Committee Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
September 6, 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, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown. 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).
2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 2, 2006.
Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of August 2,
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 request, stating the item was continued from the August meeting. The original proposal was to rezone the property from B-3 to R-3 with a request for 60 units (16 units per acre as allowed in the R-3). The developer lowered the density to 42 units after meeting with the neighborhood. At the August meeting, the motion was to request that the developer meet again with the neighborhood to work on a compromise; however, a second meeting was not held. Gengler showed the plan for the proposed 42-unit development. The westerly and middle building would be two-stories while the easterly building would be three stories. Gengler said he received a strong indication from the developer that 42 units would be the lowest the developer could go and make it economically feasible. Regardless of the density or zoning status, approval may still not be made based on other factors such as severe drainage problems.
Kevin Ritterman, developer, answered questions from the commission members. Although the design is not set for the units, the three-story would be somewhat similar to those located behind Hansen Ford.
Christensen said the neighbors want townhomes or condos and do not want apartments or the traffic problems incurred from more apartments. The suggestion from the commission in August was that for a total of 36 units could be considered for approval and that suggestion was apparently ignored.
Whitcomb noted it was Christensen’s idea for the developer to build townhomes. The property has been proposed for development several times in the past and has never succeeded. The developer has been accommodating for this development.
Christensen answered he was more concerned with the homeowners in the area since they would bear the brunt of the development. He and other commission members felt 36 units would be acceptable and he did not think 42 units would be appropriate for that area.
Hutchison stated the finding at the August meeting was to lower the density to 9.5 units per acre. What would it be with 42 units. Gengler said a density of 42 units would be 11.2 units per acre.
Gengler explained the planning staff sent out a notice of the rezoning request. The neighborhood meeting was requested by various property owners who took it upon themselves to invite others. Staff did not arrange the meeting that was held earlier.
Hutchison stated the property owner could develop the property for commercial use now and end up with more cars than what might be available for the apartments.
Kreun discussed the drainage/run-off problems associated with the area. He talked about the addition of an underground reservoir for stormwater issues. Ritterman said he had used holding ponds in the past and they work, but there are maintenance issues with them and they can become eye-sores. The main issue is the density of the units. Ritterman said he did not think there was a market for condos or townhomes in the proposed location, but the land is for sale if someone wants to develop it for that purpose.
Grasser gave comments on the site run-off issue. There are restrictions on how much water can come off the site. Developers are allowed to restrict the run-off by restricting the pipe sizes and allowing some of the storage of water on the parking lots as well as the use of surge ponds. If something other than that is determined to be necessary, the engineering department would need to know what direction to go. The way it is planned in engineering is typically the cheapest way to go.
Mr. Ritterman was asked about the square footage and price for the units. He stated the units would range from 1200 to 1400 square feet and would rent for $900 to $1,100 a month.
Lee opened the public hearing and said the limit would be 15 minutes for public input. The main argument is the density. The original proposal was for 60 units with a reduction to 42 units by the developer and the surrounding residents want it to be no more than 36 units.
Amy Albert, 1116 Shakespeare, said her family had lived at the address for 20 years and did not know the property had ever been zoned for any development other than B-3. Traffic is now a big problem. Three new apartment buildings were recently constructed and those residents will add to traffic through the neighborhood area. The area does not need more apartments; she wants the neighborhood to remain a family neighborhood area. She also noted that flooding of basements has also been a problem in recent years and more water issues from further development are not needed.
Dan Holwerda, 1215 Darwin Drive, referred to a letter passed out to commission members regarding his comments on the proposed apartment development. He said there were no positives to allowing the construction of the apartment buildings in the neighborhood.
Paul Drechsel, 3626 11th Avenue North, said he had lived at his address since 1995. After being stationed at Grand Forks Air Force Base, he stayed in the community because he liked the area. It felt like a true neighborhood. However, the traffic has increased over time and traffic gets backed up while school children are getting in and out of cars. He questioned not having another meeting with the developer when the commission asked the developer to meet with the residents again. Existing property should not be depreciated in order to develop something else close by.
