Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

August 2, 2006

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno and Dr. Rob Kweit. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office).
Lee welcomed Doug Christensen as a new member to the planning and zoning commission. He replaces Dorette Kerian as a city council representative.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 6, 2006.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of July 6,
2006. There were no corrections or additions noted and Lee declared the minutes
approved as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF DREW LENTHE ENTERPRISES, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE

R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, MEDIUM DENSITY) DISTRICT, LOTS M AND N, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS C THROUGH I AND LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OJ’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3600 AND 3700 BLOCKS OF 13TH AVENUE NORTH.

Gengler reviewed the history of the property being proposed for rezoning from
B-3 to R-3 and showed an aerial photo of the subject area. The area consists of 3.74 acres with a density of 16 units per acre. There have been several attempts over the years to rezone the property. Gengler indicated two areas just west of the proposed rezoning that are zoned R-4 (multiple-family, high density district). The most westerly area was restricted to 16 units (1.69 acres with 9.5 units per acre) and the area immediately west of the subject property was restricted to 12 units (1.15 acres with 10 units per acre). The issue before the commission is to determine whether or not rezoning of the property is appropriate. The rezoning request received preliminary approval from the commission and the city council in July. Gengler reported city staff and the developer had a meeting with the neighborhood regarding the issues such as height of buildings, number of units, traffic congestion and parking issues.

Hagness asked if concessions were made on both sides after the meeting with the neighborhood. Gengler replied that no concessions were made at the meeting, but the key elements and concerns were identified.

Questions were asked about density. Gengler said the R-3 District allows up to 16 units per acre. Although staff is recommending approval of the request, the site plan and drainage issues have not been reviewed.

Hagness asked what would be allowed if it remained B-3 type uses. Gengler said the B-3 District is the most expansive commercial district under the city code. It includes all retail, restaurants, car dealerships or any type businesses that might be allowed on South Washington Street or 32nd Avenue South.

Questions were asked about access for the area. Gengler showed on a map the existing access for the area. If approval is given for the rezoning, the developer has requested a variance (agenda item No. 3-6) to amend the access control and allow an additional driveway. One driveway would not accommodate the development. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the additional access if the rezoning is approved.

Christensen wanted to know how to restrict the number of units if approval is given for the rezoning. Gengler stated the commission has the discretion to identify the number of units allowed to be built just as previously identified for the properties to the west. Staff’s recommendation is not for the R-4 District which would allow 60 units. The recommendation is for rezoning to the R-3 District which would allow up to 16 units per acre. The city council could make a determination of a lesser amount of units per acre.

Christensen said he preferred to assess a restriction based on what had historically been restricted on the properties to the west of the proposed rezoning. Maybe change is inevitable for the area, but he would not support 60 units. It would be unfair for the existing homeowners.

Dr. Hall wanted to verify that if the property remained a B-3 zoning, a business such as the Borrowed Bucks establishment could be built on the property and that might be worse than an apartment building. Gengler answered yes.

Lee opened the public hearing but stated she would limit speakers to five minutes each.

Kevin Ritterman, 1520 Robertson Court and developer for the owner, referred to the letter passed out to each commission member. The letter referenced the issues established at the neighborhood meeting. He explained there was a gas easement on the westerly portion of the property and they could not build over it. They would be limited to 12 or 16 units in that area, which would be similar to the adjoining property restricted to 12 units. After the meeting with the neighborhood, reconsideration was given to the plan. They are proposing three buildings with an additional access. The owner is out of the country so he has been unable to discuss the plan with him, but they would consider less density. A consideration could be made to make one of the buildings two stories but that would increase the cost of the units. The remaining two buildings would be three stories high. Questions were raised at the neighborhood meeting regarding parking and impervious surface and the need to keep cars from being parked on 13th Avenue North. He showed a plan for stacked visitor parking in order to keep as many cars on-site as possible. They tried to provide parking at one stall per bedroom. That is above the requirements of the code so residents should not be parking on side streets.

