Council Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
January 23, 2006

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in special session in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, January 23, 2006 at the hour of 5:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding, pursuant to call by Mayor Brown, which was served on all members.. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 4; absent: Council Member Hamerlik - 1.

Mayor Brown deferred the meeting to Paula Lee, president of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Roll call for planning and zoning members indicated the following present: Mayor Brown, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Council Member Kerian, Council Member Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Paula Lee, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Sheryl Smith and Marijo Whitcomb: absent: John Drees, Bill Hutchison and John Jeno - 3.

The meeting was held jointly by the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council to meet the statutory requirement of holding a zoning transition meeting with the affected zoning jurisdictions prior to the City extending its zoning jurisdiction an additional two miles, from the current two miles to the maximum four miles.

President Lee announced that Brad Gengler, city planner, will start the process with a slide show presentation, that Earl Haugen will present information on the city's Year 2035 Land Use Plan; Lane Magnuson will present information on the county's Year 2035 Land Use plan and current zoning regulations within the county. She also announced that the public hearings at the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council are tentatively planned for March and that would be the time for public input on the issue.

Brad Gengler, Interim City Planner, gave an oversight of the issues to be addressed. The purpose of the Zoning Transition meeting is to review existing zoning rules, regulations and restrictions currently in place in the territory to the extraterritorial zone and to plan for an orderly transition. State law requires cities to conduct a Zoning Transition meeting if the proposal is to extend the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLASSHEIM REPORTED PRESENT

For quite some time, Grand Forks has exercised its extraterritorial jurisdiction, however, in 1997, the state
legislature amended a law allowing cities with a population of 25,000 or more to extend from two miles to four miles within the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The city did not extend due to flood recovery focus. In 1999, the formal Zoning Transition meeting was added as part of the process. Since 1999, there have not been annexations that would create a need for a zoning transition meeting.

He presented a map that showed annexations before and after August 1, 1999. The annexations since August 1, 1999 were close to the boundaries of the current city limits and did not create the need to extend the existing two mile area further. He indicated where the current two-mile boundary line and also noted the Grand Forks Airport’s location on the map.

The significance of proposing extension from two miles to four miles is due to the current efforts of adopting the 2035 Land Use Plan. The existing 2015 Land Use Plan was adopted by ordinance in 1996 and includes the primary goals. The term “growth management” is a way for the city to implement the plan with a solid vision of where the city needs to be. The current plan supports the extension of the city’s zoning jurisdiction to use the implementation tools to direct growth for the future of the city.

Why do this now? The answer is because growth is occurring in and around the city, particularly along the South Washington corridor and other areas to the south. Some of the growth is conflicting with the city’s vision for its growth. Extending the jurisdiction is a way to plan for the city’s growth and is one of the purposes for a Land Use Plan. The county is in the process of adopting a 2035 County Land Use Plan and the Grand Forks Airport is also conducting their own long-range plan.

An aerial photo was presented that showed the current city limits, the existing two-mile jurisdictional limit, the proposed four-mile extraterritorial zoning and also showed the various townships. The four-mile line barely included the Grand Forks Airport. Another aerial photo highlighted areas that are developed or in the process of being developed within the two-mile area and the four-mile area.

Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO).stated the MPO is in the process of updating the city’s Land Use Plan by planning out to the Year 2035. The MPO contracted with SFR Consulting firm to assist in the process. The plan will continue the concepts of balanced growth and growth management that have been part of the history of Grand Forks since the 1960s. The TIER system has been part of the planning process for some time and maps show the areas the city wants to include. The new plan also coordinates with the county and airport long-range plans.

The change from the 2015 Land Use Plan to the 2035 Land Use Plan is to drop one of the growth tiers. The old Tier 1 was the built up community of Grand Forks and that has been accomplished. Haugen showed a map indicating the city boundaries and the Tier system. The new Tier 1 is area where future growth is wanted next to the city. City services are available in that area and infrastructure in place to accommodate the growth. Tier 2 is proposed for limited growth. Growth is not encouraged, but if it did occur beyond Tier 1, it should be built to urban standards or city sized lots. That means no large lots or individual septic systems. As the city grows, that area can be absorbed easily within the city. Tier 3 is the largest area and planned as agricultural preservation for the long-term future. What is in place now would stay and changes are not proposed for it. The purpose is to prevent urban sprawl within the Tier 3 area and creating problems for agricultural uses that are now in place. The growth planned is the same as the county’s plan – maintain agricultural base and prevent urban sprawl. The transition area would be under the same land use controls regardless of control by the city or the county. The Tier 3 area is being proposed for agricultural uses with 1 per 40 minimum lot sizes. The current uses would be grandfathered in and remain as they are today. The only difference in the Tier 3 would be if the property owner initiated the change himself or through a sale. At that time, the city’s jurisdiction would govern. There is no plan for the city to make changes in property uses in the Tier 3.

