Committee Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006
9
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
November 1, 2006
1. MEMBERS PRESENT
The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Doug Christensen, John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Steve Adams, Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Dr. Lyle Hall. A quorum was present.
Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department) and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner, Planning and Zoning Department.
2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 4, 2006.
Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of October 4, 2006. No changes or corrections were noted and Lee said the minutes would be accepted as presented.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES:
3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, JR., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE
REPLAT OF LOT D & E, BLOCK 6, COLUMBIA PARK 29TH ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT 2443 AND 2445 PEMBROOKE DRIVE.
Gengler reviewed the request by stating the replat was a very simple replat to move the lot line. Staff recommendation was for final approval.
Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOVED BY HAGNESS AND SECONDED BY DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:
4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SEVENTH ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.
Gengler reviewed Items 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 since it included the plat, rezoning and annexation for the same property. He talked to Mr. Adams and Mr. Pribula and the decision was made to table the items indefinitely.
MOVED BY GRASSER AND SECONDED BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST INDEFINITELY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADYRIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TO
INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADYRIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2,
ALL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE THIRD ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FOURTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADYRIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, AND
SHADYRIDGE SEVENTH ADDITION
, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.
MOVED BY GRASSER AND SECONDED BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST INDEFINITELY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LAVONNE ADAMS FOR APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SEVENTH ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, EXCEPT PARTS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED AND THE NORTHERLY 140 FEET OF LANDS PLATTED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION AND A PART OF UNPLATTED LANDS EASTERLY THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE FULL WIDTH OF ALL PLATTED STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY CONTIGUOUS THERETO. THE AREA IS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.
MOVED BY GRASSER AND SECONDED BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST INDEFINITELY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS, OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED,
PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN
.
Gengler reviewed the revised annexation point system and processed it through the Land Development Code (LDC) Review Committee. The old system was based on a 12-point threshold with various criteria that had to be met. Elements, such as flood protection, have been added to the criteria and applied different weighting system to each point. The ordinance changing the Year 2035 Land Use Plan is before the commission for preliminary approval. He asked for feedback on the annexation points.
Lee asked if the total points changed. Gengler said 12 points was still the minimum points to use for consideration of annexation. He stated the annexation point system is a tool to be used regardless of voluntary or forced annexation. The point system is looked at with a voluntary annexation but it is not utilized as much with a voluntary as it is with a forced annexation.
Hagness asked if the point system followed stated and federal guidelines. Gengler stated the point system goes above and beyond state law as a tool for annexation. The state law described annexation and the process procedures, but then leaves it up to the governing body to make the decision. The annexation point system put tangible numbers on the various elements.
Matejcek pointed out the point system is a tool for the city but is not a state law and Gengler agreed that was true. Matejcek said he has concerns about the flood protection criteria for five (5) points. Originally it was assessed a value of six (6) points and was lowered when Matejcek felt it was too high. He said he wanted to see the points for flood protection lowered to two (2) or three (3) points instead of five (5) points. Some areas do get protection but there is a large area that now has flood protection but they were not in the city to start with and did not have anything to say about whether or not they wanted it.
Drees also voiced his opinion against the flood protection point assessment. He explained there was a meeting held at the country club for the Grand Forks Township prior to the dike being built. The president of the city council spoke at the meeting and wanted feedback on where to place the tieback. Several options were presented and the one chosen was the Merrifield Road and Belmont Road. The people actually needing the protection were outside the flood protection and remain on the wet side of the dike. The city council president said it would have no effect on annexation and Grand Forks Township residents would not have to pay for the tieback since the city was using their land and road to do it. He said the council representative made promises at that time and now the promises have been reversed. That creates less trust that rural people have with the city officials. He stated the flood protection criteria should be removed totally but if not removed, should be lowered since five assessment points is almost halfway to the minimum amount needed for annexation.