Kreun asked how many stalls are required by code. Ritterman replied it would be 2-1/2 stalls for three bedrooms and they are providing a stall for each bedroom per unit.

Kreun asked how they would counteract UND students renting and having more than one person per bedroom. Mr. Ritterman answered that city code does not allow it. There will have an on-site manager and periodic checks would be made. There might be an occasional overnight guest, but if found to be more than an overnight guest, they have 30 days to correct the situation. If it continues, they are evicted.

Kreun asked how many total parking stalls are being planned and the developer answered 150 stalls. If 8 units are reduced, there would still be 150 parking stalls.

Dan Holwerda, 1215 Darwin Drive, stated he is one of the newest residents of the neighborhood. He complimented staff and Mr. Ritterman for providing information on the project. Although he understands the owner’s desire to build on the property, he feels the project of 60 apartment units in the area would be an erosion of the family residential area. The apartments would probably be rented to UND students. Some of the negatives associated with the apartments would be significant increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic on 13th Avenue North and Darwin Drive, as well as other adjoining streets, negative resale value of existing homes, potential for increased special assessments associated with infrastructure to handle the increased volume, and the possibility of increased crime. He offered a letter to be made part of the record.

Lyle Nelson, 1218 Shakespeare Road, referred commission members to Ordinance No. 2823 that limited the area adjoining the subject property to 9.4 units per acre. He stated 9.4 units per acre should be the maximum for the proposed development and that would limit the buildings to two stories instead of three stories. In the last two years, 24 apartment units were constructed on Stanford Road with more completed last summer. There are now 96 existing units which also increased the number of vehicles and pedestrians. Adding more with the proposed project would be a hazard for the neighborhood as well as Agassiz Elementary School. He noted that Fargo has set a limit of 11 units per acre because of problems and issues connected with higher densities. If development has to take place, he asked that densities be lowered to accommodate the surrounding neighborhood.

Kevin Jacobson, 1018 Shakespeare Road, pointed out his property on the map. His first concern is the safety factor of Shakespeare Road and the fear that it will become a drag strip due to the increase of vehicles and people in a hurry to get to work or to school. There is already congestion of traffic between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. His other concern is flooding. He had basement flooding in June 2002 and 2003 with 6 inches of rain in two hours. He was told by city engineers there was no storm sewer system that could handle that much rainfall in a short period of time. He showed photos of the flooding around his home. The current storm sewer system is not adequate for the current runoff and adding more impervious surface in the area would add to the problem. There is no room for a holding pond to protect the existing residents.

Al Pearson, 3614 9th Avenue North, stated the same issue had been fought years ago because of the increased traffic and the increased student enrollment in Lake Agassiz School.

Since there were no other speakers on the subject, Lee closed the public hearing and turned the meeting over to the members of the commission.

Gary Malm stated the argument and discussion had happened too many times before. Staff reviews and approves the site plan but unless the commission members see a copy of the site plan, there is always going to be trouble. The site plan is the major factor on whether or not the project should go further. The owner, according to code, can build apartments in that area but a site plan also determines the size of the buildings, elevations, etc. of the project.

Gengler replied he had provided a copy of the concept plan and also stated there are drainage concerns. However, it is difficult to apply proper stormwater calculations without a detailed site plan. He asked that all parties remember an R-3 District can have a lot coverage of up to 45% impervious while the current B-3 District is allowed up to 85% lot coverage. The preliminary stage of rezoning is only the first step. There are many other steps to consider in designing a stormwater system that is sufficient while not burdening the existing system.

Malm said the storm sewer is not the only issue. He is concerned about the total number of units and the size of the buildings. Unless the neighborhood understands exactly what is being constructed in the area, there will continue to be questions and concerns. Regardless of the number of units per acre, the neighbors may not be happy, but a definite plan needs to be studied.

