Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
April 1, 2009

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, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matajcek and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Tom Hagness. A quorum was present.

Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department) and Bev Collings (Building and Zoning Administrator). Absent: Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 4, 2009.

There were no corrections or changes noted to the March 4, 2009 planning and zoning commission minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GRAND FORKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN (RIVER FORKS PLAN 1994) TOGETHER WITH ALL MAPS, INFORMATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DATA CONTAINED THEREIN.

Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), stated the slides of the power point presentation were included in the packet for their review. He updated the commission on questions from the last meeting. One of the concerns was the hesitancy on the commitment to schedule work on the Sorlie Bridge. At that time, MNDOT had produced planning documents that showed different dates and work for the Sorlie Bridge without indicating that to North Dakota. There has been work on both sides of the river to clarify the issue. The November announcement schedule for the replacement of the Sorlie Bridge in 2018 is now in place. The cost is approximately 29 million dollars with North Dakota and Minnesota sharing the cost. North Dakota will be the lead agent for the project. There will be more studies and design for the bridge and plans are always subject to change.

Haugen said there had been an open house on the downtown plan with attendance in the upper 20s. All responses from the attendees were positive.

Robert Drees said the question on the bridge at the last meeting was in reference to a pedestrian bridge and whether or not it could be incorporated in with the new design of the Sorlie Bridge. Also, will the current bridge be torn down and the new one constructed in the same place? If so, that would make the old bridge unavailable for use while the new one is built.

Haugen replied his understanding was that during the Sorlie Bridge replacement, there would not be a downtown connecting bridge.

Hutchison asked if the plan was written in stone and Haugen answered that as things change, the plan would be amended to reflect the changes.

Hutchison said his question at last month’s meeting was about the parking for Central High School students. Part of the plan referred to taking the current high school student parking away to allow for mixed-use (old civic auditorium) parking. Also, part of the plan refers to a UND presence in the downtown and parking issues would have to be addressed for that.

Haugen stated that if UND becomes a presence in the downtown, and also as any building develops or redevelops in the downtown, parking has to be addressed. There is an agreement in place with Central High School that student parking will be shifted from the current parking lot to the top two levels of the central ramp. One thought was that the UND IT structure might be constructed on the current high school parking lot. Hutchison asked if there were enough parking spaces to accommodate the high school students on the top two levels of the parking garage. Haugen answered in the affirmative.

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

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM JOHN ZAVORAL, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT, BEING THE NORTH 80 FEET OF THE SOUTH 90 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 10 FEET THEREOF, LOCATED AT 1598 KINGS VIEW DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed items 3-2 and 3-3 together by stating they were housekeeping issues. The two vacations have been approved previously, but need to be re-approved in order to match the current legal description on the plat.

MOTION BY ADAMS AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT, BEING THE WEST 30 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 4, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 7.5 FEET OF LOT 1 AND THE NORTH 7.5 FEET OF LOT 2, LOCATED AT 415 NORTH 42ND STREET AND 411 NORTH 42ND STREET.

The item was discussed under item 3-2.

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF KINGS VIEW FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2300 BLOCK OF 62ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the plat (item numbers 4-1) and the rezoning (item number 4-2) together. He explained the location of the proposed plat and stated staff had been informed prior to the meeting that another lot would be added to the plat. Staff will be working with the surveyor and developer to determine the unanswered questions regarding the entire 90-acre plus area as well as coordination of the utility master plan. The two lots of the proposed plat encompass 2.59 acres and 2.8 acres as well as the unknown acreage of the additional lot. The plan is to develop three 34-unit luxury condominiums with underground parking, but only Lot 3 is to be developed at the present time.

Even with all the unanswered questions on the plat and concept, Gengler stated he wanted to keep it on target time-wise. Since this is preliminary approval, staff will be working with the surveyor and developer within the next month to get answers for the full development as well as the utility master plan. He showed the elevation drawings of the proposed buildings, noting that the windows would face the golf course.

The property is zoned for R-3 type uses with a maximum density of six units per acre. Under the concept plan, the plan is to shift some of the density to allow 16 units per acre and the remainder of the undeveloped area would be at five units per acre.

Robert Drees asked if future plans were available for the remainder of the larger area to indicate where the street would be located.

Gengler answered that one of the requirements of the plat and rezoning is not only to show the master utility plan but also a conceptual master layout. The preliminary approval is based on getting all the information city staff needs to properly review the development. The request is also to receive that information early so there is sufficient time for the review.

Kreun asked about the additional lot being added to the plat and wanted to know the density of the additional lot. He stated the buildings would be tight on the lots. His concern was that the development was being sold as luxury condos and when it was finished, they would just be apartments.

Doug Herzog, surveyor of CPS, Ltd., stated the additional lot would be 2.5 acres and a total of 8.5 acres for the three buildings.

Grasser said the utility master plan is essential and one of the big challenges will be storm sewer retention. That will need to be accommodated on or off-site. He brought up other issues such as tying into the drainway and the entrance road aesthetics. Everything can be worked out, but it would require some thought and study.

Kreun stated there was an agreement not to have apartments in the development going in by the Ray Richards Golf Course. The land was sold and the new developer knew nothing about that agreement and now there are apartments being built there. He wants to make sure the same thing does not happen on this development.

Galloway said there was not a real definition of luxury condominiums. It is subjective. The original plan was to have multi-family further to the west and he asked if that would be the transition to single-family housing.

Gengler stated that the original planned unit development (PUD) did not establish covenants or aesthetics. From the existing Augusta Drive there is the five-units per acre property and that transitions into the 22 acres of commercial property on the corner.

Doug Herzog noted there was no single-family designation on the property; it was all designated as R-3.

