Committee Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
December 6, 2006
1. MEMBERS PRESENT
The meeting was called to order by 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 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 NOVEMBER 1, 2006.
Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of November 1, 2006. No changes or corrections were noted and Lee said the minutes would be accepted as presented.
Gengler apologized for leaving out the staff report and accompanying documents for agenda item 3-4 and the consequent incorrect numbering of agenda items 3-5 and 3-6. An e-mail with attachments was sent to each member and an additional copy was passed out to each member at the meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES:
3-1. (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
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 (APPENDIX B, TABLE B-3 ANNEXATION POINT RATING SYSTEM)
.
Gengler reviewed the issue by stating the ordinance had been through preliminary approval by the planning and zoning commission and the city council. The ordinance amends the existing annexation point system and introduces the revised point system which includes the flood protection element. Some of the existing points on various elements were changed to reflect a more accurate analysis on annexation.
Hagness asked if enough people knew about the ordinance and changes made to receive final approval and also asked about the questions raised at the November meeting regarding the extraterritorial zone.
Gengler said there were questions raised regarding points for flood protection. Those points were reduced from six to three. Other issues of concern were proximity to utilities and location of fire stations relative to the area being considered for annexation. The elements included are part of the general format that has been used for many years.
Grasser noted that flood protection points were decreased but other elements were increased such as water or sanitary sewer, but points overall remained the same.
Lee stated that 12 points remains the minimum points to be considered for annexation.
Gengler said the total number of maximum points is 23, but the minimum points are 12. Achieving 12 points does not necessarily mean the city will proceed with annexation. The point system is a tool for planning staff as a starting place.
Lee opened the public hearing.
Dick Evers, 105 Victoria Court, asked if there was any property close to the city that could not be annexed by using the annexation point system? It appeared to him that anything close to the city could be annexed based on the point system anytime the city decided to do so. What is the sense of having a point system if everything applies?
Whitcomb reported to the meeting.
Gengler clarified that the annexation point system was primarily intended for the person developing property immediately adjacent to the city. The point system as a tool is not used for the city to go out to the fringe and take in property. It is primarily to be used in conjunction with a request for annexation. If an area is not immediately adjacent but is close to the city and has not been annexed, the point system allows the city to review and calculate an area based on the various elements and decide whether or not annexation should be pursued.
Mr. Evers stated he was in the north end of Grand Forks and if the city decided to annex the area, they could do so based on the criteria. Businesses located on the north end do not want to be in the city but based on the point system, the city could do what it pleases.
Lee noted there is an existing annexation study for the north end.
Gengler stated there had been extensive studies in the past dealing with the north end on annexation. The existing annexation point system was applied in years past and the entire North 81 area came up with 15 points. It was decided to hold on it for five years and re-study the area. The flood and problems associated with it has continued to leave the North 81 area on hold as far as reviewing it for possible annexation. Based on past studies and on the existing annexation point system, there is an indication the North 81 area would meet the elements and points for annexation. The city has not given direction to pursue that.
Christensen told Mr. Evers the annexation point system under discussion would not change the situation. The North 81 area exceeded the points during the last study.
Mr. Evers stated the North 81 area went through the political in-fighting during the last study. In reviewing the last study, the mayor stopped the meeting because the criteria and study looked bad. The mayor delayed annexation for two years. The North 81 area received a letter from then-City Planner, Bob Bushfield, stating the city council had voted to annex the area in two years. The North 81 area people again approached the city council. The city council was mad because that was not what was voted on. At that time, five years was stated to be the next review. Mr. Evers admitted it had been more than five years since that took place. He stated the information was given as history but with the new point system, it would be a slam dunk for the North 81 area to be annexed.
Christensen went through the point system for the North 81 area and said it would calculate to be more than 12 points again, the same as it did under the old rules.
Lee repeated the point system was established primarily for use with new developments and requested annexations.
Gengler noted that when the North 81 study is reviewed, the new annexation point system would be utilized if given final approval.