Jeno noted that Criteria 1 through 6 creates one-half of the points needed for annexation and that is almost automatic. Then the flood protection value is five points and that five points almost guarantees the minimum annexation points to be considered without added in the location and contiguity. He felt the five points for flood protection was excessive and out of balance.
Lee asked to what extent location and contiguity overlapped.
Gengler spoke on the tier system and said that is a conceptual map that is now being drawn with hard lines. There is some overlap between the two criteria. He reminded commission members that usually any annexation occurs with standard requests for voluntary annexation. The parts that people consider a gray area for annexation is the extension of 140 feet beyond the annexation area. The table is still subject to debate and could be returned to the LDC Revision Committee for further study and possible changes in valuation of points.
Lee asked if any consideration for annexation should be considered for Tier 2.
Gengler replied that extraordinary circumstances would have to occur on a large scale to jump beyond Tier 1 into Tier 2 for annexations, however, the areas had to be identified on the table.
Lee asked if any development in the past had finished with 12 or 13 points and annexation was forced based on the numbers. Gengler replied the only protested involuntary annexation he was involved with was the Kindness Animal Hospital. The point system was critical in that type of situation because it was above the minimum amount to be annexed. The business was adjacent to city limits and the roadway and utilities were in place. Generally, the point system is not even considered because the developer requests annexation.
Hagness asked if the flood protection within and without the city system referred to the four-mile jurisdiction. Gengler stated it refers to everything known as the flood protection system and that includes the earthen dike, wall dike and the tiebacks. It does go out into the extraterritorial area because the tiebacks are included there.
Hagness questioned why people would be assessed for flood benefit if they do not benefit from flood protection. If people do benefit from it in the extraterritorial area, there should be some points assessed but not necessarily five (5) points.
Drees stated the area in the Grand Forks Township that was in danger of flooding is still on the wet side of the dike. The higher road that was built will not help them at all. Walle Township received some benefit because of the ditch reconstruction but Grand Forks Township does not use the ditch and does not receive any benefit from the reconstruction, but they are being assessed for the ditch. What the city calls protected does not need protection. The only area that is prone for flooding is 47th Avenue South, South 42nd Street (campground) and the truck stop on 32nd Avenue South. The reason the areas are flooding is because the city went to the south and cut off the township drainage to the east. The city created the township’s problems with flooding by not allowing the water to flow east.
Christensen commented that to suggest a single member of the council can bind the council should not be part of the argument. The individual homes in the Burke Addition (not protected) were given the opportunity to participate and have protection. There were meetings with three dike options to include that area in the flood protection but they were expected to help pay for it and they chose not to do so. Consequently, they were left out of the flood protection. The planning body developed the point system to help future planning bodies come up with a rational process when applying their subjectivity to an applicant who wants to develop property. He asked Drees what he thought the points should be for flood protection and Drees replied it should be one (1) or two (2) points.
Kreun indicated Drees was incorrect in what he said. He stated he was at the meeting and Mr. Gershman indicated there would be no additional costs for the dike but he never said there would never be any additional cost for annexation process. At that point in time, there was no cost involved with the dike assessment to them and there is still no cost to them. There would be additional costs only when they are annexed just as everyone else in the city. The five assessment points are only a tool to be used.
Gengler explained that application of the points would be applied to the areas that are “islands” within the city. In Tier 1, annexation would be based on a developer requesting it by platting and rezoning property. In Tier 2, the only event that would create an annexation is an overall request that bypasses Tier 1 and goes out to Tier 2.