Wayne Kuzel, 3602 11th Avenue North (corner of Stanford Road and 11th Avenue North) moved to the area in 1997. Since the apartment buildings behind Hansen Ford were built, the traffic has increased substantially. The neighborhood has been diminished somewhat with the existing apartment buildings and adding more apartments would add more problems to their neighborhood area.
Laurene Barrow, 1225 Darwin Drive (corner of 13th Avenue North and Darwin Drive), does not want her view to be of apartment buildings. She would prefer townhomes or duplexes. University students would be the residents of the apartment building with three or four students in each unit. There will be wear and tear on the buildings very quickly and end up as an eyesore to the neighborhood. The traffic issue is a big problem. People from other areas park on Darwin Drive in the wintertime because parking is not allowed on 13th Avenue North. She questioned what the apartment dwellers would do when on-street parking is needed. She felt they would crowd Shakespeare and Darwin Drive. Because other neighbors park in front of their home, their trash has not been picked up at times. Snow is pushed onto the vacant lot in the winter. Where will snow be stored if the property is developed? Another large problem is gopher infestation throughout the area.
Lee closed the public hearing.
Hagness stated one of the direct comments in the motion at the August meeting was that the developer meet with the neighborhood residents again. It was also stipulated that 9.5 units per acre be used in determining the density of the apartment buildings. The 9.5 units per acre was based on a determination for property to the west. That was not followed at all. Commission members have been taught for many years that with proper orderly growth, land designations go from R-1, R-3 to B-3. The landowner has the right to develop the property but 42 units are too many for that area. The density limit should be 36 units with three buildings of no more than two stories each.
Gengler responded that although the commission felt the density should be no more than 9.5 units per acre, that was not the wishes of the developer. What he presented to the commission was based on what the developer and owner wanted.
Mr. Ritterman commented that he sent an e-mail to city staff, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Holwerda which he took as a guide from the entire neighborhood. Although he offered to meet with residents, Mr. Holwerda said they wanted townhomes and not apartment buildings. Ritterman took that as a final word from the neighborhood and felt there was no sense in meeting. He decided to bring back the request for 42 units to the commission.
Hutchison said he lived in the area and felt that a meeting should have been held. The developer and the owner have to decide what would work best for them. The commission can only determine whether or not they will approve a zoning change. He asked approximately how many townhomes would fit in the area. He was told 15 to 40 depending on the layout. Hutchison said it appeared the only development for the area would be apartments, but he would not be willing to change the zoning unless there was some compromise between developer and residents of the neighborhood.
Drees stated the B-3 zoning had not worked for 20 years and several requests had been made over the years for development of the property. The neighborhood appears to want gophers and flooding more than having the area developed. Developing townhomes with the smell that comes from the north is not feasible. The developer has made an effort to lower the density to 42 units and with proper construction, the drainage issues can be worked out.
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO APPROVE THE REZONING TO R-3 WITH 42 UNITS.
Matejcek commented that the property was an issue at his very first commission meeting years ago. Charlie’s Bakery wanted to build a bakery and the residents did not want the bakery because they were afraid it would close and the building would become a bar. The property has set empty since then. Eventually the property will have to be developed.
Kreun talked about a similar issue in an area by Menards. He suggested another meeting be held between the developer and the residents of the neighborhood. He suggested city staff facilitate the meeting between the developer and the residents of the neighborhood.
Hagness said he did not mind the 42-unit density if the developer met with the residents and allowed them to voice all their concerns. The residents should be made a part of the decision. As it stands, he would vote against the motion. If a meeting takes place, he would also like to be invited. When Ritterman was asked about the timeline on the project, he stated they wanted to get in the ground yet this year, but it was doubtful they could start it this year.
Discussion continued.