To determine the 1 per 40 minimum lot size property, staff reviewed what was already in place. Haugen presented a map that showed the current land uses our to the proposed four-mile line.

Lane Magnuson, County Planner, stated the county is in the midst of updating the Land Use Plan and later updating the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and implementing a new septic system standard for the county. The county’s 2035 Land Use Plan has received preliminary approval by the county commission and plan to complete the process in February.

The county’s Land Use Plan shows the two to four-mile area to be the urban expansion area or future urban uses for the county by the year 2050. He explained the difference in the current county zoning and the proposed county zoning for the four-mile area (or urban expansion area).

The current county zoning for the four-mile area is A-1 (agricultural) which is similar to the city’s A-2 zoning in the two-mile jurisdictional zoning. Currently, there are rural residential developments with two and one-half acre lots, two and one-half acre density with private roads and no urban services. Feedlots are not allowed in the area, there is very little commercial or industrial development, except for the Highway 2 corridor, and no existing septic system regulations.

One of the proposed changes in the Land Use Plan is the Urban Expansion Reserve District which preserves land for future urban development. Currently, a limited rural development is allowed in the district if it is developed using a standard option or a cluster option.

He presented a map indicating the two development options (standard and cluster developments) that would be allowed in the urban expansion area. A stand development would be one dwelling per 40 acres density with a 40-acre minimum lot size. A cluster development consists of one dwelling unit per 10-acre density with one-acre minimum lot sizes. No feedlots, landfills, commercial or industrial uses would be allowed. Any new septic systems would require a permit, be subject to new design standards and review and inspection by county staff upon installation. The cluster option would be in the center of the area and would be able to hook up to urban services when they are available. He further said the streets and stormwater systems would be matched up so they could be incorporated easily when the city expands out that far. The cluster option would require 80% open space for future urban development.

Mr. Gengler referred to a handout with maps showing the existing extraterritorial area and indicated the two types of agricultural districts: A-1 (limited development) District and the A-2 (agricultural reserve) District. The handout also included the development criteria and permitted uses. In the A-1 District, the uses are centered on farming with no commercial or industrial uses permitted. The minimum lot size is 40 acres with no clustering of residences. Other codes (International Building Code, National Electrical Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and the International Fire Code) are required to be followed in the city and would be the standard for any expansion beyond city limits.

Included in the handout is the proposed timeline for review and approval of the expansion area by the city planning and zoning commission and the city council. Preliminary approval of ordinances for changing the jurisdiction would be reviewed at the city planning and zoning commission on February 1, 2006 and review by the city council on February 21. Final approval by the planning and zoning commission would take place on March 1 and would be a public hearing meeting. Final approval by the city council would be on March 20 and public input would be allowed.

Final adoption of the 2035 Land Use Plan Update is proposed for April, 2006.

Mr. Gengler invited input from those present.

Hagness asked if there was a recommendation from the planning staff on the extraterritorial extension issue; and if other cities in the state had extended jurisdiction from two-miles to four miles. Mr. Gengler replied that staff was in agreement with the extension from two-miles to four-miles as part of the 2035 Land Use Plan, and that Bismarck and Fargo had extended their extraterritorial areas but did not know when that was accomplished.
Gary Malm asked why staff did not look at clustering for an answer to the problem. Mr. Gengler said the idea was to work away from creating the high-density pockets within the two to four-mile area from the city.

Mr. Haugen stated the county’s clustering concept between the two and four-mile area is the closest it can be to the city where it made sense to use the cluster option. It is still two to four-miles away from the city and the only clustering, from the city’s perspective, would be in the Tier 2 area. It is not immediately adjacent to the city and will not be annexed to the city in the near future. The city’s lots are smaller urban sized lots. The cluster concept is fine but the county cannot come closer than in the two to four-mile area and the city would prefer to see that option closer than two to four miles.

Malm asked what would happen if the owner of a farmstead wanted to build another dwelling on his farm for a family member. Mr. Gengler said that would not be allowed because it would be new construction.

