Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
June 4, 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, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Dana Sande and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees and Curt Kreun. 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 MAY 7, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of May 7, 2008.
There were no corrections or changes to the minutes and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

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

3-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL L. MARCOTTE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED NORTH OF ADAMS DRIVE, SOUTH OF DESIREE DRIVE AND EAST AND WEST OF MORGAN STREET.

Gengler reviewed the plat request by reminding commission members the item was tabled at the May 7th planning and zoning commission meeting. Also, the commission had directed planning staff to initiate a neighborhood meeting with the developer and all parties attached to the plat. That meeting was held on May 22, 2008. They discussed all the concerns and various issues related to the plat. The same plat is before the commission for final approval. Today he found out that one of the property owners (Dr. Beattie, Lot 3) has indicated he does not plan to sign the plat. Everyone who is a party to the plat has to sign the plat for it to be valid. The current plat for the property that has been approved but not recorded was signed by all but one property owner, LaVonne Adams. The plat before members is the newest plat for the area and if one property owner decides not to sign the plat, it will impact the future of the plat.
Gengler said the property is also being rezoned from R-3 (multiple family residence, medium density) district to R-1 (single family). If the plat is not approved, the rezoning would probably not be approved. The neighborhood residents all agree that the rezoning to R-1 should take place. There was a discussion at the meeting on May 22 regarding a series of single-family lots adjacent to Adams Drive. Presently, Adams Drive is a collector street and driveway access onto the street is prohibited; however, approval of the plat recognizes a variance to the subdivision regulations allowing driveway access onto Adams Drive. Another concern raised at the meeting is the size of some of the lots. In the opinion of some of the adjoining neighbors, the size of the lots was not consistent with the overall pattern of the Shadyridge development area. Street naming still needs to be addressed. Desiree Drive was cut in half by the dike system and there are two different platted roadways separated from one another with the same name.

Dr. Smith was present at the meeting on May 22 and presented a private covenant between himself and Darrell Adams. The covenant allows Dr. Smith to have a say in the design of the neighborhood for areas lying on the east side and west side of Desiree Drive.

Other discussion items at the meeting were back taxes and special assessments.

Hagness thanked planning staff for holding the meeting. He voiced concern about Dr. Smith (private covenant) and Dr. Beattie (has said he will not sign the plat). Who requires that all parties must sign the plat? Gengler stated that signing the plat is established by state law and city code and prior to recording of the plat, all parties must sign the plat. All of the northerly-tiered lot owners adjacent to Desiree Drive and lot owners south of Desiree Drive must sign off on the plat. Hagness asked what good it does for the commission to approve the plat if all parties do not sign? Gengler said it becomes a moot point and the plat does not go anywhere. Hagness said he was in favor of the plat but wondered if the commission should make a decision without the resolution of all parties signing the plat.

Grasser brought up the issue of an easement that was discussed at the meeting. The 20-foot wide area is part of Lot 1 and would shift to the west. He does not have a problem with shifting the easement but it cannot be eliminated. It is necessary for access.

Christensen asked if the northerly lots were affected by the plat. Gengler indicated the area would be changed by the roadway. The original platted roadway was constructed in the wrong place. There were efforts made last year to construct the roadway in the proper place. After the roadway is properly constructed, the old right-of-way would be vacated and the land area would revert to adjacent landowners. There is a vacation that has been approved but never recorded because the plat was not recorded. Christensen said he wanted to know how the plat could be recorded without Dr. Beattie’s signature on the plat.

Jerry Pribula, surveyor, said they could plat the property not replatting Dr. Beattie’s lot. If the street is constructed where the right-of-way is located at the present time, it is too close to the front of the houses. By recording the new plat, it would pull it back to the proper elevation. Also by recoding the plat, the homeowners of the lots would gain the additional area. Dr. Beattie would gain the additional area and increase the size of his lot.