Malm said he would not vote for the motion because the parties needed to meet. If there is no consensus on the project, the commission will make the determination.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL ALL PARTIES HAVE MET AND DISCUSSED THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-2. 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 reported the request is tied to the rezoning in Item 3-1.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-3. (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 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 reviewed the ordinance stating the change in the sign code was precipitated by a request from the Aurora Medical Center (Stadter Center). After submitting a ground monument sign proposal for their campus, they were told it would not be allowed based on the current sign code. There was an existing provision for a shopping center ground monument sign and it was felt those regulations could be used to create a more expanded ordinance to include institutional, medical and office uses. In changing the ordinance, staff also made some organizational changes. It was difficult to explain the sign regulations to people since it requires searching out two sections of the code. Staff re-organized the code to get as much of the sign regulations as possible under the sign code section. Also, changes proposed reinstating a provision from the original 1987 ordinance that allowed two ground monument signs on a corner lot. In the past, requests have been made for development identification signs. With the newly expanded ordinance, the proposal includes regulations to allow residential development signs. Subsequent to the August Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the sign subcommittee met, reviewed the ordinance and made further modifications, which amended the ordinance. The amended ordinance was included in commission members’ packets. Since then, staff re-visited the proposed ordinance and made additional modifications. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the ordinance including other modifications as stated in the cover letter passed out to each member.
When asked about the pylon signs on South Washington Street and if the medical center could have a pylon sign, Durrenberger responded that the medical center is located in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and a pylon sign(s) is not allowed in a PUD District. Pole or pylon signage is primarily allowed in the B-3 District which is the principal type of zoning along South Washington Street.
Malm discussed the need for a more concise method of letting people know the rules instead of having to search out several areas of the code.
Christensen stated the land use plan is currently being updated and it was felt the land development code also needed to be updated. With that intent, $28,000 ($14,000 from the MPO and $14,000 from the Planning budget) has been set aside to study the land development code. The plan is to have a much simpler code.
Dr. Kweit commended Durrenberger for his work on the ordinance.
Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE
REPLAT OF LOT D & E, BLOCK 7, SWANGLER’S SUBDIVISION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, INCLUDING A
VARIANCE TO SECTION 18-0204 PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND NORTH 20TH STREET.
Brooks reviewed the request stating the Redeemer Lutheran Church was selling the house that currently was part of the church property. The fence that was thought to be part of the house property was on the church lot and it was decided to move the lot line in order to keep the fence with the house property. City staff established easements along 8th Avenue North and along North 20th Street creating a need for a variance. With the addition of the easements, the request is no longer a minor subdivision and would require a variance.
Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST AND VARIANCE AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include distance and bearing for line between Lot F and G.
3. Correctly label existing Lots D and E.
4. Add the word “Lot” to the land description in the owner’s certificate.
5. Add 10’ utility easements along 8th Avenue North and North 20th Street.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JLG ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR APPROVAL OF A
VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
(SECTION 18-0907(2)(L)(3)) FOR AN UNPLATTED PORTION IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED AT 3501 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ONTO AN ARTERIAL STREET FROM 660 FEET TO 170 FEET
.
Durrenberger reviewed the request by stating the current regulation for minor arterials roadways restricts access to 660 feet. The proposal for a drop-of lane at UND would not meet the requirements. The University has requested approval of a variance to allow a drop-off and pick-up point for students. During staff review, potential turning conflicts were noted. Durrenberger showed a map of a design prepared by the engineering department. The firm of JLG Architects submitted an alternate to the city’s design.
Jim Galloway, JLG Architects, said safety has been a key element in the development. Although there is room for more than one vehicle, the plan is to allow only short time use of the area with a wider area in the middle to allow another car to pass. The area will be signed so that all parties understand where they have to go.
Grasser said the plan could work. Initially, the plans appeared to allow two entrances onto an arterial street, along with pedestrians and the bikepath, creating conflicts. Making it a one-way and narrowing the approaches, as porposed by JLG, will take care of many of the perceived conflicts. However, he prefers to keep the sanctity of the classified streets. The city should be working on through movements to direct access but the plan would work.
Mr. Galloway asked Grasser for assistance in shaping the curb so it suggests the proper movement. Grasser asked that it line up with Stanford Road. If approved, the engineering department will work with the JLG staff on the curves to assist drivers. They will never cover all contingencies because some drivers will go where they want no matter what is in place.
Discussion continued. Malm stated it should not line up with Stanford Road. The road is too congested.