Lee asked Gengler what would occur with the site plan if the rezoning is approved. He replied the site plan would be administratively approved by staff, unless variances were sought, such as for the stacked parking. If the developer could show the stacked parking was beneficial for the site as well as the surrounding area, the request would require a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Kreun stated a similar situation occurred behind Menard’s and the developer was asked to have a second meeting with the residents in the neighborhood to see if a compromise could be reached on issues. There will be development on the site and the idea is to make it as palatable as possible to the neighborhood but also make it cash flow for the developer. He said the commission could stipulate a total number of units per acre. The impervious surface is going to be a problem. He said he would rather not see commercial on the site because it would only exacerbate the problem. Residential is the best use but some decision needs to be made on the amount of acceptable residential dwellings/units.

Christensen said if commercial was going to be on the site, it would have happened long ago. He wondered if the area would be appropriate for a PUD. Gengler said the code states a PUD would be a minimum of 20 acres. Christensen asked why apartments needed to be located on that site. Why not have townhomes there instead? Sixty units are just too many for the area. He asked the developer to think about residential other than apartments in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Lee asked Mr. Ritterman if he would consider meeting with the neighborhood again. Mr. Ritterman said he was open to the suggestion of meeting with the neighborhood again. He said they could consider townhomes in that area but there does not appear to be a market for them.

Lee talked about the buildings and said with the concessions made by the developer, the site would end up with around 40 units. Mr. Ritterman said they could work with that.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KREUN TO REQUEST THE DEVELOPER MEET AGAIN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DETERMINE IF A COMPROMISE COULD BE REACHED.

MOTION BY HAGNESS TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT 9.5 UNITS PER ACRE BE STIPULATED FOR THE PROPERTY. THAT WOULD CREATE 36 UNITS INSTEAD OF 60.

Lee ruled the motion was not a proper amendment.

Gengler said the commission should take formal action by tabling, continuing, approving or disapproving or approving with conditions. The item is slated as a public hearing and will be forwarded to city council.

Christensen said the commission does not have to take formal action. They can vote down the original motion and replace with the second motion. Most of the commission does not like the density and want some residential other than apartments.

Malm noted that Mr. Ritterman knows the feeling of the commission members and the neighborhood. Mr. Ritterman also has to make the project cash flow. If an agreement cannot be reached, he can always withdraw the project.

Mr. Ritterman said he needed to know from the commission exactly what they want in the number of units per acre. They need to know in order to see if they can cash flow a project with that type of density.

Kreun stated a cap of 36 could be put on the development and Mr. Ritterman could decide if the cap would be for apartments or townhomes. He asked Mr. Malm if he would rescind his motion, put a cap of 36 units for the project and have Mr. Ritterman present a new proposal next month. Mr. Ritterman said he would like that motion and would see what he could do. Malm and Kreun withdrew the original motion.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO STIPULATE 9.5 UNITS PER ACRE AND ALSO ASK Mr. RITTERMAN TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THEM WITH 9.5 UNITS PER ACRE.

Christensen explained to residents in the audience the motion was to table and set a cap of 9.5 units per acre. There is no approval of rezoning the property to R-3 District.

Gengler said he understood the motion to be an approval of the rezoning with a cap of 9.5 units per acre.

Hagness stated his intent was to make a motion that allowed the developer to work with the residents using the 9.5 units per acre and bring it back to the commission. The motion was not for approval but was meant to continue the issue.

Lee said the motion would have to be re-worded because there was no language about tabling in the motion.

Amy Albert said she did not understand the motion. If a 36-unit apartment building was voted as approved, do the residents have a chance to speak against it?

She was told the motion was to continue the issue for 30 days.

The motion (for clarification) was to continue the item until the September meeting to allow more discussion on the project between the developer and the neighborhood residents.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WILLIAM AND TINA EISEMAN FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR LOTS 16, 17 AND 18, BLOCK 65, ALEXANDER AND IVES ADDITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE ACCESS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT FOR A COLLECTOR STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1518 8TH AVENUE NORTH, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Durrenberger reviewed the request by explaining that the applicant is requesting approval for an access onto 8th Avenue North, classified as a collector street. In reviewing the traffic counts of 8th Avenue North, there were less than 500 vehicles on the roadway. This is a relatively low volume. The property next door to the subject property does have access onto 8th Avenue North. Although the petitioner has a garage and access off the alley, the request is to have a parking area close to the home off 8th Avenue North. The petitioner’s health and mobility has declined and is the reason for the request. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the variance due to the low volume of traffic and due to the fact that one neighbor already has access onto 8th Avenue North.

