people become very unhappy when invited to a meeting but not allowed input.

Dr. Hall said he had a conflict unless the meeting was concluded by 7:00 p.m. Gengler said the meeting would be concluded by 7:00 p.m. to allow the committee of the whole to meet.

Gengler further stated a text amendment and map amendment would be required and it would go to both the planning and zoning commission and city council for preliminary and final approval.

Matejcek asked if more people from the county would be appointed to the city planning and zoning commission once the additional area is taken in. Gengler said it probably would not change and remain at three people from the county.