Hutchison asked if more townhomes or twinhomes would be located between the condos and commercial property. Gengler said that is not known right now but he doubted that single-family homes would be planned next to 62nd Avenue South. However, a conceptual layout for the remaining acreage is being requested before the next meeting in May. Hutchison asked if staff was comfortable with three 34-unit dwellings. Gengler said he comfortable with it contingent upon receiving the information requested. He talked to Mr. Staley, Park Board Director, who was comfortable with the development. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit updated title opinion.
2. Submit utility master plan for all of Kings View First Addition and Lot 4, Block 4, Kannowski’s First Addition
3. Add ground elevations.
4. Include a 10-utility easement on both sides and parallel to Kings View Drive.
5. Add square footage to all parcels.
6. Shade proper area in the vicinity map.
7. Correctly identify all lands surrounding the plat area.
8. Add access control to 62nd Avenue South and South Washington Street.
9. Add arc lengths to all curved line segments whenever possible.
10. Label the north/south quarter line of Section 28.
11. A larger right-of-way along the north line of 62nd Avenue South may be necessary, pending the utility master plan.
12. Identify Minnkota Power Line easement along the north side of 62nd Avenue South.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE KANNOWSKI PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE KANNOWSKI PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, ALL OF KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION, ULLAND PARK FIRST ADDITION, DEACON’S GARDENS ADDITION, FOUNTAIN VISTA PARK RESUBDIVISION, ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION AND KINGS VIEW FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE VICINITY OF KINGS VIEW DRIVE AND 62ND AVE SOUTH.

Gengler discussed the rezoning under Item 4-1. He stated staff’s intention is to do the standard mailing of the proposed development to everyone within 400 feet, plus the Augusta Drive homeowners. The rezoning would amend the planned unit development (PUD) from six units per acre to 16 units per acre. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval with the understanding that approval is contingent upon receiving the necessary information requested from the surveyor and the developer. Development regulations and storm sewer regulations get stricter and it is not unfair to require some of the details of the plan for the remaining property, as well as the utility master plan, street plan, etc.

Sande asked if the Zavorals had surveyed any surrounding homeowners about the proposed plan. Gengler answered he did not think so.

Grasser made comments on the rezoning. By changing it to R-4, the building height can be changed to 50 feet. He suggested members visually contemplate the character of the proposed buildings in that area. His concern is how the aesthetics will fit in with the golf course and believes it will create a character change for the area.

Kreun asked if it would be beneficial to require the developer to canvass the neighborhood on the development. Gengler noted that had been a requirement in the past.

Doug Herzog said he thought that was a very good idea and he would make sure that was done. He explained that a new rendering would be forthcoming. The garages would be halfway in the ground and three stories on top. The ordinance is vague on the height element and suggested the commission review the ordinance and clarify it.

Sande asked if the canvassing would include Zavoral’s First Addition. After discussion, it was decided that area was too far away from the development.

Christensen stated he did not remember any discussion at the city council level as to what would be built in the area of the proposed development. He also mentioned that the former city planner had suggested the commercial portion should be a “floating commercial area.” Some on the city council were not excited about that concept.

A discussion ensued on the zoning and density.

Gengler reminded commission members that R-3 zoning allows 1-unit, 2-unit and up to 16-units per acre. When the PUD was discussed in 1998, it was identified as R-3 type uses which included single-family, two-family and multi-family up to six units per acre. The conventional R-3 district, without change or modification, allows up to 16 units per acre. The original designers of the PUD under discussion decided to allow single-family, condos, etc. up to six units per acre as an aggregate. This PUD was different than others because someone made a decision to decrease it from 16 to 6 for the 100+ acres.

Christensen said as the property develops, the city should know what people are going to expect as they buy and other areas are built.

Hutchison wanted to know what area would be included for written notification if staff followed the criteria in place. Gengler said the standard is 400-feet which would include the property owners and a few townhomes. In the past, however, staff has been directed to increase the area being notified.

Doug Herzog noted that Zavoral’s First Addition is three-quarters of a mile away on a curved street from the proposed development and none of those homes face south toward the proposed development.
Christensen said the city should not be in the business of deciding the business project but the city is in the business of establishing certain parameters, such as what can be built where.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REZONING SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Technical changes will be provided upon submittal of requested information.

Malm noted there were many questions being asked and too little information being offered. The project should be discussed when more information is available.

Lee asked if the original 100 acres was to be six units per acre.

Gengler said it was one large parcel of approximately 100 acres and has been zoned at six units per acre for some time. The total amount previously allowed before any development was started was approximately 580 units that covered the entire acreage. With the exclusion of the proposed development, the remainder would still be zoned at six units per acre or 440 units. All the unknowns would be answered with the master plan.

Galloway said that developers do not want to spend time and money on a project until it is known that the city will allow it. That is usually the reason for not having enough information in the beginning.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF PARKING REGULATION COMMITTEE MEETING.

Gengler said there had been scheduling difficulties in meeting with the parking regulation committee but there will be a meeting soon.

6-2. MATTER OF DISCUSSION ON INCREASING THE DENSITY IN THE RURAL AREAS (A-1 AND A-2 DISTRICTS).

The chair was asked to call together a meeting of the land use subcommittee to discuss extraterritorial related issues subject to the many changes at the state level. Gengler said he wanted to start having a specific discussion on the rural residential densities. In the two to four-mile area, the density is one dwelling per 40 acres. At the state level, there have been discussions about something other than one dwelling per 40 acres; possibly one dwelling per 15 acres, one dwelling per 10 acres, etc. Gengler said it was important to start the discussion now regardless of how the legislation turns out. Based on what the legislation decides, it will affect the city, county and townships.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:22 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.




____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President