Council Member Glassheim asked if the two to four-mile area was the same as the Tier 2. Mr. Haugen showed the map that indicated the Tier 2 was different from the two-mile or four-mile. The Tier 2 area is part of the flood protection project and the city does not want to see large urban sized growth activities outside the flood protection. He said there was an agreement with rural water as to where the city water boundary will be versus where the rural water will remain. Tier 2 has elements of school district boundaries. The northern area is set by airport compatibility issues.

Council Member Glassheim asked what developments are currently taking place within the two and four-miles area. Mr. Haugen stated it was residential areas. Airport 5 and DeMers Avenue has had recent residential growth and Airport 5 and 32nd Avenue has had a recently approved subdivision. Columbia Road, south of Merrifield, has had rural residential development as well as south of the country club. That is four areas where growth is currently taking place along the corridors.

Hagness asked how it stops small cities from incorporating around the city. Mr. Gengler answered that the density control and other tools are a way to manage growth adjacent to the city and discourages development outside the two to four-mile area.

Mr. Haugen said that incorporation is a creature of the county. An area that wishes to incorporate petitions the county board of commissions for approval. It is not a state function and takes place at the local level of the county. The city’s plan is to limit rural development from occurring that might create a reason to incorporate. If they do petition, they must go through an approval process at the county level and the county would determine if there were sufficient means to operate as a municipality. Language in the county plan discourages incorporation.

Council Member Kerian asked about the ramifications on the two planning and zoning bodies and city services if the city moved the jurisdiction from two-miles to four-miles. Mr. Gengler said the zoning authority is conveyed to the city and any zoning requests would be reviewed by city planning and zoning. Providing services refers to areas adjacent to the city that are annexed. One of the services that will change is having people come to the city Inspections Office instead of to the county for permits.

Council Member Kreun said the city’s plan shows the clustering option could possibly take place in the Tier 2. Does the county’s plan allow the clustering in any area? Magnuson said the biggest difference would be the lot sizes. The city’s proposal for the clustering is within the two-mile area, but they would be using urban sized lots. The city would have to provide sanitary sewer. The infrastructure costs would be a limiting factor on whether or not it was worthwhile. The county is allowing the clustering within the two to four-mile area with larger acre lots. Since a septic system would be needed, the larger acre lots are necessary to accommodate the system.

Mr. Haugen said with the county’s proposal of minimum one-acre lots, 20% of the land would be in the cluster development and 80% has to remain agricultural. The city would require 1/3 of an acre (city sized lot) and would rely on community sewage treatment. The plan is not to extend city sewer but to have a community sewer system; not individual systems. On the county’s plan, 16 lots would be allowed where the city would prefer the additional 12 dwellings built in the city or adjacent to the city. The closer a person is to the city also includes other services such fire protection, police protection and emergency response. The simple answer is geography. The city wants development to be closer to the city and to be built according to city standards. When the city grows out to that area, there is not the concern of what to do with the large lots. This is for the Tier 2. In the Tier 1, the city wants residences to be developed the same as the rest of the city.

Malm asked if police and fire protection would be provided in the four-mile area. Howard Swanson, City Attorney, stated the city could not, by code, provide protection services outside the corporate limits (within the extraterritorial limits) of the city except for extenuating circumstances such as imminent death or if the police were in hot pursuit of someone. This is limited by state law to zoning maps.

Malm asked what zoning city staff expects the area to be – R-1, R-2 or a special zone? Mr. Haugen referred to the handout and said it was proposed to be A-1 District.

Malm asked if the list of uses shown not permitted for the A-1 District meant not permitted on a farm – was that correct? Mr. Gengler said under the strict definition of a farm, he was correct. Malm asked about uses such as truck gardens, commercial tree farms, or agricultural produce.

Mr. Haugen noted those items were allowed as accessory uses of a farm operation. However, it would not be a farm if solely used for a truck garden or solely a commercial tree farm. The list identifies uses that embellish what people use to manipulate the rules on defining farms.

Council Member Kreun said a list of permitted uses is also included. It just means a person cannot get 40 acres and start a truck farm. Council Member Glassheim said if that was an existing type of farm today, it could continue.

Malm said people in the county are concerned that city staff will tell them what they can do for a livelihood. Mr. Swanson stated the uses now permitted within the two-mile extraterritorial area would be allowed within the four-mile area. It is only a shifting of the boundaries. If a present use exist today that is permitted under county planning and zoning and not permitted by the city, it would have to handled as a non-conforming use.

Council Member Glassheim said the list of permitted uses for a farm on page 2 did include nurseries and tree farms.