Grasser said his preference would be not to have it at all and have the entrance off Stamford and remove it from the major arterial street, but the plan will work in the efforts of trying to be business friendly. The city has spent a great deal of money in transportation planning. The more times concessions are made to the rules, the more times people will ask for exceptions. He would prefer to work out a solution that does not impact the rules. However, the plan is a reasonable compromise but he would not vote for it.
Hutchison stated he lived in the area and Stamford Road does become very congested. But the plan is appropriate for the facility being constructed.
Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY JENO TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAN DRAWING PRESENTED AT THE MEETING CONTINGENT UPON THE JLG FIRM WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE THE PROPER CURVES IN DIRECTING TRAFFIC.
Discussion continued.
Mr. Galloway said they have tried to plan for diverting the larger traffic problem associated with a drive-through convenience store on the east side with access off Stanford Road, south of University Avenue. He felt this would keep the majority of the turning movements off the arterial road. (The site plan shows a drive-up window on the east side of the apartments. He was referring to the traffic generated by the drive-up window).
Malm voiced concern with the access being located across from Stanford Road. He thought it would work better on the other side, to the west of the proposed location.
Mr. Galloway informed members that the plan is for upper class student housing and will be used throughout the year by students or for camps.
MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM, DR. KWEIT AND GRASSER VOTING NAY.
3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MARK SATEK, ON BEHALF OF ARDELL KORYNTA, FOR APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 3, CAMPBELL ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED ON NORTH 55TH STREET
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING TO BE USED AS A CONTRACTOR’S SHOP FOR STORING TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS FOR GENERAL PURPOSE USE.
Durrenberger reviewed the request for a contractor’s shop in a B-3 District. The area is zoned B-3 but with a contractor’s shop, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required. The property is located immediately north of the Westgate Marine showroom and storage facility. The CUP contains several conditions: 1) final approval of a site plan; 2) frontage road must be extended to the driveway of the facility; 3) along the south boundary line, a Bufferyard “C” must be planted to improve the aesthetics. With the push for improvement of aesthetics along Gateway Drive corridor, staff recommends a higher bufferyard than would normally be required between commercial uses. 4) no exterior storage; 5) if use changes, the CUP would require review.
Kreun asked about an expiration date. Durrenberger stated no expiration date was included. Kreun noted there had been problems in other areas with a condition of no external storage. If the “no exterior storage condition” is not met, the city should have the ability to refuse a renewal of the CUP. Durrenberger replied that if the conditions were not met, the city has the ability to revoke the permit.
Lee opened the public hearing.
Steve Magnuson, Westgate Marine, asked where the shop and access would be located. Durrenberger showed him on the map the location. Mr. Magnuson did not have a problem with a building being constructed on the property but wanted to know how it affected his property.
Durrenberger explained that the contractor installs cabinets and is looking for a building to store his vehicle and equipment. The contractor does not custom make cabinets so storage would not include lumber.
Discussion continued on the location of the road and access for the property.
Lee closed the public hearing.
Matejcek asked Durrenberger to draw out the location of the property on the aerial photo so commission members could see it.
Grasser explained that the frontage road goes through the area where Westgate Marine currently parks boats. Westgate Marine utilizes the right-of-way to park the boats and if the right-of-way is needed, it will impact how West Gate Marine will operate its business. Grasser asked if the proposed business would have to be referred to the Highway 2 Beautification Committee and he was told no. Durrenberger said there were concerns on the buffering and that was the reason for requiring a higher buffering (Bufferyard “C”) with a fence for the facility.
Kreun stated the properties would be subject to review for annexation in the very near future and all parties should be aware of that.
MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST CONTINGENT ON A FIVE-YEAR EXPIRATION DATE WITH A REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT EXPIRATION DATE BEFORE RENEWING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-7. MATTER OF THE
PETITION
FROM DEACONS DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR APPROVAL TO
VACATE A 60’ WIDE ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT 30’ ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LOT LINE COMMON TO LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1, ZAVORAL FIRST ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION AND THE NORTH 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK F, REPLAT OF LOT Z AND LOT 5, BLOCK 1 AND A REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK D OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1, KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION AND RECORDED AS DOCUMENT 646088.