Hagness stated he had been on the planning and zoning commission for many years and the new point system was not very different from the existing one. It lets the people in and around the city aware of the fact that if they receive benefits from the city and the points are accumulated, the points would be applied as it is currently. Someday people outside the city limits have to realize they are receiving benefits of the city but are not helping to pay for them; sooner or later, these people have to start paying their part.
Mr. Evers talked about expenses of having sewer and water on the north end stated it did not cost the city anything. They just do it and assess the costs to the people and businesses.
Hagness stated the city pays a very large portion of utilities. The main line infrastructure going to Andy’s Cycle Shop was approximately one-quarter of a million dollars that the city had to finance and that portion is not assessed. Mr. Evers stated that was peanuts compared to three million dollars for the sewer and hooking up the sewer and water in the area. Hagness told Mr. Evers the point system does not change anything. The North 81 area would accumulate enough points to be annexed under the old system or the new system because the North 81 area receives the benefits right now. That area does not pay city taxes; they pay county taxes.
Mr. Evers said he does not want any of the benefits and nobody else located on North 81 wants any of the benefits either.
Hagness said the city was not coming after the North 81 area for annexation as far as he knew. Even though it is well beyond the five years scheduled for review, the city cannot afford to pay the expenses attached to running utilities out to the area which they deserve if the people along North 81 paid taxes.
Lee closed the public hearing after stating the remarks were becoming repetitive and returned the meeting to the commission for further discussion.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION POINT STUDY.
Drees said he was against the annexation point rating system. It appears to be a game and one of the players does not get to have input into the rules of the game. The point system is a way for the city to justify annexation. When it goes to court or other negotiations, the point system is not received as it is by the city. He said he would vote against it.
Matejcek also voiced his opposition to the new annexation point rating system as well as to the old point system. The city does need a system to review annexations that are voluntary. If there is a forced or involuntary annexation, the city will use the point system to justify it. He appreciated the reduction of points under flood protection from six to three but he still felt it should be zero. He noted that just with location and contiguity there would be enough points to meet the minimum 12 points and three criteria do not even have to be met to get the minimum. The minimum can be met on two criteria. He appreciated Mr. Hagness saying the city would never go out after North 81.
Mr. Hagness said he hoped he had not insinuated that.
Malm said he was a proposer of the annexation point rating system. His problem was that even though city services may not be available or any other criteria met, location and contiguity would be enough to annex someone. That is not right and he felt the numbers for those two criteria should be lowered.
Lee said that if any property met the 12 points based on the two criteria but had no other points, it would make no sense to annex. The minimum points do not necessarily mean annexation. Without services, it would make no sense.
Grasser said there had been much focus on the issue of location and contiguity. To get six points on contiguity means someone is an island and is surrounded by the city of Grand Forks. With six points, someone is 80%-100% contiguous with the city of Grand Forks. If someone is an island and surrounded by the city and within Tier 1, should not the annexation points reflect the property is ready to be annexed? He felt it should. He mentioned the Tractor Supply Company where one lot is adjacent to the city and as far as contiguity, would not rate more than three points. If someone were surrounded by the city of Grand Forks, he did not know how they could justify a point system that did not indicate annexation.
Drees said location and contiguity were the same thing. Grasser did not agree. Someone could be in Tier 1 and not be contiguous with the city. Six points would be assessed for location but if someone were 300 feet outside the city limits, they would get zero points on contiguity. However, if someone were in Tier 1 and immediately adjacent to the city, then the contiguity points would be considered.
Malm said he disagreed with Grasser. Once the city moves out and none of the services move out, somebody could still be contiguous to 80% and someone would still be in Tier 1 and also rate 12 points. He felt one point should be dropped from location and contiguity and there should be a third criteria met. With nine criteria listed and someone has to meet only two of the criteria, that is too few criteria to meet for annexation. There should be at least three criteria met before annexation is considered.
Lee re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Evers said the city could use the point system and take each business in one at a time or take several at one time and win every time.
Lee closed the public hearing.
Lee said she understood the point system to be used when a developer said he did not want his development to be annexed as well as being a limiting factor. At times the city felt an area should be annexed and the points did not indicate that at all.
Gengler said the point system was meant to handle both situations. The city is not using the point system to go out and blindly annex areas. However, cities grow and regardless of whether or not it is North 81 or Gateway west of 55th, when development gets to a certain point, the city is forced to annex. The point rating system is just one tool to help in that regard. Grand Forks has always had a profoundly weak annexation process in practice.
Dr. Hall asked if a developer brings in a development 500 feet beyond the city limits and asks for annexation but there is someone between them and the city, is the person in-between also brought in?
Gengler answered yes, it is looked at as far as drawing the annexation lines. Other state statutes dictate 25% or more landowners could protest annexation and then it would go to mediation.
ROLL CALL VOTE REFLECTED THE FOLLOWING:
VOTING AYE: ADAMS, WHITCOMB, LEE, DR. KWEIT, KREUN, JENO, CHRISTENSEN, HAGNESS, AND GRASSER. VOTING NAY: MALM, MATEJCEK, HUTCHISON, DR. HALL AND DREES. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION POINT SYSTEM PASSED 9 TO 5.
3-2. (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 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 reviewed the ordinance by stating the city has been in the process for many months re-writing the zoning code, especially dealing with the A-1 and A-2 Districts and the subdivision regulations affecting the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Even though draft ordinances were ready, the committee was not comfortable with the entire product. Staff and the land development code revision committee requested the moratorium be extended until the end of March. This will benefit both the city and the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction by allowing time to prepare a good product. Gengler added as a side note that there will be a meeting on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers to present the public with information for the A-1 and A-2 Districts and the subdivision regulations. Input from the public will be allowed. The ordinance will be presented to the planning and zoning commission on January 3, 2007 with final approval by the end of February. The extension to the end of March was as an extra cushion in the event there was some problem during the process.
Lee asked the commission if there were any questions for Gengler. There were none. Lee then opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM UNTIL MARCH 20, 2006. MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGNESS VOTING NAY.
3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ROBERTON CONSTRUCTION, FOR APPROVAL OF AN
APPEAL TO THE COUNTRY MEADOWS APARTMENTS DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3700 BLOCK OF SOUTH 20TH STREET.
MORE SPECIFICALLY THE APPEAL IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, FROM FIFTY-FIVE (55%) PERCENT TO FIFTY-SIX POINT TWO (56.2%) PERCENT.
Gengler reviewed the request by stating the staff report recommendation by staff had changed since being mailed out. The project is located on South 20th Street and Pembrooke Drive (south of the Walmart and Sam’s developments). The site plan was included in the packets. Gengler said the overall area is zoned R-4 allowing 55% impervious surface area. The preliminary plan showed 56.2% creating an appeal for the excess. Since the packets were mailed out, more staff research was done on the area. Gengler said his recommendation was to table the request. He showed the original detailed development plan approved for Columbia Park 29th and noted it was one of the three affordable housing districts approved by city council several years ago. The site plan established the intent to build townhomes on the entire northerly tier of Pembrooke. One townhome is located on a one-acre lot, which might indicate in the early stages that it was not anticipated to build out that way. Gengler said he was not comfortable with following through with an apartment building located on the lot and relative to the single-family homes across the street. He also stated he wanted to discuss some of the existing zoning language with the city attorney. In the late 90’s, there was a designation made of R-4 for zoning, multiple family, high-density townhouses. It was not really questioned until the detailed development plan was submitted. Staff is not saying the project cannot or will not happen, but staff would prefer to have some time to further research it. Since it was an approved detailed development plan, anything that happens differently from the plan would need to go through an amendment process.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND CITIES MALL FOR APPROVAL OF AN
APPEAL TO THE SIGN CODE
AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18-0301.1 APPEALS, OF THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
MORE SPECIFICALLY THE APPEAL IS TO ALLOW THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING POLE SIGN LOCATED ON THE MALL’S PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 17TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.