Grasser said there was a small area where there is no diversion channel or levy but that area has been defined by the city council and engineering department as a future assessment district for flood protection. He discussed how close a development would be to the city before annexation is required. In comparing the old point rating system, distance from infrastructure that went out to one mile before it was rated down to zero. The first six criteria are listed as one or zero and it terminates at one-half mile. Tier 1 is the area that is one-half mile around the existing city limits. If a development is proposed in Tier 1, the points will add up quickly. More than one-half mile from the existing city limits will probably not create the points for annexation. There could be more points applied to utilities as opposed to flood protection. Grasser said the flood protection is a huge issue for the city of Grand Forks and has been the main project for many years. To diminish the impact of that to the community and the surrounding area by taking out points is not the way to go but he said he is not necessarily against reducing the five points for flood protection. He went on to explain there were discussions about moving the dike alignment one-half mile further north (referring to Drees’ comments on meeting to the south) and there was a great deal of opposition to it. People recognized by their attendance and comments that they wanted to be protected. The flood protection system in place is set up to handle a larger flood than that of 1997. He discussed the height of Merrifield Road that is being built and stated that if water crossed the road everything inside the area would be wet.
Matejcek made the point that many of the people the points would apply to did not have a choice or were even asked about flood protection. If the English Coulee Diversion is not plugged up, it will back up to the hospital and other areas. There was fifteen million or more spent to divert the English Coulee and a system in Thompson to hold back the water of 200 square miles because of the area of the English Coulee watershed. The English Coulee is in place to prevent water from coming into the city. It is a large area and a big problem. However, now the city stated that someone’s land is protected because they were on the inside of the English Coulee Diversion, but the people were not given a choice to have their land protected. The system was put in place by the Corps of Engineers who mandated the system had to be built for flood protection. If people want to develop and annex their property, that is fine; but to include another 40 acres or 140 feet next to that annexation area is wrong just because the numbers indicate they should be included. This creates an undue hardship of taxes for farmers who want to remain in farming.
Hutchison stated Matejcek opposed the assessment of six points for the flood protection and the city has to move forward regardless of comments made years ago. The city needs a point system and as fair as possible for the people inside and outside the city area. Maybe the five assessment points for flood protection is too high and should be reduced to either three or four points instead of five points.
MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION POINT SYSTEM BUT HAVE IT REVIEWED FURTHER BY STAFF AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT THE DECEMBER 6, 2006 MEETING.
Malm stated that 41% falls on flood protection. He noted the only time the annexation point system is utilized is if someone is fighting annexation. Usually it is a voluntary annexation. He said the point system should be sent back to the committee.
MOTION AMENDED BY MALM FOR PRELIMINIARY APPROVAL WITH NO. 9 (FLOOD PROTECTION) CHANGED TO THREE POINTS AND RETURNED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW. SECONDED BY JENO.
Hagness said the point system is similar to assessments. If people don’t like the assessment, they can argue it in front of the Special Assessments Committee. If there is no benefit for the flood protection, then someone should not be assessed for it. The points are included for a reason. Other criteria were reduced. Why adjust just the flood protection? He said the points for flood protection should be four or five but not three points. If it is being sent back for review, he wanted them to know there were other members that feel strongly about the point system and the benefits. If someone benefits, they should be assessed four or five points for flood protection.
Grasser encouraged members to vote no on the amendment and said it should go back to staff and the committee to review it. He gave an example of a development one-quarter of a mile (Tier 1) from existing city limits. If the flood protection criteria is reduced, that development may not make the points for annexation and that is not the city’s intent. When points are going to be juggled, there may be other things to consider.
Malm said it would come into play when someone wanted to fight the annexation. He wants the annexation points considered on each and every annexation.
Christensen spoke on the amendment and said the people in the agricultural reserve district are concerned the council will force the annexation issue for the additional 140 feet. That would make them subjected to the special assessments. That is always a probability because there is continually the issue of bringing land into the city limits and having people pay their fair share. People fight for years with the idea that it would be paid off before they had to pay any special assessments. The city council adopted a policy that specials are re-computed based upon square footage as a deferred assessment. Once annexed, people then pay what the city considers is a fair share of the dike protection. Even when the dike bonds are paid, people will still pay special assessments for that after the fact. People are no longer going to get a free ride.
