Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
October 1, 2008

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm, Dana Sande and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Curt Kreun, and Frank Matejcek. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 3, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of September 3, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented.


Gengler stated tonight is Marijo Whitcomb’s last meeting as a planning commissioner. He extended his gratitude and thanks to her for her 10 years of service.

Gengler also mentioned that tonight’s meeting is the first time for televising the planning and zoning meeting. City council is also considing televising other committee meetings. The meetings will appear on GFTV channel 2 and will be rebroadcast on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays at 4:00 p.m. until most of the agenda items have been settled by city council. It will also be available on the city’s webpage a day or two after the meeting. It was mentioned at last month’s meeting that many residents in the county could not get GFTV channel 2. Kevin Dean, city info director, is working with Midcontinent Communications to make channel 2 available to viewers in Grand Forks County. Not only will viewers have access to meetings but also to public announcements, health issues, etc.

Gengler said a supplemental packet has been passed out to each member. Also, there is a two-page handout from the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO). Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the MPO, asked that members note the next planning charrette on October 15, 2008 at the Corporate Center on the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Downtown Plan Update.


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 TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0301 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE SIGN REGULATIONS.

Gengler stated that staff and the sign subcommittee had been working on a new sign ordinance for some time. Staff is recommending the item be tabled until the November 6, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The last meeting was held on September 16, 2008 with the sign subcommittee, the chamber of commerce, local sign companies and business owners. Staff was asked to video signs with various hold times for messages. The video has been made and the next sign subcommittee will be held on Tuesday, October 14, at 5:00 p.m. to view the video with business owners and determine the hold times for messages.

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 6, 2008, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Malm reported to the meeting.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JEFFREY AND SHIRLEY HUSSEY, ON BEHALF OF CARLENE AND JOANNE KING, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A COMMERCIAL KENNEL FACILITY (WAG ‘N’ TRAIN) IN THE A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1662 15TH AVENUE NORTHEAST (PART OF THE SE-1/4 OF THE SW-1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH RANGE 51 WEST) (BRENNA TOWNSHIP).

Brooks indicated the location of the proposed facility on a map and stated the location is three and one-half miles west of the city limit line on 32nd Avenue South. The proposed commercial kennel facility is an allowed use in the A-1 zoning district under a conditional use permit (CUP). He discussed the conditions on the CUP that includes minimum size requirements for dogs for kenneling, a minimum five-acre site for the facility and the fencing for the facility. The owners of the proposed business have included a play yard adjacent to the facility. The owners have also gone door to door in the surrounding area to let everyone know what is proposed for the area. Notices of the proposed facility and CUP were sent out from the planning office to residents within one-quarter mile of the site. Brooks stated the two existing accesses would be utilized by the facility. He also noted a possible future swimming pool had been discussed and the owners would work with the inspections office on that issue. An existing house on the site will be removed. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit.

Hagness asked who would be utilizing the swimming pool and he was informed it would be a swimming pool for the dogs.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the request and the public hearing was closed. The issued was returned to the commission members.

Malm said the fencing does not include the swimming pool. Brooks said the swimming pool is shown as a future area and fencing of that area will be included when the swimming pool is added. Malm asked if the building is already on site and Brooks answered yes.

Hutchison asked when the facility would be open. The owners spoke from the audience and said their hope is to have it open by Christmas. They will continue with the existing site until the new site is ready to be opened.

Drees asked about the new housing development planned across the road from the proposed facility. Brooks replied that Trent Olson’s development is located within a quarter of a mile from the proposed site and they did receive notification of the proposed development of the kennel. The kennel will be in place and operational before the Trent Olson development is completed so everyone will know the kennel is located at that location.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1) A minimum of thirty (30) square feet of kennel area must be provided per dog thirty (30) pounds or more; and a minimum of fifteen (15) square feet of kennel area must be provided per dog less than thirty (30) pounds.
2) This permit will not expire until such time that the use is discontinued or changed. Any expansion to the site will require another Conditional Use Permit.
3) Any additional conditions or restrictions placed on the facility by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM KELLY FALLER, ON BEHALF OF THE ZION METHODIST CHURCH, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER (SUNFLAKE PRE-SCHOOL AND DAYCARE) IN THE R-2 (ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1001 24TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Christensen reported to the meeting.

Durrenberger reviewed the request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a childcare center in the Zion Methodist Church, located in an R-2 District. The land development code requires a CUP for a childcare in the R-2 District. The staff report contains itemized comments concerning the different criteria in the code and a review of this material showed no impact on the neighborhood. Property owners within 200 feet of the facility received a letter of notification of the public hearing for tonight’s meeting. Staff has not received comments from the mailings. Durrenberger stated he had checked with the inspections office and the traffic engineer to see if either one had complaints. The facility will be located in the church basement and operated from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. They do that so it does not interfere with the church services or Sunday School. We understand the Sunday School is actually housed in the area that is used for the daycare. Current license allows 90 children. Right now there is a current enrollment of 56 children, which according to the owner and director, is the maximum capacity for the area they are in. There will be no external modifications to the church. There is already an outdoor activity area from the previous daycare center. The rear of the churchyard is buffered from the adjacent residential property. Overall, there should be no impact. It is moving down the street from its previous location so it services the same neighborhood. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions in your staff report.

Lee asked for any comments from the commission for Mr. Durrenberger.

Hagness commented there were 15 conditions and asked if they were state conditions or city conditions? Who wrote them?

Durrenberger replied the conditions were located in the code.

Hagness said there were not that many conditions on a junkyard. Is that necessary?

Durrenberger said that was what the code has.

Hagness said the codes for the junkyards should be changed then.

Durrenberger said the code tried to give an overview of how to address different conditions and since it was previously used for a daycare, it is a pretty good location.

Hagness said he was all in favor but was wondering about the conditions put on people because it is for a conditional use permit, right?

Durrenberger said the actual conditions are listed on page 25 of the planning packet. There are four of them.

Hagness asked if the 15 shown on the staff report were different from the other four.

Durrenberger said the 15 were not exactly conditions but criteria for approval.

Hagness said that sounded like conditions to him. He also wondered why there were more conditions on a daycare center than on a junkyard. He didn’t know what the correlation is but would like to see them cleaned up for junkyards.

Lee asked if there were other questions for Mr. Durrenberger before opening the public hearing.

Malm said he was not against the proposal but in reading this, you have a staff condition that there are no exterior modifications to the building. If the health service comes in and says they need to put in extra exits and entrances to the building, can they do that?

Lee said she was wondering about the emergency egress.

Malm stated that according to the conditions, they cannot do anything to the outside of the building.

Durrenberger said the current plans are to use the facility without modifications. In the audience is the owner, Kelly Faller. Perhaps she could address some of the questions.

Kelly Faller said she was the Director of Operations and they are a non-profit. She is not the owner. As far as emergency exits, the facility has been inspected by the fire department and the health department. There is a sprinkler system so nothing needs to be added or modified for what is there.

Sande asked the ages of the children attending the daycare. Ms. Faller stated they start with age three and go through age 12 because of an after-school program. Sande asked if most of the children went to the Viking School and Ms. Faller said they all do. The children are not transported but they are walked across the street.

Sande stated 24th Avenue is a busy street these days and will not be any less busy anytime soon. There is a great crosswalk that is actually closer to St. Mark’s that he assumed the children used daily going back and forth between Viking and St. Mark’s for the current daycare. Has it been considered that another lit crosswalk is needed to reduce the speed closer to the new daycare?

Durrenberger said that idea has not been considered.

Malm said he still had trouble with the condition that is listed dealing with no exterior modifications to the building. They may get in the building and as they grow, they may discover they need modifications. Are they then prohibited?

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated they would have to meet all building safety codes, fire codes, health codes. Is it a condition just on this daycare or all daycares with conditional use permits? If it is, then maybe the code is not correct. She said she understood what they are trying to accomplish. The flavor of the neighborhood does not change because there is a daycare in the church, but they still have to meet all the safety codes, and codes do change. She did not think it was a huge issue on this property but maybe it is something in the future that should be looked at. Her office staff has been over to review the daycare facility and it is fine. Everything meets the code. It is not an issue at this time and should not be in the future.

Christensen asked why not approve it subject to any modifications that may be required to meet code as approved by the building inspector. Now it is done and these people can move on and if they have modifications, they deal with Bev (zoning administrator). She approves it or not and if they don’t like it, they come back here and we take care of it. Did someone approve it?

Lee said a public hearing is still needed. Christensen said let’s do that.

Hutchison said as he read the staff report it is not part of our code that we’re asking for. It is just a staff recommendation about no modifications. Why would that staff recommendation be in there? If the church came to Bev and wanted to make some modifications, they can do that. Why is it even in here? It should not be in here.

Durrenberger said he could change the list of conditions to remove that. If they have to make a change due to a code requirement, they’ll make that change. Hutchison agreed and said he did not know why that was put in there. If he made the motion, he would ask that it be omitted.

Malm asked why it is in there?

Christensen said to have the public hearing and then go back and pass it.

Gengler said the purpose of that type of statement is to ensure the integrity of any given building in a neighborhood is maintained. We’re just suggesting that approving this conditional use permit should recognize that the building cannot be modified. The building owner could certainly modify the building if they chose to do so, but that would be a separate issue from the conditional use permit.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Richard Berg, 1014 24th Avenue South, said he was about 100 feet from one of the entrances of the daycare center. He said he would probably be the only one to voice objection to this. He is not against daycare by any means. In 1998 or 1999, the church decided to build on an addition and they asked the people in the neighborhood about a variance on paving or blacktopping the parking lot that existed on the property. Everyone in the neighborhood granted permission for that because they saw the building being used for a single use purpose and that was for church and after school activities for the church. Had we known they were going to have a daycare on this property we probably would not have granted that variance. That would be the one big objection I’ve got to this side use. The other one would be the increase of traffic on 24th Avenue South. He takes his dog for a walk every morning at 8:30 and car after car after car pulls into the daycare. There are no stop signs as are present on Cherry Street with the Sunflake in the older location, nor is there a crosswalk for the children going to and from school. He received notification on the facility a couple of weeks ago and thought he could voice his concern about this property use at this meeting. He did not know he could call the planning office and voice his concerns. He felt it would have been nice if the church had notified the property owners earlier. They would have received some objections.

Hagness asked Mr. Berg if the main objection to the daycare center is the increased traffic and the safety of the children.

Mr. Berg stated that would be one of them. Also, that the parking lot is not paved and there is a lot of dust that is raised because it is a gravel parking lot.

Hagness asked if there was not an ordinance that required paving of parking lots. Mr. Berg said there was, but the neighbors allowed a variance when they rebuilt the church. Hagness said the city can always look at variances.

Gengler said he needed to make a correction. It was not the neighbors that granted the variance; it was the Board of Adjustments that granted it. After the application had been submitted and reviewed, it did come up that sometime in the past, there was a sunset on when the parking lot had to be hard surfaced. That sunset has passed and the inspections office is aware that the approval had expired and they are taking action on enforcing that previous decision from the Board of Adjustments. However, that is from the property owner, versus the conditional use permit. It is being investigated so to speak and we’ll be getting with Bev to proceed accordingly.

Lee asked about the topic of a crosswalk, but if that were to be pursued, who would be contacted? Gengler said the traffic engineer, through the engineering department and other public safety folks, would determine the location and need. A study would be done to determine where it is needed. Staff can certainly look into that.

Hutchison asked if the daycare at St. Mark’s is moving to the location at Zion Methodist Church. Durrenberger stated it has already moved. This is the same daycare that was at St. Mark’s. Hutchison said the one at St. Mark’s is no longer in existence and the traffic in the area caused by the daycare should remain basically the same, more obviously through the parking lot and we’re addressing that already. Does that make sense? Durrenberger indicated that was true.

There was no one else to speak from the audience on the issues and the public hearing was closed.

Hagness asked Ms. Faller her intentions of surfacing the parking lot. Ms. Faller said they do not own the building so the parking lot is not up to her. They lease the space in the basement from Zion Methodist Church.

Hagness asked Ms. Collings about the parking lot. If they are in violation, they’re in violation. There is nothing else to look at.

Collings - they absolutely are. It was not intentional on their part. It was set sometime in the future that they were supposed to pave it and her office did not keep a record of it as accurately as they should have. The Board of Adjustments no longer approves variances that have a sunset date because it is difficult to track. The church has been contacted and it is a tricky issue because the applicant is leasing the property; they are not the owners. We’ve asked that the church pave the parking lot because they agreed to do so a number of years ago.

Hagness said he was not given that option when he was putting in a pad in his backyard. You gave me a date certain. Collings said she did not give them the option either. The Board of Adjustments did. Hagness said in hearing from the neighborhood that the city should enforce that and make a date certain. Collings said that was their intention. Hagness said that would make it better for the daycare center too.

Lee asked if there were other comments or motion.

Malm asked if the conditional use permit had an ending date. Durrenberger said there was not a date certain like was attached to the junkyards. Malm said he was not comparing them to junkyards. There is a problem already because somebody did something and it’s not their fault. Does the conditional use permit just continue to go and is that the way we’re going to do it? If they decided to move and nobody knows about it, what then?

Lee said there was a sentence on the CUP for the dog kennel that stated the CUP would be in force as long as the kennel is in operation. If the kennel operation is discontinued, the CUP is void.

Durrenberger - if they changed location that would change their license. There is a condition to notify the planning department on a change in the license so that issue can be addressed. The site now is for the conditional use permit; it would not travel with them and they would have to reapply if they relocated.

Malm said he was not concerned if they decided to go out of business and the church decides to do something different, how does anybody know?

Durrenberger - if it is connected with the church property, it would be under the purview of church activities and be permitted. For example, if the daycare went out of business and there was another daycare, they would be required to get a conditional use permit.

Gengler said he wanted to add a statement to get this thing rolling. Staff would recommend placing a condition to address, in part, what Malm was indicating. The condition would be that the permit would run until (1) it goes out of business; (2) the use changes to anything other than what it is now, or any other condition you want to place on it instead of establishing a date certain. That would be the best route to go to cover that.

Lee said that sounded like a fairly standard wording that has been used in other instances.

Durrenberger – one of the conditions placed in the conditional use permit was that it’s the prerogative of the planning commission or the city council to add conditions.

Mr. Berg asked if a permit was required for these people to start a business in this residential area? These people kind of sneaked in under the radar and they’ve been in this establishment for a month or a month and a half. It seems like they already have permission but I don’t know why they didn’t get a permit before they moved in. If I put a new roof on my building or make any changes, I need a permit. If I don’t have a permit, believe me, the inspectors are by to inform me I need a permit. Just because they’ve been there for a month and a half does not warrant any special privileges.

Collings - they would be required to get a building permit. There was no construction work done that requires a permit. The question that came up earlier “how do we know that things aren’t changing around?” The fire department has an assembly permit that requires us to check out things like this one or twice a year depending on what type of permit it is. A church would be considered an assembly type occupancy, so it would have to be checked out. It’s not a perfect world but this did come across our desk and we did find it. I don’t think it was intentional. They were in a church and relocating to a different church. I think they just didn’t process it all the way.

Mr. Berg – I really think the people providing the daycare, the Sunflake people, really ought to respect the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood. This is not a neighborhood for a business and that’s the way it was zoned when we moved in and that’s kind of the way I expect it to be.

Ms. Faller – We are licensed through Grand Forks County Social Services and we changed our license for relocation at the end of May. We are closed during the summer months and we took the summer to move over to Zion. Since the daycare center was located at St. Mark’s Church for 31 years, I was unaware that a conditional use permit was required. This was brought to my attention from our licensure at Grand Forks County on August 27. It was unbeknownst to me that we needed one and it was an oversight on behalf of the licensing staff. Had I been informed sooner, the process could have been started in May.

Lee – thank you for explaining that.

Christensen – You see, what we have is a failure to communicate. We have a lot of assumptions and now we’re asked to sort them out. And I sympathize with the gentleman that reminds us that we’re supposed to obey our rules. And I also sympathize with the fact that you folks forgot to check with the city and I also recognize we have missed the boat again. We allowed someone to do something, but we didn’t check to see if they paved their parking lot. Now, I have a question of you Ms. Faller. How many kids did you have down the road (St. Mark’s) that you’re moving from?

Ms. Faller – When we were in St. Mark’s, we were licensed for 130. We had a total of about 175 children registered. We never had that many in the building at one time but that’s how many children we had.

Christensen – So, you have a nice place apparently. Have you had to put any money into fixing up the basement of this church?

Ms. Faller – No, it was all remodeled after the flood in ‘97 for the purpose of putting a daycare in. Noah’s Ark went in it right after the flood and it was my understanding they were zoned to be there.

Christensen – They weren’t zoned without a permit. So that’s another assumption. I don’t want to cause any hardship, but I’m going to vote in favor of this permit under the following condition: that you’re there for this school year and you find a different location. Because this gentleman and his neighbors relied upon the good graces of this city for their neighborhood and this is a church. This isn’t United Lutheran. I don’t know what other churches have daycare or not. You can finish up where you are this year but if you need space for 91 students we can probably do something similar to that, but it won’t be in a residential area. So to move this along, I’ll move that you be granted a conditional use permit for this school year but that it expires, I don’t know when school is out, I’ll give you until June 15. I do that because it is not costing you anything; there won’t be any modifications to the building. You’ll know that you have to exit there by the end of the year and you’ll have the balance of the year to find a new place. And second, it appears there doesn’t have to be any modifications based upon representation so I don’t have any problems with that and I don’t have any problems with the parking lot being unpaved because you have to follow up on that anyway. But if this loses, the parking lot will have to be paved before these people continue. So, my motion is to grant it until June 15, 2009 and that it expire and they move down the road.

Lee asked for a second to the motion.

Hagness asked if the public hearing was closed and Lee said she closed it. Hagness said he would not second the motion and he would explain why if the motion gets a second.

Lee – motion failed for lack of a second.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GIVE APPROVAL TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) That the childcare center maintains a valid North Dakota Childcare Center license. Any change in license conditions, such as a change in location, shall be reported to the City of Grand Forks Planning Department within thirty (30) days of a change.
2) No exterior modifications to the building may be made to accommodate the daycare operation.
3) Any activity area security or safety lighting will be directed away from adjacent residential properties and not directly shine into residential properties located on the west side of South 11th Street.
4) Any additional conditions or restrictions placed on the facility by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council.
5) The conditional use permit will not expire until such time that the use is discontinued or changed.

Lee asked Drees and Whitcomb if the motion includes the wording added by Gengler that it runs until the business goes out of business or until the use changes? Both acknowledged that the motion was intended to include that language.

Lee asked if the discussion was to strike number 2 of the conditions.

Drees and Whitcomb said number 2 did not bother them.

Lee stated that on page 25 of the planning packet there would be five conditions.

Hagness – to make it perfectly clear here, childcare centers are allowed in R-2 districts only by conditional use permits and with the following conditions. Yes, it is allowed right now. We can’t blatantly object to one area over another. It’s got to be for violations of conditions in my opinion. I don’t think all the procedures were followed and but I believe we will follow through with the hard surfacing to correct one of the conditions Mr. Berg spoke on. But I think it is an appropriate use in the R-2 District.

Sande – I agree with Mr. Hagness. I just wanted to mention that for all the talk we’ve done about permits and conditions and uses, nobody’s really mentioned anything about the 56 children that are expecting to be there tomorrow morning and whose families are counting on this daycare to be open for them, especially the ones who are going to Viking School and back to the daycare after school. If we close them today or tomorrow or the near future, that’s a considerable hardship on their families and I am just not prepared to do that today.

Hutchison – I would have to agree with that. I think schools and daycares - the place for them is in neighborhoods. That’s where they belong. I would agree with that. I would like to see condition number 2 gone, but that’s fine.

Lee – are we ready to vote?

Christensen – I want to point out I did not say it would be closed tomorrow. I said it would be closed June 15, 2009.

MOTION CARRIED WITH CHRISTENSEN VOTING NAY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, PERKINS 1ST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 32ND AVENUE SOUTH AND COLUMBIA ROAD.

Lee noted this is a fast track and will be the only time for commission members to ask questions.

Durrenberger reviewed the request by stating the city plans to install a new pump station on the southwest corner of 32nd Avenue South and South Columbia Road. He indicated on a map the location of the proposed pump station. One of the provisions is to allow access for maintenance trucks and other official city vehicles to avoid going around through the strip mall parking lot. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the plat with official access and subject to the technical changes shown on the review copy.

Lee asked where the official access would be and Durrenberger replied it would be off of 32nd Avenue South.

Hall asked if an access at that point would cause confusion for people who might have missed a turn and decide to turn into that access to get turned around. Will it be a gated access?

Durrenberger said staff did not talk about the gating but he assumed the city could put up a chain across the access that could be opened for the city vehicles. The city does not want to use the privately owned parking lot. The parking lot could be adversely affected by the heavy trucks.

Lee asked how far from the corner the access would be. Durrenberger said it would be 160 feet. Lee noted there was very little access on 32nd Avenue South and the access is less than a normal length for an access. It does not look good for the city to create an access for itself.

Durrenberger said the access would be used approximately once a week for maintenance. It will probably be signed and a barrier put in place to prevent access to anyone other than city workers.

Hagness asked if the Depart of Transportation (DOT) approved the access. Durrenberger said they did not have a problem with an official access although they do have to get permission for it.

Gengler said it is only an access point for city maintenance vehicles and workers to maintain the pump station. He noted a slip ramp was allowed by the Boston’s Restaurant some years ago and the state’s opinion was that if the city was okay with it, so were they. That slip ramp is fairly active and much bigger, so the access planned for the pump station should be no problem for the state. If needed, bollards with a chain can be installed as well as proper signage.
Hutchison asked what type of city trucks would be used for maintenance. There are semis that go on the parking lot now and he has only noticed city pickups being used for maintenance on the pump stations. The access would be confusing for drivers and he felt the city should take access from the back through the parking lot.

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

Malm asked how close the traffic light was to the proposed access. The traffic lights have been timed in order to allow continuous travel and there is no reason not to go around and access from the back.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO MOVE FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AND NEGOTIATE ANOTHER WAY FOR ACCESS.

Gengler asked if the denial was for the plat or only the access. The plat has to happen in order to get the property conveyed to the city and be able to construct the pump station. Hagness said it was for denial of the access.

The motion was clarified as follows:
MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND DENY THE ACCESS ONTO 32ND AVENUE SOUTH:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Include new permanent utility easement as shown
3. Plat approval recognizes a variance for limited access to Lot “S.” 18-0907(L)(C) Level 4 access controls apply.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CHARLES KLINKHAMMER AND THE BIG SIOUX TRAVEL PLAZA, ON BEHALF OF THE I-29 WASH & LUBE, FOR APPROVAL OF A JOINT PARKING FACILITY AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18-0302 (10) OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FOR LOT E OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 4451 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Achman said in September there was a discussion for the I-29 Wash and Lube facility located on the property of the Big Sioux Travel Plaza. The request is for a joint agreement for access from 32nd Avenue South onto the Big Sioux Travel Plaza and six parking stalls. Staff recommendation is for approval.

MOTION BY ADAMS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE JOINT PARKING AND ACCESS AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY 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, SUBSECTION (2) DEFINITIONS; SECTION 18-0206, A-1 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND A-2 AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3), USES PERMITTED, LIMITED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED; ALL RELATING TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A GUEST HOUSE.

Gengler reminded everyone about past discussions for a secondary or guesthouse structure for people who live in the A-1 and A-2 Districts. Staff reviewed the rules and felt there was no process to allow it based on density requirements. Since then, staff has been asked to draft an ordinance to allow a guesthome or secondary home on a rural lot. Staff prepared an ordinance that establishes 10 specific conditions to allow such a structure. Gengler reviewed the main restrictions or conditions for allowing such a structure. The ordinance is subject to review by the city attorney.

Said permit is granted subject to the following conditions, terms, and reservations:
1. The term of this Conditional Use Permit shall be indefinite until such time zoning is changed.
2. The guest house owner shall comply with all existing and future Grand Forks City Code. Any violation or violations of the City Code requirements and the conditions in this conditional use permit shall be mitigated by the permit holder within seven (7) days of receipt of the violation(s) notice. A violation(s) not mitigated within this time period may be mitigated by the City of Grand Forks and billed to the permit holder.
3. The owner must reside on the real property and said property must be the owner’s primary place of residence.
4. The guest house is and shall be a secondary use to the primary residential use on the property, and shall not be used in a fashion as to constitute a second primary residential use on the property.
5. A guest house shall be placed on a lot or parcel equal to or greater than five (5) acres in size.
6. No more than one guest house shall be permitted on a lot or parcel.
7. Mobile and manufactured homes shall not be permitted as a guest house.
8. A declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded with Grand Forks County stating the guest house placed on the real property shall not be sold, leased or rented separately from the primary dwelling.
9. The guest house shall meet all setback requirements for said district. The guest house shall have a minimum front yard setback greater than or equal to the setback of the primary dwelling.
10. The City reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit for any violation of this permit and/or a violation of City Code.

Hagness asked if the ordinance would allow Mr. Bradshaw to build a second structure on his land and Gengler answered yes.

Malm questioned number 7 of the conditions and asked if mobile and manufactured homes could legally be omitted? Gengler said it was consistent with current code in the extra territorial zone except the use of a mobile home for farming operations. Malm questioned discriminating against mobile homes. Gengler said a home that is not on a chassis is allowed but he would have it reviewed by the city attorney for clarification.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GATEWAY STORAGE LLP, AND BRITTON TRANSPORT, ON BEHALF OF GATEWAY STORAGE, LLP, BRITTON TRANSPORT AND VIOLET KORYNTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 4TH RESUBDIVISION AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF NORTH 48TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 17TH AVENUE NORTH.

Brooks reviewed the request for rezoning and indicated on a map the location of the property. The property is being sold and the new owners want to rezone the property from B-3 to I-2; the rezoning would be consistent with the 2035 Land Use Plan. The buffer and screening for B-3 would remain. One of the conditions would be the replatting of the property in order to do some of the uses planned by the owners. In addition, the owner of Britton Transport also joins in the rezoning of property. Brooks reviewed the trigger mechanism for annexation of the property. When a building permit is purchased, the property would be annexed. There will industrial warehousing on part of the property and access is available for trucks.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.