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

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DIAMOND E. PIPILES, ON BEHALF OF NANCY M. PIPILES, FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE WEST 57’ (REAR) OF LOT 11, BLOCK 12, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE ACCESS ONTO A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET FROM 660 FEET TO 18 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 514 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Durrenberger reviewed the request by stating the subject home and the home on
University and 5th were built the same year and probably the same owner. The
subject home is completely landlocked. There is insufficient space to provide
access to the alley adjacent to the church. The request is to have a curb cut on the
east side of the apartment building in order to provide some off-street parking.
There is insufficient area on the property for a parking lot to remove all parking,
but there are other units on the block that have insufficient off-street parking.
A curb cut exists on the corner, but the applicant said when he talked to that
property owner about a joint access, that property owner declined. Staff’s
recommendation is for approval in order to remove some vehicles from the street.
Additional variances for the property would have to be brought before the Board
of Adjustments.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.

Malm said people park on the grass in the area and also block the sidewalk. It is a mess.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, said a new ordinance exists that allows police to ticket the infraction of parking on the grass or blocking a sidewalk. Because it is so close to city hall, her staff can check it out throughout the day.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ROGER DERRICK, AGENT, ON BEHALF OF COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT GRAND FORKS, LLC.; NORTH DAKOTA 47 SUITES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND NORTH DAKOTA 47, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL FOR THE COTTAGE HOMES RESUBDIVISION DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED IN THE COTTAGE HOMES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), LOTS 19-76, BLOCK 1, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND APPROVAL OF TANDEM PARKING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN 40TH AND 44TH AVENUE SOUTH, WEST OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request. He stated the variances are for the PUD area of Cottage Homes, located on the west side of South Washington Street.
Durrenberger showed on the map the areas of the Cottage Homes DDP that needed a variance. The variances are needed in the various townhome and single-family areas of the PUD. The affected impervious surface areas are: Area SP1-61%, Area SP2-65% and Area SP3-41%. One area zoned R-3 has a 41% impervious surface and does not need a variance. The overall impervious surface area would be 55% or what would be allowed if it were zoned for the R-4 District. During staff discussion, the engineering department had less concerns because there is a holding pond on site for the whole area. The holding pond is located in the middle of the single family housing area. It will impact the sewer system in the area, but the developer has planned a way to reduce the impact during a hard rain. There will also be backup in other parts of the neighborhood. Durrenberger addressed parking stalls for the elderly housing (two family units). Normally, the requirement would be 2.25 parking stalls per unit, but there is a ratio for elderly housing units of .7, or 1.54 stalls per unit. The request is for a variance to include tandem parking. The elderly traffic generation counts shows fewer trips, fewer cars, larger reliance for public transportation and reliance on other family members for trips. Staff recommendation is for approval of the variance for tandem parking. Durrenberger noted the east complex has a surplus of parking stalls. The two-fold request before the commission is to: (1) increase the impervious surface area up to 65% (or 55% overall); and (2) approval of tandem parking in the elderly townhomes.

When asked about tandem parking, Durrenberger said one stall would be in the garage and the second would be on the driveway. It is not normally allowed but with the elderly townhomes, it could be allowed. Since the area is in a PUD, any variance must be approved by the commission.

Christensen asked about density and the total number of units.

Steve Swanson, 1128 South 12th Street, Advanced Engineering, said his company was working on the site design. He explained there were two senior housing areas with 48 units each; five four-plexes with 20 units; and six-plex condos with 36 units. The center area is surrounded by 14 single-family homes. The overall area is 32 acres.

Durrenberger said there was only one area with apartments with the remainder being condos and single-family housing. He also noted there was a commercial strip along South Washington Street.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated she had concerns on the development. When mixing townhouses, apartments and single-family housing it increases the impervious surface and there is no room for additions to be added to the homes. Once a development starts out with a variance, it creates problems in the future. If someone has a single-family home with a maximum of 55%, do they separate the lot out from the others or is the whole area figured in the future? She said situations like this are starting to cause conflicts for city staff. Homeowners in future years will ask for a variance for something they want to do but the area already has a variance. How will they know when they get to the cap amount?

Gengler stated if approval is given to the overall impervious surface area, the commission can identify on the detailed development plan that the single-family lots will abide by the variances already created. The homes are not constructed as yet and as they are sold, the homeowner is told they can have up to 35% lot coverage on the individual site plan. That should be clarified on the plan. That could be a condition of approval as an increase to the overall impervious by stating “single-family lots shall be subject to R-1 type building regulations.”

Collings said that has been done in the past and it has helped. The townhouses still have an issue. If they have a townhouse association, the restrictions are adhered to, but more and more townhome owners come in to apply for a screened-in addition or other additions and their unit is already built out to the maximum at the beginning. The association usually controls it by saying that no additions are allowed.

Steve Swanson showed a drawing of the storm sewer system for the development. The custom built single-family homes are not included with any of the variances. Each home will have to meet the regulations of the R-1 zoning. A storm sewer system was designed to allow all water to drain to the middle in the storage pond. During a 10-year storm event, the pond will surge three feet and would be contained in the middle by the sidewalk path. He pointed out the Southend Drainway and as the water goes down in the Southend Drainway, the water from the holding pond will be released through the Southend Drainway.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO INCLUDE IDENTIFICATION ON THE DETAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERS WILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE 35% LOT COVERAGE ON THE INDIVIDUAL SITE PLANS.

Malm discussed the pond issue. He said there is a similar holding pond on 13th Avenue North (discussed under item 3-1). That pond fills up quickly. What happens if there is 10” of rain at a time?

Steve Swanson stated that as part of the original PUD approved for the area, there will be no basements and that eliminates some potential for flooding. There are also emergency overflows that go to the coulee so that if the water in the pond raises too high, it will travel along the sidewalk path to the Southend Drainway. The houses will be two feet above that mark.

Lee asked for a vote on the motion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Durrenberger asked that a separate motion be made for the tandem parking in the elderly areas.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO APPROVE THE TANDEM PARKING IN THE ELDERLY AREAS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MDI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP #110 FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: THE FRONT 150 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 24, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE, ALSO TO INCLUDE LOT A, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 24, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE, TO FURTHER INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LANDS ADJACENT THERETO, IS SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (MULTIPLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE) AND THAT THE SITE CONFORMS TO THE PERMITTED LAND USES WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY’S 2035 LAND USE PLAN AS A WHOLE AND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOCATION ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CREATION OF AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A TIF (TAX INCREMENT FINANCING) PROJECT.

Gengler explained the city council has approved an RFP (Request for Proposals) for a 40-unit building to be located on what is now a parking lot. Urban Development is working with a local architectural firm on the project. MDI Limited Partnership is requesting a number of economic incentives and one of incentives is called a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. According to state law, in order to receive a TIF, the project must be presented to the commission to ascertain proper zoning (multiple family), consistency with the Land Use Plan and in general agreement with the city’s overall comprehensive plan. Staff reviewed the project and determined that residential development in the downtown is a permitted use, it is consistent with the 2035 Land Use Plan, and has identified the downtown as a mixed-use area. If approved by the commission, the request is forwarded to the city council.
Parking issues were voiced and Gengler said the concept plan shows 57 parking stalls. Staff recommendation was to find the area suitable for multiple-family dwellings.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF DREW LENTHE ENTERPRISES, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING ACCESS CONTROL RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW A BREAK IN THE ACCESS CONTROL ON LOT N, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS C THROUGH I AND LOTS K AND L OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, OJ’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3700 13TH AVENUE NORTH.

Gengler explained the request for access control restrictions is attached to Item No. 3-1 and that item was continued.

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

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINIARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ZONING; SECTION 18-0204 RULES AND DEFINITIONS RELATING TO GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS, SHOPPING CENTER GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS AND UNIFIED SHOPPING CENTERS AND SECTION 18-0301 SIGNS.

Durrenberger presented a sign request for a ground monument sign at the Aurora Medical Center, located in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed sign is 365 square feet and exceeds the maximum allowable area for a ground monument sign which is currently allowed at 144 square feet. There is a similar type allowed for shopping center signs. The proposal is to change the shopping center ground monument sign into one that is more applicable to other types of development, such as large medical facilities, office developments and other types of institutional or educational facilities. The speed of the roadway adjacent to the development is one of the proposed changes made to the existing sign regulations. The existing sign regulation is also deficient in allowing residential development signs. Temporary signs are allowed while the site is under construction but those signs must be removed. He reminded the commission that a development sign was approved several years ago for the Rivers Edge Subdivision along Belmont Road. The size of that sign plus what is allowed for temporary signage was melded into the regulations.

Another issue is that people have to be referred to different portions of the code regulations for signs; everything is not located together. The information on parameters for the ground monument signs that is currently listed in the definitions section has now been included in the proposed sign ordinance under general provisions.
Also included in the proposed sign ordinance is the language for two ground monument signs located on a corner lot. This issue has been discussed previously by the commission. It will be up to the commission on whether or not they want that change included in the ordinance. Staff’s recommendation is for preliminary approval plus submitting the ordinance to the sign subcommittee for approval prior to final approval by the commission.

Discussion continued on the signage ordinance.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND REFER IT TO THE SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE FOR REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. INFORMATION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON THE: 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 2, ZONING; SECTION 18-0208 R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT AND SECTION 18-0209 R-2 (ONE AND TWO FAMIY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT.

Gengler explained that the ordinance establishing setbacks and other issues for the R-1 and R-2 Districts was tabled at city council. It was decided more work was needed on the ordinance. The ordinance will be brought back to the commission for final approval in the future. This was offered as information only.

Gengler stated Grand Forks is hosting the 2006 North Dakota Planning Association conference on August 23, 24 and 25. If the commission members need further information, they can goggle ndpa.com; a registration fee is required.

5-2. MATTER OF DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE AMENDED PROPOSED ANNEXATION POINT RATING SYSTEM.

Gengler referred commission members to the revised annexation point system based on discussion of the Land Development Code Revision committee. At some time in the future, the annexation point system will return to the commission probably in the form of a policy statement. Members were asked to review the annexation points and be prepared for discussion when it is returned to them in final form.

Drees stated he was invited by the city to a meeting several years ago at the Country Club to discuss the city’s proposal on the southern tieback. The tieback was one-half mile north of the Merrifield Road. The city asked if the rural residents wanted the southern tie north of the Merrifield Road or on the Merrifield Road. One of the questions by residents was “will the tieback affect the rural residents’ as far as annexation or for paying for the city’s tieback?” The representative from the city, Hal Gershman, said that in no way would the tieback affect annexation. However, on the annexation point rating system, it shows the opposite. It shows five points out of the necessary 12 points just for being in the dry area behind the tieback. If the annexation point rating system is approved, it makes what Mr. Gershman said a lie. Other members of the city council were also present. Is the city going to make one more promise that will not be kept?

Matejcek said he was the only member of the committee that voted against the point system. The reasoning behind the points was that the people in the area are receiving benefits from the tieback. None of the people were asked if they wanted the benefit. The city had to go outside the city limits to put in the English Coulee Diversion and now it is being turned around that if the people are receiving a benefit, they should pay for it. The category was originally six points and he convinced them to lower it to five points. It is still too many points for that situation. The city should consider the fact that the rural people did not have anything to say about where the English Coulee Diversion or the tieback was located.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:50 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary

___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President