Christensen suggested approving the plat south of the shaded area and everything to the west of Dr. Beattie’s lot. Mr. Pribula said that would not be a practical or acceptable solution for the street. He asked that the plat be approved with the technical changes noted in order to allow the street to be constructed in the proper place and also allow the variance so that everyone knows what will happen in the area. That will also give them time to visit with Dr. Beattie. If he still refuses to sign, the plat just does not get recorded.

Christensen asked Grant Shaft how it would affect future title problems.

Grant Shaft stated he represented the Smiths on the issue and that creates a conflict to speak on the matter. However, he did say that if the plat is not recorded, it is not of record and contrary of statute so becomes of no effect. The lots would not exist based on state law. No development can take place without a recorded plat. There are private issues regarding covenants and these do not concern the city but with title work, it affects the marketability of the property. Since someone has indicated they will not sign the plat, approving the plat seems to be an exercise in futility.

Sande asked if Dr. Beattie had indicated why he would not sign the plat. Gengler said Dr. Beattie has concerns about the individual driveways having access onto Adams Drive.

Robert Drees asked about the previous plat for the area that was not recorded. If that plat is correct, is that any way the plat can be processed now? Gengler stated the owner name on the first plat was Darrell Adams’ wife, Lavone. That plat could be sign by Lavonne, but the other signers would have to be notified and asked if they still wanted their signatures on it. They could remove themselves from the plat at that time.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Jerry Pribula said they do not want to do the wrong thing even though it can be done. They could exclude Lots C & D from the plat and Mr. Marcotte would own the area in front of Dr. Beattie’s home. They do not want to do that but it is an option. He said even though someone says they will not sign the plat, they could reconsider and decide to sign it. He asked that the commission approve the plat and proceed with the normal timeline. Christensen noted that some business cannot be approved by city council in June and it would push the development back.

Grasser made comments on the vacation of the roadway and said one-half goes to one owner and one-half to the other owner. Staff might decide to retain it for city right-of-way rather than vacating it in front of Lots 2 & 3 and having a severe jog in the right-of-way. It would allow the road to be shifted but doesn’t transfer ownership for that particular piece of ground.

Christensen said they were just reconfiguring the property and it was not a true vacation. He does not want to see any problems with the title by approving the plat.

Gengler reminded members that a signed and approved vacation does still exist. Once the plat is recorded, then the vacation could be recorded.

Mr. Shaft said the roadway was a dedication to the public and would require a vacation. If the plat is approved and the lots are removed from the plat, would it not create an access problem?

Mr. Pribula said if the street were vacated, the property owners would get half and half would go to Mr. Marcotte who owns the balance of the property. However, he felt it was a sneaky way to get around the Beattie’s signing the plat. All the property owners want the street moved away from their homes. The Beattie’s want the road moved also but they do not like the proposed development. If the plat is approved, it gives the developer and Mr. Pribula time to compromise with them.

Hagness asked if 100% of the property owners on both sides have to sign off before it can be vacated? Gengler wasn’t sure the language was exactly that way.

Mike Marcotte, developer, stated he did not have a problem with giving the Beattie’s their vacated portion and taking their names off the plat. He did want to move forward on the plat.

Christensen said he did not want to see a plat held up by one party.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS RECOMMENDED AND ASSUMING IT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, THE DEVELOPER HAS 30 DAYS FROM APPROVAL BY COUNCIL TO GET THE PLAT SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES. IF NOT SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES BY THAT TIME, THE PLAT IS RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BEATTIE’S PROPERTY WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAT. THE PLAT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Shade vacation areas of Morgan Street and Desiree Drive including easements.
3. Set monument at the southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 2.
4. Include roadway and utility easement along Adams Drive across the rear of Lots 18 and 19, Block 1.
5. Update the floodplain note to reflect on our best available information.
6. Show extents of newly issued letters of map revision that have been issued within the plat boundary and reference in the flood notes and the legend.
7. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
8. On page 2, include all appropriate mortgagees as signers, per title commitment or submit letters of ratification.
9. Submit backyard drainage plan.
10. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code 18-0907(L)(b) with regards to access onto Adams Drive.
11. Include proper street naming.
12. Show current ground contour lines or spot ground elevations.
13. Add slope easement for drainway and tree right-of-way as shown on plat of Shady Ridge Estates Third Addition.
14. Add resolution number for vacated areas.
15. Dimension 25-foot strip of land between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1.
16. Extend access control from Adams Drive 15-feet north on Terrace View Drive.
17. Add necessary utility easements as per master utility plan.

Mr. Shaft noted the city probably already had a title opinion but before defaulting to the second option, the city should be provided with another opinion of title as to the second option. Then it is not approved and you find it is unmarketable. Christensen said that would be part of his motion.

Mr. Pribula stated the vacation petition has been approved and is waiting to be recorded. They would never vacate the street without knowing another street is going to be constructed.

The motion was repeated by Mr. Christensen.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS IT EXISTS. ONCE IT IS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, THE DEVELOPER HAS 30 DAYS TO GET THE PLAT SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES LISTED ON THE PLAT. IF NOT SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, THE PLAT WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL WITH ELIMINATION OF LOTS C AND D. A TITLE OPINION WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT CREATED ANY PROBLEMS IN THE TITLE BY THE APPROVAL.

Hagness said as the second, he agreed with the motion. Hagness also stated it is more development for the city and the taxes are spread out among more people. He did not think the solution was sneaky. The meeting is a public hearing for the plat and if Dr. Beattie wanted to be heard, he should have been at the meeting. This appears to be the best way to develop the property. There was a neighborhood meeting with all the interested parties and it is time to move ahead.

Grasser said he was uncomfortable with part of the motion that predisposes what action the commission would take when it is returned to them.

Christensen said he wanted that in the motion because he does not want to create a title problem.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

3-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM LAVONNE ADAMS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR ALL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE THIRD ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FOURTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SEVENTH ADDITION, AND ALL THOSE LANDS TO BE PLATTED AS SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION, ALL LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.

Gengler reviewed the zoning for the Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision. The request is to rezone it from R-3 to R-1. Regardless of the platting situation, everyone has agreed the area should be rezoned to R-1 type uses.

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

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF VISIM, LLP., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2800 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Achman reviewed the replat request. The purpose of the replat is to shift the common lot line in order to create a larger lot. She showed the existing lot line and the new lot line. The access would be on the northern side of the lot and since it is a shared access, planning staff asks that it be reduced to 20-feet to eliminate as much access as possible.

Lee noted this is a fast track item and would be reviewed by the commission only once. The public hearing was opened. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include distances on east and west plat boundary lines.
3. Shade all plat area within the vicinity map.
4. Add a 10-foot wide utility easement along the east line of Lots C & D and the north line of Lot C.
5. Reduce width of access control opening for Lot C to 20 feet and label as a shared drive access.
6. Lot north of Lot C should be Lot B.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM VISIM, LLP, FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX A PORTION OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2800 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Gengler reviewed the annexation request. The developer owns both lots that were platted under Item No. 3-3 but the request for annexation was only for Lot D. Both lots shown on the plat map are being rezoned. There is one lot left to the north that is not part of the replat, annexation or rezoning. Gengler said there were three options to consider on the annexation request: 1) annex only one parcel as requested; 2) annex both parcels; 3) annex the entire area which would also include a third parcel of land owned by another party. The question is how much to annex now versus how much is allowed to remain as agricultural land and as an island within the city. Gengler stated he called Cliff Coss (owner of the third lot) but was unable to reach him. There have been no discussions with Mr. Coss on annexation of his property.

Malm talked about the un-annexed islands created inside the city limits and the problems they cause later on. He said Mr. Coss should be approached about his property. For proper planning, the entire area should be annexed.

Gengler said development would occur very shortly. Site plans for a hotel will be in the planning office by next week He said he did not want to create a problem for the development in order to annex all three lots.

Hagness said only the requested area should be annexed. He agreed that all of the area should be annexed but it should have all been worked out prior to the meeting.

Grasser commented that city council has sent signals that they want to eliminate the islands inside the city and that is done by annexations. However, trying to annex all of the property might disrupt the development.

Hagness asked if the owner would continue with his development if the city were to annex both Lot C and D.

Doug Herzog, representing the owner, said the owner is asking for the same treatment that was given on the property for the elderly housing located north of his property. That property had to be replatted and only the portion developed was annexed. There is a lot of holding costs for land that is annexed and not developed. There is nothing planned for Lot C at this time. The owner only wants to annex Lot D where the hotel will be constructed.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ANNEX ONLY THE PORTION OF LOT D NOT PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED. MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH SMITH NOLTING, ON BEHALF OF JEROME GERSZEWSKI, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO GREENBERG PUD, AMENDMENT NO. 7, DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TIRE ONE STORE), LOT 1, BLOCK 2, COLUMBIA PARK 27TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3325 SOUTH 38TH STREET. THE APPEAL IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA FROM 75% TO 77%.

Brooks reviewed the request for the Valvoline store located between Best Buy and the Super Target Plaza. The plan is to add an addition to the building and turn it into a tire store. With the improvements, they will exceed the 75% allowable impervious surface for B-2 type land uses. They are evaluated on a site by site basis and the site would be at 77% impervious surface area. Most businesses along 32nd Avenue South are zoned as B-3 type land uses and they are allowed up to 85% impervious surface area. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request.

There were questions about drainage for the site. Brooks said the site drains to the holding pond behind Lowe’s.

Malm noted the whole development appears to be blacktop. Brooks said there is more green area to the south of the development.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA AG PARK II, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO SECTION 18-0224, CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARTICLE 2 OF CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN BROWN CORPORATION ADDITION AND BROWN CORPORATION SECOND ADDITION, BEING A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW-1/4) OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 150 RANGE 50 IN GRAND FORKS COUNTY.

Brooks reviewed the request stating this is the first appeal to the Corridor Overlay District. The area is located by Merrifield Road and I-29. The appeal is for all of their undeveloped property. He noted the detailed letter in members’ packets on the appeal. There are three items listed for the appeal. In the ordinance, an applicant can appeal to reduce the 600-foot distance provided the site is fully screened and could not be seen from the corridor. Brown Corporation provided evidence of the screening located along I-29. He referred members to the photos showing several rows of trees planted along their development. Pictures were shown of the development made up of metal buildings. The metal buildings do not meet the standard set for the Corridor Overlay District. Over 50% of other materials is required and metal is not included. The buildings are 20-feet of sidewall with four feet of brick. Brown Corporation indicated they use highly quality industrial buildings. The appeal requests that they be absolved from the Corridor Overlay District.

Whitcomb asked about the screening. Even with all they have planted, it appears they are only screened about five months of the year.

Brooks was asked what percentage of the buildings met the corridor overlay district and he replied it would 10% or less. It would be very difficult to put 20% windows on the industrial metal buildings. Brooks said they submitted the appeal to cover the entire property.

Gengler talked about the problems they have discovered under the corridor overlay district. They knew there would be adjustments but after meeting with builders they found there would be roadblocks. Staff found areas from a structural standpoint that might not be feasible to do. He stated they would need to have the group back together to discuss all the issues. The decision made on the appeal will impact on any subsequent changes made to the ordinance.

Christensen said the committee went through the process for months and now there is pushback because the city is trying to apply the rules. How can change ever be effected if we’re not willing to go the distance to see how it will work. He said he would not support exempting the entire area from the rules. The area will be highly visible coming into the city from the south. If the city has the ability to control the presentation at some level, then the duty is to do that. Christensen said the Brown family and their plans for development is great. Perhaps the rules need to be studied and tweaked for a proposed industrial area. He does not want to continue creating Gateways to the city for future generations. He spoke on a development in Crookston that is metal but it’s been decorated very well. He is in favor of reviewing the ordinance but these are the same type of buildings that the city did not want. If you expect to do the same thing over and over again, don’t expect a different result. He questioned why evergreens are not planted along the corridor instead of aspens.

Robert Drees asked if the buildings going up in the development started before the ordinance was in place. Brooks said that was correct. Any existing buildings are exempt from the corridor overlay district. There is a building with the footings going in at this time and if they do not get the appeal approved, they know they have to follow the rules and regulations set out in the Corridor Overlay District.

Nick Brown, representing the corporation, said all the buildings right now are similar in design.

David Eilertson, general counsel for Brown Corporation, showed the current buildings and also showed where the proposed buildings would be located. They have future plans for more buildings. They are open to conditions the commission could place on them.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Matejcek asked what the cost difference would be for what they want to do and what the costs would be to comply with the Corridor Overland District. Nick Brown, property manager for Brown Corporation, said the costs would be substantial. Adding 50% brick or stucco would add substantial costs to the development.

Lee asked if they would consider planting larger trees or evergreens instead of starting with much smaller trees that would require many years for growth to be big enough to screen?

Nick Brown said they would consider it but they would have to do a cost analysis to determine whether it would be feasible or not. They plant more trees every year.

Mr. Eilertson said the developed is zoned for industrial uses. Since it is an industrial area, the buildings do not require aesthetics. The project involves up to 25 buildings in the area. They are developing a business park for people who do not have a lot of capital to start a business. They are not asking for a blanket exemption. They agree with the idea of beautifying the entrance corridors into the city. They are open to conditions such as planting more trees but adding significant costs to the project hampers the ability to create the project.

Hutchison asked how many buildings are in place on the site? The counsel stated there are five buildings in various modes of construction. Most of the buildings would comply because they are far enough away from the corridor. Hutchison asked how many more buildings would be erected in the area? Mr. Eilertson stated there are four buildings of the warehouse type, the Ag Depot, the large manufacturing building, and an administrative buildings with 50 offices. There are two projects proposed now, one is a multi-storage warehouse with four different warehouse units within one building. The other proposal is a hobby shop. There would be a maximum number of 25 buildings.

Gengler said that everybody seems to agree that the city wants nice corridors and they are doable but it is a cost. The committee needs to get back together and go over some of the issues.

Hutchison asked if there was a building in the ground now they needed an answer on. Mr. Brown said there were two buildings started. Hutchison asked how they could help them in a timely manner to complete what has been started.

Gengler said there were different provisions built into the ordinance. The planning director has discretion on some of the building materials but that is listed as the very last provision in the section that list the building materials. The planning director does not have the ability to grant an exemption to the metal siding systems where it is listed as 50% in one district and 70% in another district. Then there is the issue of the windows. These are some of the issues that make these types of buildings unfeasible.

Gengler was asked if the 600-foot regulation would or would not apply based on the odd-shaped lot. It was stated that one building would meet the 600-foot regulation and one would not.

Nick Brown showed on the map where each building was located on site and also indicated where the proposed 18 additional buildings would be located.

Discussion continued on where buildings would be located, whether or not they were screened and the materials (siding, windows, etc.) used on the buildings.

Matejcek commented that some tweaking needs to be done on the ordinance for buildings in the industrial areas, especially when there are a group of many buildings for a business. It might be better to have them be in a certain pattern rather than having some of them appear one way and some have a different appearance.

Christensen said he was not against steel buildings but he is against the pole barns. He is also not against the Brown development. He is in favor of trying to accommodate people that want to build out areas but he also recognizes the fact that the building will be in place for a long time and it might not always be in the Brown family. That is why he is concerned about the materials used on the exterior of a building. He suggested the planning director exercise some discretion on the building closest to the Depot and then try to get some consensus on the remainder of the buildings that front onto the corridor. He does not want to stop development.

Malm said screening is the issue for industrial buildings. Screening can be more than fencing. There are different types of bufferyards that can be required. Some of the bufferyards require more maintenance but along Gateway Drive, the soil is alkali and that presents a problem for certain types of screening. There is good farmland where the Brown Corporation is located and trees and other vegetation will grow there. Steel buildings, properly screened and with today’s materials, can be as nice or nicer than some homes that are built.

Lee closed the public hearing.

When asked what was needed to move forward, Brooks asked that the commission consider granting an exemption for one building (located on Lot A of the replat of Lot 1, Block 2 of Brown Corporation Addition) as long as they think it is properly screened.

Grasser said the one building is close enough to the 600-foot boundary that an exemption might be in order. A discussion followed on the tree line and the possible removal of trees when the interchange is constructed on Merrifield Road.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY MALM TO GRANT AN APPEAL FOR THE LOT LOCATED ON LOT A OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 OF BROWN CORPORATION ADDITION AND ALLOW THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THE DISCRETION ON THE SCREENING ISSUES AND BUILDING MATERIALS.

Gengler questioned what he could allow based on the ordinance. Malm said he had been given the discretion to make the decisions for this one case.

Drees asked if there was a way to exempt the current building (where footings are in the ground) from the corridor overlay district since it is partly in and partly out of the 600-foot regulation. That would eliminate the planning director having to make decisions on the building and screening until the committee has met and reviewed all the issues.

Nick Brown asked about their summer development.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY ROBERT DREES AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO EXCLUDE THE CURRENT BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION FROM THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT BASED ON THE 600-FOOT REGULATION.

Sande said based on the pictures, the site is still visible from the corridor and does not meet the right of appeal.

Robert Drees encouraged all members to drive out to the Brown Corporation site.

MOTION CARRIED WITH SANDE VOTING NAY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TONY KOBETSKY FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO SECTION 18-0224, CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARTICLE 2 OF CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN BISON INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT DEMERS AVENUE AND COUNTY ROAD NO. 5.

Brooks reviewed the second appeal on the corridor overlay district submitted by MK AG. Brooks shows pictures of the site located on County Road No. 5 and DeMers Avenue. He then showed a photo of a proposed building with three-foot high brick. This building would face Airport Road/County Road No. 5 (facing west). Brooks then showed a picture of the proposed building with 50% brick on the face of the building. The request for an appeal is for the lot just north of the existing building. There is no screening from the north side that faces Airport RoadGateway Drive. Since there is no screening from the north side, would the north side of the building have to be completely bricked? The appeal is to brick up to three feet and have a similar look to the existing building.

Robert Drees asked about the two lots further north. If those lots are sold and built on, then the north side of the new building would not need to be screened. Only the building on the very north end would need the screening.

Brooks said the lots had been platted for some time. At what point can you guarantee that the screening would be in place? The owner of the lots for sale (Mr. Earl) would be glad to sell the lots but they have not sold yet.

Malm asked if there were trees on the north side of the existing bulding. Mr. Earl said there were two or three rows of trees screening the north side of the existing building. Brooks said the row of existing trees is located between two buildings. Malm suggested Mr. Earl put up screening on the north end of the lots to screen the buildings.

A discussion followed on what would grow in the area.

Doug Earl, property owner of Bison Industrial Park, stated the alkali condition of the soil varies from year to year, depending on the moisture content. The development was meant to be a cottage industry, owner-operator and storage warehouse.

Discussion continued on screening. Again, there was the discussion on the committee meeting again to review all matter of screening and also what is appropriate screening for metal buildings. It was stated that whatever rules were adopted would have to apply to all parties.

Malm asked Mr. Earl what the additional cost would be to put brick around the entire building. Mr. Earl said based on conversations with Tony Kobetsky, owner of MK AG, the building would cost $50,000 and the added cost of brick would be an additional $45,000. For a building of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, the cost becomes prohibitive.

Christensen said the new building would be a metal building with no trees or screening on the north side. The building would be on two of the major corridors. We told Mr. Kobetsky before that he was located on a major corridor and we wanted the buildings to look very nice. The proposal is for a metal building with some brick on it. The city made a shift to extend to four miles. One row of trees is not enough screening. Maybe the owners should start planting evergreens on all lot lines. If change is to be effected, it has to start and stop someplace. The commission was very specific about the last item and granted the appeal for only one building until the committee could meet and review the rules. The proposed building for MK AG must have screening on the north side and one row of trees is not sufficient.

Lee asked for a motion.

Brooks stated the request from the property owner was to have three-feet of brick on the new building.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO DENY THE REQUEST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE RULES AND THERE IS NOT PROPER SCREENING.

Malm said the first appeal was granted and then denied on the second appeal. It appears the commission is picking on the little guy. The commission should ask them to plant trees on the north side. There is other property in the area that is not owned by Mr. Earl that is a junk heap and the city hasn’t made the effort to clean that up.

Christensen said the zoning issues came from the county. Now the city is trying to clean it up. Mr. Kobetsky can put up more than three feet of brick and plant trees close to their lot. If they came back with that proposal, they would get the same treatment given to the Brown development.

Brooks asked if the Mr. Kobetsky did 50% screening on the west side, three feet of brick on the north side, plus provided screening, would that satisfy the commission?

Matejcek asked why put up the brick if screening is to be provided? He said it was not a bad looking building. There is much worse around the city. It’s a warehouse. Mr. Earl is aware he is in a PUD (planned unit development) and maybe with three or four rows of trees, it might help to sell the remaining lots. Three feet of screening on the west side is more than enough.

Gengler said Mr. Kobetsky needs to be at the table with staff and the committee to talk about the plans and changes.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DENY:
VOYING AYE: ADAMS, WHITCOMB, SANDE, HUTCHISON, CHRISTENSEN, HAGNESS, GRASSER AND ROBERT DREES.

VOTING NAY: MALM, MATEJCEK, LEE, AND DR. HALL.

MOTION CARRIED TO DENY.

3-8. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM DALE M. RAATZ, ETAL, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A 15-FOOT SCREENING EASEMENT THROUGH LOTS 1 THROUGH 9, BLOCK 1, CONGRESSIONAL SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, AND LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH 55TH STREET FROM UNIVERSITY AVENUE SOUTH TO WEST LANARK DRIVE.

Brooks reviewed the vacation request. He stated there is a 10-foot utility easement on the east side of North 55th Street as well as a 15-foot screening easement on the back side of residential homes. The homes front onto West Plum Drive. The property owners from Lot 1 to Lot 9 are requesting the 15-foot screening easement be removed. This provides the ability for the homeowners to put up a shed on the easement. Staff recommendation is for approval.

Grasser said the original idea was that the screening easements were to encourage trees and vegetation so that fences were not put up.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY SANDE TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE 15-FOOT SCREENING EASEMENT.

Malm said sheds would be put up all along the street and it would end up looking like areas south of DeMers. He felt the screening easement should stand.

Sande said most of home have fences now and the sheds would be hidden by fences. Brooks agreed that most of the homes have fences and there is access control along the street so if garages were built, they would have to be accessed from the front of the house.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF VISIM, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION; ALL OF AMUNDSON’S SECOND RESUBDIVISION; NODAK RESUBDIVISION; GOLDEN VALLEY FIRST AND SECOND ADDITIONS; AND LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2800 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Achman reviewed the zoning request for the Aurora Plaza Addition where the hotel will be constructed. The request is to rezone from an agricultural district to a B-3 (general business) District. The request is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.
MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF DISCUSSION ON APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE SEH DOWNTOWN STUDY.

Brooks said the GF-EGF MPO (Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization) is looking for a planning representative to be on the steering committee of the SEH downtown study.

Whitcomb asked how much time would be involved in the committee? Brooks said the there would probably be meetings once a month and maybe several meetings to start the process. They are looking for someone with an interest in the downtown and the study should be completed before the end of the year.