Gengler reviewed the appeal for signage for the Grand Cities Mall. This is the third sign appeal since the sign code was adopted in December, 2005. He showed a picture of the existing sign at the mall and said the sign was not very effective. Several years ago, mall management approached the city with a request for a different type of signage. The sign subcommittee met and discussed the issue. Since the zoning for the mall is B-2, the signage at that time was limited to an eight-foot ground monument sign. After amending the sign code, they were allowed to have a larger ground monument sign measuring 20 x 20. Recently the mall management requested to alter their existing pole sign of 50-feet by lowering it to 37-feet and then adding panels for individual tenants located in the mall. The existing sign is non-conforming but by lowering the sign, it would be less non-conforming. Staff felt it was a good compromise and offered a recommendation of support of the request.
Lee said she understood that with a non-conforming sign, no changes could be made. With the appeal process allowed under the new sign code, staff felt it was a good way to get the sign in the system. In the past, there have been sign issues that did not fall under any code provision and ultimately the city council was the approving authority. The city council will also make a decision on this issue.
Dr. Kweit stated he failed to see how lowering the sign would benefit the city and the mall instead of complying with the large ground monument signage that was approved.
Gengler said the existing sign at 50-feet was non-conforming and was not going away. By allowing them to modify it by lowering it, the sign becomes less non-conforming. If the sign is not going away, why not allow them to alter it and make it look better and more functional for the mall.
Dr. Kweit asked why mall management was opposed to having a ground monument sign with panels of the tenants listed. Gengler said it was probably due to cost. A new sign would be much more expensive than altering the existing one.
Kreun said there was a lot of staff and committee time spent building an ordinance to fit the ground monument sign and it was at their request. Why did they not build it at the time of their request? Now they are requesting something different.
Christensen spoke to the Town and Country sign located across the street with the panels of the tenants. It is more appealing than the projected sign of the mall. Many months were spent on developing the new sign code. The idea is to create a nicer appearance along South Washington Street. Does this enhance what was accomplished during the sign code update? He said the idea was to raise the bar for a nicer corridor.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO DENY THE SIGN APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-5. (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 that has appeared before the commission several times. He gave a recap of the new proposal. The new request is for a total of 36 units, with three two-storied structures. Another change is a driveway access on the north side of the property and that would enter onto the former Capone’s Restaurant lot. The property owner for the proposed development also owns the foemer Capone’s Restaurant lot. The plan also shows a driveway on the westerly part of the development and would be an exit only access (the additional access is agenda item 3-6). The developer and owner met with people from the neighborhood regarding the development. The consensus from the neighborhood at the meeting was that they preferred to have the property zoned at R-2 and for it to be a townhome development. The approval for rezoning of the property does not give approval to the site plan presented. The owner/developer will still be required to submit a site plan as well as a drainage plan.
Hagness asked about the number of bedrooms and was told each unit would have three bedrooms. He also asked about the necessity of the driveway onto 13th Avenue North? Gengler said the original plan did not show a driveway at that location, but after review by the various city departments, especially the fire department, it was determined that without the driveway there would be no physical way for the trucks to enter the lot and address a fire. There is an access requirement that the fire department have sufficient ingress and egress for their trucks. With the additional access, the entire site works much better.
Hagness said the traffic would increase on 13th Avenue North. Gengler said there was no question that traffic would increase, regardless of the number of units but 13th Avenue North is a wide street.
Kreun asked how many unrelated people can utilize a unit? Gengler answered that four people not related by blood can live together in a dwelling unit. By law, there could be four people in a three-bedroom unit.
Grasser asked where the stormwater retention area would be located and Gengler pointed to the area on the drawing.
Kevin Ritterman explained that water was a issue in the area and the plan is to include a holding pond on site. They are planning on three bedroom units and do not allow more than three to a unit. If a fourth person is found to be living in one of the three-bedroom units, they are evicted. It is their policy not to allow more than three people to a unit or apartment. He discussed parking stalls, noting they will have 30 stalls surplus. The access onto 13th Avenue North is not needed but it was added based on city suggestion. He showed how they could accommodate fire trucks without the additional driveway. Mr. Ritterman said they started out with 60 units and they have reduced that to 36 with two-story buildings. Drainage issues will be discussed with the engineering department.
Gengler discussed agenda item 4-1 since Mr. Ritterman is also representing the owners of the property and is in close proximity of the subject proposed development. The lot furtherest to the west and allowed only a 16-unit dwelling on the lot was purchased by Bobcat. They want to rezone it from R-4 to B-3 (commercial) and include the fencing and landscaping requirements. Bobcat wants to use the property for their business. Since the 16-unit apartment building would not be built, that would help in alleviating some traffic onto 13th Avenue North.
Hagness asked if Bobcat would access onto 13th Avenue North. Gengler stated there is not access control restriction on the plat because it is a platted lot adjacent to a public street so access is required. Hagness stated the code states no exit from a B-3 District into an R zoned area. Gengler agreed but said a driveway can exist between an R-4 and a B-3 District.
Hagness said he would encourage them to access onto Gateway Drive so there is no commercial traffic into a residential zone.
Lee said she would allow approximately 10 minutes for neighborhood input. The public hearing was opened.
Amy Albert, 1116 Shakespeare Road, questioned Mr. Ritterman on the buildout of the property and the height of the buildings. Most of the neighborhood is not in favor of apartments and would prefer the townhome concept because of the additional traffic and the water issues. There are other existing apartments in the area and it has become very congested. There is no benefit to the residents of the neighborhood with additional apartments in a family neighborhood.
Lyle Nelson, 1218 Shakespeare Road, passed out pictures to the commission members. The pictures showed standing water at 13th Avenue North and was taken on August 10, 2006. The water reached the foundation of his home. The water issues have been referred to city officials and they know it’s a problem. The pictures show water standing in the grassy area that is planned as the 36-unit apartment building. Paving the area for the apartment buildings would disperse the water to the other residents’ homes. He wondered if the city would be liable when the water enters his home and his neighbors’ homes. The neighborhood residents requested a finished plan of the area that would answer some of their concerns. In November at the neighborhood meeting, they voted on R-2 zoning only in order to retain their neighborhood.
Lee asked about water containment for the proposed development. She assumed the proposed development would not be able to add to the water problem. Gengler agreed and said there would have to be an internal collection center. Regardless of whether or not the structure is a single-family home or larger, water from one property cannot drain onto another property. They would have to bring in drawings showing the water containment systems.
Christensen said the neighbors do not want the development and the apartment development will have some type of impervious surface such as asphalt or cement and he wondered how the water would be drained to the north and not through other residents’ homes. He wants development not to cause any harm to others if at all possible. How can it be prevented?
Grasser stated the pipe that serves the whole area is located east of Shakespeare Road and 13th Avenue North. When the area was designed, different criteria were applied to the stormsewer layout. The stormsewer runs through an easement and ties into Gateway Drive and that area is also somewhat problematic. The stormsewers are not sized for the area or any rainfall event. As part of any approval of the plan, he wanted to limit the runoff to the pre-construction conditions. However, it is a small area and will not make the water problem go away. The idea is not to make the situation worse.
Mr. Ritterman stated the property is zoned B-3 currently and the impervious surface for that zoning is 85%. Their development would reduce the impervious surface to 45%. They know there is a water issue but it is not because of their development. The issue has existed in the whole northend. Because they are the last development, they are penalized.
One of the homeowners stated there are currently 90 homes there and they should not have to make a sacrifice for the one person who would profit from the development.
Bob Brooks, 1008 Darwin Drive and councilman for the ward, stated he was at the neighborhood meeting. The homes have very deep backyards and at one time was an old coulee bed. When there is any rain event, a tremendous amount of water stands in the area. He understands the owner’s desire to develop but noted the area is critical when there is any rain. The main problem is the water issue. Some of the homes have lost their foundations due to the water issue and it continues to be an issue. He wants to see development and a bigger tax base but any development on the property will be a problem for the residents in the area.
Whitcomb asked Mr. Brooks how long it takes for the water to recede and he replied it is a slow drain. Whitcomb asked if the holding ponds on the proposed development would help with the water drainage. Mr. Brooks said that usually holding ponds work out well but it is a dangerous situation on the property now for water and there is nothing to impede the water. Building the apartment complexes would just send the water to the surrounding area. Mr. Brooks said he was also concerned with the traffic issues but if approved, the motion needs to include review and approval by the engineering department.
Grasser talked about the water issues. He stated the engineering department could consider a project to help improve the drainage of the area but he said it would be approximately a one-half million dollar project. That type of project is special assessed to the neighbors. It is not an easy or cheap problem to solve.
The special assessment area and amounts were discussed and Grasser explained that stormsewer projects were not protestable.
Adams asked if the same owner owned the restaurant lot and he was told yes. He suggested building two 18-plex buildings and use the third footprint for a holding pond and run it through the restaurant parking lot to Gateway Drive. That would solve some of the problems.
Al Pearson, 3614 9th Avenue North, spoke on sandbagging in areas around his home for 25 years. The neighbors do not want three bedroom apartments or 36 units and they do not want the traffic. The residents have been fighting the various issues for many years. Even with five sump pumps, his area floods.
Further discussion ensured.
Cleston Rawlins, 3614 12th Avenue North, said he bought his home five years ago. He is not thrilled by all the apartments that already exist and now more apartments are planned. Originally the developer was planning on two bedroom apartments and now they are three bedroom apartments. At the neighborhood meeting, the developer said they would probably rent to students. There are homes in the area that have been turned into rental units which creates more cars and parking issues. There is no benefit to the neighbors for the project.
Lee closed the public hearing and returned the issue to the commission members.
Hagness stated smaller units might work in the development because something has to be built there eventually but is this the right time? Looking at the pictures with the standing water, there will be water problems even with the retaining ponds. He noted that Grasser has talked for years that the answers to an development’s issues must be settled first before any development. Until the engineering department and city council have a better drainage system, this is not the time for further development.
Kreun said if each lot were assessed $3,500 for a 20-year period at 6.5% interest, it ends up being approximately $26 a month or $300 a year per household to help alleviate the problem. Then the city could look at developing the property. The neighborhood is concerned about flooding and they should consider a project to help with the water problem. He suggested the neighbors discuss the possibility of a project with Mr. Brooks. It may not eliminate the problem totally but it would certainly help it.
Jeno spoke on the zoning issue and stated the issue of the number of units is not under consideration. With the current zoning designation of B-3 zoning, there are different commercial developments that could be on the property. Rezoning the property to a residential use looks appropriate and the commission looks at planned orderly growth. The water issue will be answered whether the development is in place or not. A development for the area will come back in the future if it fails today.
Lee re-opened the public hearing.
Paul Drexel, 3626 11th Avenue North, stated the water issue is a real problem. He wanted it on record about the water issues. It appears okay to table a 12-plex on the south side of town but not on the north side of town. The north side of town is just as important as the south side of town.
MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO DENY THE REZONING AND CONSIDER IT AGAIN WHEN THE PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED WITH THE OTHER ISSUES.
ROLL CALL VOTE REFLECTED THE FOLLOWING:
VOTING AYE: KREUN, GRASSER, HAGNESS, DR. HALL, HUTCHISON, JENO, CHRISTENSEN, DR. KWEIT, LEE, MALM, MATEJCEK, ADAMS AND WHITCOMB. VOTING NAY: DREES. MOTION TO DENY CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 13 TO 1.
Malm stated to the neighbors in attendance that the property remained a commercial district and anyone that wants to build there with a B-3 use can do so. He also told the neighbors that homeowners in another area bought the property to prevent apartments from being built on it. They sold it to someone who built townhouses on it. Malm also questioned the motion made by Hagness and said it could never come back.
Hagness stated the motion should just reflect denial without any qualifying statements. All agreed.
3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) 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.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO DENY THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:
4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM KEVIN RITTERMAN, ON BEHALF OF JKV INVESTMENTS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE R-4 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT AND
INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 22
, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 13TH AVENUE NORTH AND DARWIN DRIVE.
Gengler reviewed the request by indicating on the map the lot requested to be rezoned from R-4 to B-3. The property is owned by the Bobcat Company and would be used in conjunction with the business. The request was briefly reviewed under agenda item 3-5.
Whitcomb asked if the lot is cemented would that not increase the water problems discussed earlier? Gengler replied it would have an impact.
It was noted if the area were special assessed for a stormwater project, the owners of Bobcat could be included in the project. The water problem in the area needs to be solved in some way.
MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE REZONING SUBJECT TO THE CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION SO THAT DOWNSTREAM RESIDENTS ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THE RUNOFF.
Gengler stated it would be difficult procedurally to rezone with contingencies.
Christensen said he would make a motion to continue the request until they received a city attorney’s opinion. There is a problem in that area and creating more harm is not the way to go.
Christensen withdrew his motion.
Hagness stated this was no different than the last rezone request in the OJ’s Addition.
MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST.
Christensen asked if it would be possible to have the parking lot drain to the north toward Gateway Drive.
Gengler said the request is for rezoning. Christensen said if the rezoning were approved, the owners could build on it. Gengler replied the property is currently R-4 and they could build a 16-unit complex on the property or if rezoned to B-3, they would submit a site plan and it would be reviewed by staff. The site plan review is an administrative process and would not be submitted to the planning and zoning commission or the city council.
Matejcek asked if anyone knew what the owners were planning to do with the property. The two issues do not appear to be the same. The owners could gravel the lot and just store their product on it without building and nothing would change. The property is zoned R-4 and the owners do not want to build a 16-plex facility; they want to rezone it for their business. Commission members need to know more about what is planned and they should not be denied because of what happened elsewhere. It was noted a gravel lot would not be allowed.
Kevin Ritterman, representing the owners, stated the plan is to park trailers or extra inventory on the lot. The owner is not planning at this time to build a building and is not requesting access onto 13th Avenue North. The owner is aware of the sensitivity of the residents to the south and is willing to fence and add landscaping. At this time no buildings or hard surface is planned.
Hutchison stated the request is for preliminary approval and if there are no plans to hard surface the lot, it should not be denied. There is another month to work out the details and it can always be denied at final approval if standards are not met.
Hagness and Christensen withdrew the denial motion.
MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST WITH MORE DETAILS PRESENTED AT FINAL APPROVAL IN JANUARY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUSAN CHRISTOPHERSON FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-1 (LIMITED BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND
INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-2 (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT, THE WEST 13 FEET OF LOT 1 AND ALL OF LOTS 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 7, BUDGE AND ESHELMAN’S 3RD ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 523 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET.
Brooks reviewed the request, stating a picture of the building was included in the packet. The building has been many things throughout the years, with the most recent use as an office building and zoned as B-1. The new owner had plans to renovate into a four-plex but after discussions with city staff, learned the proposed four-plex would have to be sprinkled to meet new national building codes. The owner decided to change to a duplex since sprinkling would not be required. A duplex is not allowed in a B-1 zoning district and the request is to rezone to an R-2. The same zoning district exists to the west of the property. Brooks stated rezoning would split the current B-1 to the north and south but the zones are adequately sized to stand alone. Staff’s recommendation is for preliminary approval of the rezoning request.