Matejcek said the specials are the problem. He has no problems with deferred specials once property is developed. He does not believe a burden should be placed on farmers for agricultural land that is being farmed by bonafide farmers who are not in the development business. Many farmers do not care what their property is worth; they want to farm and to be left alone. Matejcek said he wanted to protect those farmers. There is always a point where farmers are pushed out similar to the Birkholz property but he wanted to hold that off for the farmers as long as possible.
Kreun referred to Matejcek’s statement about people being forced into flood protection whether they wanted it or not. Every resident in the city of Grand Forks was forced into the same position. Citizens did not have a choice. The federal government said there would be a dike or flood protection insurance would not be an option. Citizens within the city have to pay the flood assessment for the dike and they did not have a choice. When people are protected, they should have to pay their fair share. He once again stated the point system is only a tool. Once one criteria is changed, each of the criteria will have to be reviewed and changed.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE NO. 9 (FLOOD PROTECTION) TO THREE POINTS INSTEAD OF FIVE POINTS INDICATED THE FOLLOWING: VOTING AYE: MALM, JENO, DREES. VOTING NAY: MATEJCEK, WHITCOMB, LEE, DR. KWEIT, KREUN, HUTCHISON, CHRISTENSEN, HAGNESS AND GRASSER. AMENDMENT DEFEATED 9-3.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ANNEXATION POINT RATING SYSTEM WAS AS FOLLOWED: VOTING AYE: KREUN, GRASSER, HAGNESS, HUTCHISON, CHRISTENSEN, DR. KWEIT, LEE AND WHITCOMB. VOTING NAY: DREES, JENO, MALM AND MATEJCEK. MOTION PASSED 8-4.
4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 4134 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS, PLATS OR APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING IN THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS’ EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION.
MORE SPECIFICALLY THE AMENDMENT IS TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION OF THE MORATORIUM FROM DECEMBER 31, 2006 TO MARCH 20, 2007
.
Gengler referred members to Ordinance No. 4134 adopted by city council on April 6, 2006 that placed a moratorium on platting and rezoning in the extraterritorial area. He explained that a consultant was hired to aid in the revision of the land development code. Staff and the consultant have been working diligently on the revisions. Although progress is being made, the committee and staff decided in order to produce the best documents possible, a proposal is presented to the commission for a three-month extension of the moratorium, thereby creating an 11-month moratorium. After speaking with the city attorney about the extension, Mr. Swanson said it was normal for moratoriums to last up to 12 months but extending the moratorium past 12 months would not be advantageous. The committee and consultant are comfortable that the goals can be reached before the end of the proposed extension. He reviewed the timeline as indicated in the staff report. The plan is to have the drafts in place during the month of November. In December, Gengler said he wanted to have a public forum meeting and display what will be almost a final product before being reviewed by the commission and the city council during a public hearing. March is considered the deadline but the plan is to have the final plan in February. The extra month is just in case there are issues that come up creating a delay in the process.
Hagness asked what major changes have been made.
Gengler stated the committee discussed and rewrote the A-1 and A-2 zoning district regulations. The two primary ordinances are the A-1 and A-2 zoning district and the actual subdivision regulations which spells out the platting requirements. There is also a corridor overlay district being developed. Under the A-1 and A-2 zoning district regulations, everything in the Tier 3 would be as discussed during the summer allowing a one per 40 density (agricultural preserve area). In theTier 2, the one per 40 density would be allowed and/or a cluster development that will provide smaller lots, clustered in the smaller area with the remainder of the property being deed restricted as far as further development potential. The cluster option creates small lots which includes a community septic design system. The basic rural infrastructure is constructed so that when the city reaches the area, the system is easily adaptable to the city infrastructure. The plan is to no longer allow the two and one-half (2.5) acre non-farm rural subdivision in the Tier 3 area.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECONDED BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM UNTIL MARCH, 2007. MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGNESS VOTING NAY.
5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
None.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
___________________________
Dr. Lyle A. Hall, Secretary
___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President