President Lee said one slide shown by Mr. Magnuson suggested the county’s urban expansion area went beyond the airport and she asked what the relationship was between the urban expansion area and the city’s proposed four-mile area. The city’s four-mile area only included the very upper northwestern corner of the airport property. Mr. Magnuson answered that the county’s urban expansion area extends beyond the four-mile area as proposed. The airport’s compatibility zones limits the amount of development that can occur around the airport. Cluster placement can be used but it has to be in relation to the flightpaths. They have the ability to put deed restrictions on the property to ensure that people know when they purchase a lot that it is near a major flightpath and there will be airplane noise. The boundary does extend further than the actual four-mile area but it is based on the airport compatibility zone.

Council Member Kerian asked if the county could use the clustering option outside the four-mile area. Mr. Magnuson said the area outside the four-mile limit would be rural residential area and the county would allow whatever is currently in the two or four-mile area – 2-1/2 acre lot size; 2-1/2 acre development. The premise is that 2-1/2 acre developments are already there and people will continue to want them. The plan is to focus on where they already exist and where roads and infrastructure exist to support them. The county does not want them scattered throughout the county. He further stated that people will either develop in the city or go out four-miles. There are benefits for both and a market for both.

Max Laird, representing Walle Township, asked if non-conforming agreements could be used in the Tier 3, as well as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Mr. Swanson said non-conforming uses are not agreements; they are provisions of the city code and are subject to change by the city council. They would extend to all tiers unless altered by the city council. Those issues have not been acted upon but non-conforming issues are not limited to a particular zone, district or tier.

Mr. Laird asked how the responsibility changes for townships as far as road maintenance and drainage issues within the four-mile (or Tier 3) area. Mr. Haugen said the only change in the Tier 3 area would be if the property owner initiated it. If the property owner made a zoning or subdivision change, the city would govern. If it was a change that affected a township road, surrounding property owners would be notified as part of the process and input would be through the city planning and zoning and the city council. That is a 60-day process.

Mr. Laird said as a jurisdiction, they would not have a vote or representation. Mr. Haugen said the city would govern the land uses and platting. Mr. Swanson stated the township would retain all other authority they now have except for zoning and subdivision issues. That is currently the way it is within the two-mile area.

Mr. Laird asked if the city would be responsible for any stormwater issues that might come up. Mr.
Swanson said he was unsure that stormwater issues would fall into the zoning context and road maintenance would still be maintained by the township.

Mr. Laird asked if the 40-acre lot rule extended into Tier 3 and the county retains the rural residential and allowed cluster growth, would that not force developers to go out further into the county. Mr. Magnuson said if rural development happens, it will probably be pushed out four-miles. The county would deal with road maintenance and stormwater maintenance as part of the platting process. The stormwater regulations are part of the zoning resolution so if the zoning jurisdiction is governed by the city, then the township would not longer be dealing with stormwater or floodplain issues in the four-mile area.

Council Member Christensen stated if development occurred outside the four-mile area, the county would control that development with the cluster option. Everyone in the room will probably be gone by the time the city grows out to that area, but the county should have the presence of mind and planning to think about the one-acre lots so that when the city does grow out to that area, incorporating it into the city would be easier; all of that is a result of planning.

Mr. Magnuson said the area Mr. Laird was referring to was not going to be urban services. The issue with the planning commission and county board was property rights and restricting an individual of their property rights for something that may or may not happen for 50 to 70 years.

Mr. Magnuson was asked about approval of the Land Use Plan. He responded by saying the Land Use plan had received preliminary approval but there were two section of the Land Use Plan. One section is the background and what is actually in the county. The other section is the goals and policies and future land use map. The background section will go back to the planning commission in February for changes. The basic change in the Tier 3 is that the county’s proposal would be 1 dwelling per 40 acres but there was a option for the cluster development. The city’s proposal is 1 dwelling per 40 acres without the ability to do the cluster development.

Malm asked if there was a policy in the new plan that the line would move out with each annexation or would it stay where it is until a new plan is written? Mr. Haugen stated there are two answers to that. The first proposal was not to automatically extend the four-mile line (or jurisdiction line) with each annexation but to review that issue annually. The second answer is to continue moving the line out as properties are annexed. The plan is not finalized on that issue. The current plan is to move the line out.

President Lee asked if the planning office had a recommendation on whether or not to extend the line out with each annexation. Mr. Gengler said the question had been discussed but a conclusion had not been decided as they were waiting until the study of the plan was completed.