Gengler reviewed the request by explaining that when the Kannowski’s PUD was developed, discussions were held on the development of the area east of the golf course. All parties (developers, city, park and school districts) would meet and plan out how a future roadway would connect the various areas and connect to 47th Avenue South. Over time, the PUD changed and then Zavoral’s First Addition was approved with a 60-foot roadway and utility easement with 30-feet on either side of the common lot line. Since then, questions were asked about who would pay for the roadway if it were constructed and how the road would function. The property owner (Zavoral) has requested vacation of the roadway easement for lack of strong backing of all parties for a roadway. Staff’s recommendation is to consider vacation of the roadway easement but retain the 20-foot pedestrian easement.
Matejcek said it was a practice field for South Middle School and it’s doubtful a roadway would be constructed through the area.
Hutchison noted an area known as Ryan Park (between King’s Walk Golf Course and South Middle School) would be developed at some point in the future.
Lee wondered why a bikepath would not be considered along the area, especially since a park is planned in the area. Hutchison stated the park district is in favor of a bikepath or lane in the area. Gengler said the developer was fine with retaining a 20-foot pedestrian walkway, if the roadway easement were vacated.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO VACATE THE ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT BUT RETAIN A 20-FOOT PEDESTRIAN/BIKEWAY EASEMENT.
Grasser stated that if the commission retains the pedestrian easement, he would like the motion to reflect that the developer will construct the pedestrian/bikeway path now before lots are sold. If there is a delay in building the path and people build homes there, homeowners will be in complaining about the path and wanting it vacated. If the sidewalk or path is already constructed, people are aware of it upfront and there are no surprises. If that is not going to be part of the motion, he would rather vacate the entire easement.
Lee asked if Grasser wanted the entire bikepath/pedestrian walkway put in or just in that section of the retain 20-foot easement. Grasser replied he would prefer to have the entire bikepath/pedestrian constructed before any homes were built but that would be going beyond what the commission could control. The other entities could come in at a later date and tie into the completed area. If people build homes there, they know what to expect if it is already constructed.
Dr. Kweit said he would amend his motion to include that with the approval of the second. Matejcek withdrew his second.
Hutchison said he would second the motion and include the stipulation.
Christensen made an amendment to the motion to include the construction of an eight-foot bikepath in the middle of the 20-foot easement.
Lee said the Dr. Kweit had already added that as a friendly motion to the original motion and it had been seconded by Hutchison.
Kevin Ritterman, on behalf of Deacon’s Development, said they were okay with the stipulation and he agreed with Grasser that it should be put in first so there were no surprises. He asked that it be included and assessed with the road that is being constructed in the area. Grasser said he could make a change order to make that happen. Ritterman said if that could be done it would benefit everyone in the area. The path would be between Lots 9 and 10 and a prospective buyer for Lot 9 is aware of it so there should be no problem.
Lee re-stated the motion:
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO CHANGE THE 60-FOOT ROAWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO A 20-FOOT BIKEWAY/PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ADDED A STIPULATION THAT THE PATH BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER NOW BEFORE ANY LOTS ARE SOLD IN THE AREA. GRASSER WILL MAKE A CHANGE ORDER TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8-FOOT BIKEWAY PATH/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY IN THE 20-FOOT BIKEWAY PATH/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 9 AND 10 WITH THE ROADWAY PRESENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED.
Christensen asked if a 20-foot easement were necessary for an 8-foot pedestrian path and Grasser said that was fairly typical. It usually went along with a utility easement but there is no longer an identified need for a utility easement.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:
5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
Gengler said there were no reports from the planning department but wanted to make a comment regarding apartments as discussed in Item 3-1. Due to changed circumstances in his life, he now lives in an apartment and it upsets him when people refer to deteriorating neighborhoods because of apartment dwellers.
Christensen noted that since the flood of 1997, 1200 apartments have been built, many of them in the university area. That indicates the growth of the university. But he wants to preserve the neighborhood areas. He has bought land and built apartments so less apartments can be built. It all depends on how one minimizes the land costs.
Matejcek stated that every time there is a vacant lot in town to be developed, the surrounding residents do not want it. Generally, the commission sides with the neighbors, but when people have an open space next to them, they think it is theirs and they want it left alone.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:57P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary
___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President