Hagness said one of the more controversial issues of the extraterritorial zone goes back many years when the Julian Anderson Addition was annexed and how that affected Traill Water and their future growth. There is a five-year agreement with the city and Traill Water. How is Traill Water affected by extending the jurisdictional line?

Mr. Haugen said the agreement that established the future boundaries and the Tier 2 line was used as one of the parameters. The only change the city is making is extending the extraterritorial zoning area and should not directly affect Traill Water. The agreement deals with annexation and provision of water services. The idea is not to have city growth or annexation beyond the agreed-to boundary.

Mr. Swanson stated the extension of the extraterritorial zone would not alter the terms of the contract.
Larry Hanson, Grand Forks Traill Rural Water, stated the extension does affect them. They put in additional infrastructure when the agreement was signed and the city is limiting their growth and income.

Council Member Kreun said if the county is planning to reduce the densities, that would be true with the county as well as with the city as far as rural water is concerned. Mr. Swanson said he knew there were differences between the county and city plans, but there is a federal law regarding rural water that have debt to the federal government. The regulations are based on annexation; not on the zoning jurisdiction. There may or may not be a practical effect, but concerns from rural water would be the same if the city were exercising its jurisdiction or the county. The statute is not limited to a city alone.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Kerian to adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

Approved:
___________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor


Please Note:

A Memorandum was submitted by Earl Haugen, MPO, on February 7, 2006 correcting information presented at the transition meeting.

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: 7 February, 2006
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: E. Haugen
RE: Correction of Information Given at Transition Meeting

Please find attached, the draft minutes of the Transition Meeting held on Jan 23rd. The Meeting was held jointly by the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Meeting was held to meet the statutory requirement of holding a zoning transition meeting with the affected zoning jurisdictions prior to the City extending its zoning jurisdiction an additional two miles - from the current two miles to the maximum four miles.

In the course of the meeting, some statements were made that contained inaccurate information. The purpose of this memo is to provide more accurate information as an attempt to correct the statements made at the meeting. The draft minutes reflect accurately what was stated; unfortunately, the information stated was not completely accurate.

On the draft minutes page # 5 in the seventh paragraph, the statement that building of another dwelling on a farm for a family member would not be allowed because it would be new construction is inaccurate. Under the City Code, another dwelling can be built, even if it is new construction, if the dwelling is for a farm employee. The Code does not define farm employee but a family member of the farmer conceivably can be a farm employee.

On the draft minutes page #6 in the third full paragraph, the statement that under the City’s clustering concept that the City would have to provide sanitary sewer is inaccurate. The next paragraph in the draft minutes attempts to correct the statement; however, the correction uses the term community sewer systems, which may leave one to believe that these types of systems are the same as extending the City sanitary sewer. The community sewer systems are not part of the City sanitary sewer. The systems are groups of housing units sharing a common treatment system – hence the term community. These contrast to the individual on-site treatment systems that only treat one housing unit. The communities of housing can be as much as 30 homes all sharing one treatment system. However, unlike the City sanitary sewer which pipes sewage to an off-site treatment area, the community systems still rely on areas within the development to treat the sewage. Extension of City sanitary sewer is not required; although some developments may find that it is best to request the extension rather than provide for these alternative community treatment systems.

On the draft minutes page #7 in the sixth full paragraph, the statement that the uses now permitted within the two mile area would be allowed within in the four mile area is inaccurate. Within the current two mile area, most of the land is zoned as A-2, which has a list of permitted uses. The land within the four mile area is proposed to be zoned as A-1, which has a slightly different list of permitted uses.

On the draft minutes page #8 in the third full paragraph, the statement that the only change would be if a property owner initiated it is inaccurate. The responsibility for townships as far as road maintenance does not change only if initiated by property owner. As a responsible unit of government, the township has the obligation to make changes as it sees fit to road maintenance without having to wait for property owners to request change. Drainage is done in a similar way; however, other units of government (such as water resource districts) can become more involved in drainage issues.

On that same page and in the next paragraph, the statement that the city would govern the land uses and platting does not fully answer the question of whether townships do not have a vote or representation. The statement should be expanded to include that the County Board of Commissioners appoints three people, whom must reside in the affected townships, to be voting members of the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission. The township jurisdiction having a vote or representation is decided by the County Board. The County may decide to appoint township elected officials or mere interested citizens. The City cannot refuse to have these three members be active Commissioners with the same rights and privileges as City appointed members to the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission.