Print VersionStay Informed
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
October 3, 2007


1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee, President, at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Robert Drees, Tom Hagness, Curt Kreun, and Gary Malm. A quorum was present.

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 5 AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2007.

Lee asked if there were any revisions or corrections to the minutes of September 5th and September 19th, 2007. There were no revisions or corrections noted and Lee stated the minutes would stand approved as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MICHAEL COLEMAN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, THE FRONT 100 FEET OF LOT 9 AND THE FRONT 100 FEET OF LOT 10, BLOCK 1, LESS 17 FEET FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, COX’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 1835 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Brooks reviewed the request, stating it was given preliminary approval at the special planning meeting held on September 19, 2007. The site is the former Town and Country service station. Changing the zoning from B-2 to B-3 would be contiguous to businesses zoned B-3 to the south. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

There were no questions from commission members. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH, SMITH, NOLTING & ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF LITHIA REAL ESTATE, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 25TH RESUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT SOUTH 20TH STREET AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the replat request by indicating on the map the vacant property located between Sam’s Club and the Lithia Ford dealership. The vacant property is owned by Lithia and future plans include making the property usable for the Toyota and Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge dealerships. In order to do that, the replat proposal moves the current alignment of the access easement to the east creating a “T” by the access road. The current access easement is constructed only partway. By re-aligning the access easement, it opens the land to allow more space for the two dealerships. The access easement is a private easement and shifting it to the east will affect traffic patterns in the area as well as the stormsewer location.

Grasser commented the engineering department has not seen a proposal for the relocation of the stormsewer pipe, but they would work with the owners on it. The owners would be responsible for the relocation of the stormsewer pipe as well as the rebuilding of the road.

Lee noted the easement appears to narrow from the original drawing. Brooks stated the easement is reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet. Originally, the easement was meant to be a public right-of-way and would require the 80-foot width. Then the request was to make the easement private. Lithia is the new owner and wants to lower the width of the private access to 60 feet. It is not a roadway; only an easement. However, the easement that continues to the south is still at 80 feet. A portion of the property to the south is still owned by the Hanson family.

Hutchison asked how the traffic pattern would be changed by moving the access easement. Brooks answered the apartments to the south cannot drive through the property to get 32nd Avenue South. The idea is not to use the access as a through street to 32nd Avenue South.

There were no more questions from the commission. Lee opened the public hearing.

Chris Jordheim, Thompson, ND, stated he was the land surveyor for the plat. The architects just returned from Oregon and a meeting with the Lithia owners. They are now in the process of designing the site and the location of the stormsewer.
There was no one else to speak and Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Title opinion has been received.
2. Show length on all curved line segments and on short straight lines.
3. Add overall distances for all line segments on the plat boundary.
4. Change drawing scale to one that may be easily interpreted.
5. Use shorter version of the city council certificate as no street and highway ordinance is required.
6. Establish easements for existing utilities or relocate as necessary.
7. Record release of easement document to vacate private roadway and utility easement.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ELWIN & MELODY KAHLBAUGH AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 33 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3415 BELMONT ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat was related to the city’s flood protection project. There is a small portion of property to the rear of adjacent homeowners that is being transferred to them. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes.

There were no questions from commission members. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY DR. HALL FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add note regarding 100-year floodplain.
3. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to 18-0907(1)(L) of the Land Development Code with regards to two-foot elevation contours.
4. List basis of bearings.
5. Include 100-year flood line.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GRAND FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF TERZETTO VILLAGE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 19 AND 20, BLOCK 1, PROMENADE SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 739 AND 741 PROMENADE COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the replat is to relocate lot lines in the southwest corner of the Promenade Second Addition. The two lots are large and since access is prohibited onto North 55th Street, the request is to change the lot lines at the rear of Lot 19, Block 1. This would allow the homeowners of Lot 20 access from the rear of their property. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

Dr. Hall asked who owned the alley and Durrenberger said it was a dedicated alley. Dr. Hall wanted to know why not have the dedicated alley up to the property line instead of changing the lot lines. Durrenberger answered this was the way it had to be accomplished in order to not create a dead-end alley.

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

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY STEVE ADAMS FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correctly show replat location in the vicinity map.
3. Include existing lot line.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM PEABODY ENTERPRISES, LLC, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE THE NORTHERLY 15-FOOT SIDEWALK AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PEABODY’S 1ST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT SOUTH 20TH STREET AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the vacation request. He indicated on the map where the easement was located (between Lumber Mart and the office building to the south). There are no utilities in the easement. Staff recommendation is for vacation of the sidewalk and utility easement.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB FOR APPROVAL OF THE VACATION AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR CONCURRENCE WITH CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF ROUNDABOUTS AS A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE FOR THE TRAFFIC CONTROL STRATEGY PLAN FOR COLLECTOR TO COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS.

Earl Haugen, Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO) stated the city of Grand Forks had asked the MPO to look at unsignalized roadways of functionally classified roadways or collectors to collectors. The intent of the study was to determine a better way to handle traffic control and to find more up-to-date strategies that are now being used in other areas. He showed a map that indicated 12 intersections where collectors meet collectors. The 12 intersections are the only intersections being studied or reviewed. There are five strategies to consider: access management, lane channelization, stop control (two-way stops or four-way stops), traffic signals and roundabouts. When the MPO Executive Board understood that roundabouts were being considered, they said there should be some feedback on whether or not to consider them in the study. It was decided to bring the subject to the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks Planning commissions to see if roundabouts are something to be considered as a community. Haugen showed a drawing of a roundabout design from the State of Minnesota. He noted there are several reasons for roundabout designs. Safety is the primary reason for roundabouts. The Federal Highway Administration feels strongly enough about them that it is one of the few types of transportation improvements that is funded 100% under the Highway Safety Improvement Program. It is only another tool to use and is only appropriate in certain places. It is not appropriate everywhere. He discussed the opposition to roundabouts prior to installation but every study after roundabouts are installed shows a change in favor of them. People asked if any of the 12 intersections studied would be candidates for a roundabout. Before a roundabout is selected for an intersection, various factors such as safety and turning movements have to be considered. Haugen stated the best candidate of the 12 intersections where a roundabout might be considered is located at 24th Avenue South and South 34th Street. A level of service “D” in the future at that intersection is projected if left as it is now. There will have to be an investment at the intersection at some time in the future. He showed a conceptual design of a roundabout for that intersection. The turning movements taken last month for the intersection were very high with a high percentage of left turns. A roundabout is not necessarily the solution but he requested consideration be given for a possible roundabout at that intersection. Roundabouts can be fit within a developed intersection. When asked if they require more space, Haugen showed a diagram of the difference between the space needed for a roundabout and traffic signals with turn lanes. There are safety benefits, operational benefits, environmental benefits and a continuous flow with a roundabout. Cost is always a consideration with roundabouts being cheaper in some locations and more expensive in other locations. However, with the long-term life cycle of an intersection, roundabouts are overall less expensive.

Haugen explained the study process and the time line of the study. The study is to start in October with recommendations completed by March, 2008. He reminded members that roundabouts are just one of the tools available and the request is to include them in the study.
Dr. Hall asked if the funding was based on selecting a certain number of roundabouts. Haugen answered the number of roundabouts selected or considered does not matter.

Lee asked if there had been any feedback on the idea of roundabouts. Haugen replied a video had been playing on channel two twice a day for the last 10 days but he has not received any feedback.

Christensen said in materials he had reviewed, a stop light costs $150,000 and an estimated cost of $400,000 for a roundabout with four intersections. Haugen said those costs were based upon a generic installation of a simple traffic signal versus the Street Highway Plan’s estimate for a roundabout concept at that particular intersection.

Christensen stated the tool of roundabouts have always been available; it is not a new tool. The consultant that has been hired for the study is one that can be counted on to make a recommendation for a roundabout. He feels there should be appropriate waiting warrants for a roundabout. A roundabout at the intersection of 24th and 34th may be an experiment in a very high traffic area at a very high cost. A stop light at the location would be 80/20 cost-share but the expense would be less. He questioned if it should be studied when a traffic light would work. The council battles for two mills and then there is a discussion for a half million dollars for an intersection that could be remedied for $150,000. He said he was not in favor of the roundabouts and questioned acclimating the community to roundabouts. The community is not getting younger; it is aging. Roundabouts will create disruptions that are not necessary. He said a roundabout at the targeted location was not appropriate and he would vote against it when and if consideration of one was presented to the council.

Grasser said some of his thoughts parallel Mr. Christensen’s, but he is open-mined on the issue of roundabouts because he does not have the technical data to form an opinion to weigh the issues. The city made a request to the MPO to study the 12 intersections because they are potential intersections for traffic control under the general traffic plan. The city wanted an analysis now and in the future for traffic, turning movements and how many warrants are needed. Just because one warrant is met at one intersection for a traffic signal, does not mean a traffic signal will be placed there. He questioned if one or 10 warrants are met at each of the intersections. What is the appropriate level for action to be taken at any of the intersections studied? There may be instances where a sign is the cheapest, easiest and most effective method. Other instances might require a traffic signal or even a roundabout. He is looking for the data for the various options and welcomes the information on how roundabouts would fit. Land acquisitions need to be identified as well as how utilities might have to be re-located. Stormsewers are often located at the intersections and if there is a roundabout with different dimensions, catch basins, manholes and fire hydrants might need to be re-located. However, the roundabout information would be good as well as the cost analysis. He is open-minded about it but stated he was concerned about developing the propensity toward roundabouts. If roundabouts were selected, he would be in favor of a cautious approach.
Hutchison asked about the initial cost and asked if the life-cycle costs would be more equal between the two. Haugen said that would be true but also pointed out the societal costs and delay costs, and stop and go costs, could be calculated in a benefit-cost ratio. Capital costs would be higher but would have a much higher benefit to it.

Hutchison said in reviewing the selected intersections, he did not feel they would be appropriate in some of the residential areas. However, he thought the 24th/34th intersection might be the appropriate one to be considered for a roundabout. There is a learning curve for using a roundabout. Would just one be worth it?

Haugen said the roundabout is a new tool. It is a modern tool. In the past, there have been traffic circles, but not a true roundabout. The studies by the transportation officials and experts have shown roundabouts to be a better solution at some locations. The study was formed with all the tools and if a roundabout is considered as the most appropriate tool for the targeted location, that can be shown as well as the cost analysis. The general public is also requesting that roundabouts be considered in Grand Forks.

Hutchison asked about the time line. Haugen replied the study would indicate when one of the selected tools be put into place, whether it be a sign, traffic signal or roundabout. Within the next 20 years, some type of improvement will have to be invested at the targeted intersection.

Hutchison asked if the MPO wanted a recommendation. Haugen said the MPO is asking for the commission’s concurrence. That concurrence would not be presented to the council. The commission is the body that would allow the study to use the tool of roundabouts. However, once the study is completed and before any implementation, it would be presented to all bodies with the council having the final voice on the recommendations.

Christensen said a roundabout would not be implemented in the community without the council approving it. Haugen said that was true. Christensen asked where a modern day roundabout would be located in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Haugen stated the closest one is located in Grand Rapids, MN. Christensen said if an experiment is wanted for a roundabout, the planning department should try to get a developer to put in a roundabout in a high traffic situation. The developer probably does not want to give up the land and incur the costs. He asked if the roundabout would be paid for with federal dollars without warrants for heavy traffic? Do you use them to fix a problem or use them to prevent a problem from occurring? Haugen replied the Highway Safety Improvement Program is more of a reactive funding source. He noted there are some types of roundabouts being included in Fargo developments but they are not the true roundabouts. They are being built more for the aesthetic reasons, i.e. center landscaped island with a nice feature element to the development. They are not being installed for traffic control reasons. The closest one in existence is in the Riverside Park area. It is not a true roundabout but it is a circle that you have to drive around.
Christensen asked how the commission, council, etc. could be assured that recommendations for the targeted intersection would include signalization as well as a roundabout. Haugen showed the various steps that have to be taken during the process of the study. It would also include public involvement as well as monthly Technical Advisory Committee meetings where data would be disseminated for review and comment until the final product is completed next spring.

Christensen said he wanted to be sure there were alternatives A & B so that a decision could be made. He did not want to only have the roundabout option. Haugen replied there are steps along the process where pros and cons are submitted for each of the 12 intersections. The city reacts to the pros and cons and feeds it back to the MPO.

Whitcomb asked if it was possible not to approve the funding for the study? Christensen answered there would be a roundabout recommendation for the targeted intersection. It appears there is a process but the consultants design roundabouts. However, he stated he was all for learning and the study but he wanted an objective study with “A” and “B” options. He said the decision makers should have options.

Whitcomb asked about the time line for the study. Haugen answered that by November-Decembers after data is collected, the MPO will have an idea where roundabouts or other tools are appropriate or inappropriate. Implementing any of the tools could take months or years depending on whether federal funds or local funds are used.

Grasser said there is a buffer between the study and putting concrete on the ground. If one of the intersections needs to be addressed immediately, the engineering department will start looking at it with more detail. If local money is used, they will do it locally. If federal money is used, they have to go through the project concept report. He just wants to avoid having one option.

Christensen asked if the consultant could be instructed to give an “A” and “B” alternative for each of the intersections. Haugen said that could be done if it was appropriate. At some of the intersections, there may not be a “B” option. They will definitely consider all the pros and cons and before there is a recommendation, they will get feedback from all parties. However, if there is one clear option, is “B” necessary?

Christensen said if the option is for a roundabout, he would like to know if a stop light would be considered at the intersection. Haugen said that would be part of the study. The five tools would be considered for each intersection.

Lee asked how much the study would cost and was told the cost would be $60,000. She asked if the cost was based on the number of intersections studied and Haugen replied if only 11 intersections were studied, they would negotiate a lower cost.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO CONCUR WITH MOVING FORWARD ON THE STUDY BASED ON PRESENTATION BY HAUGEN AND GETTING AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION IF ROUNDABOUTS WERE THE RECOMMENDATION IN ORDER TO GET AN OBJECTIVE STUDY. MOTION CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK VOTING NAY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GRAND FORKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (2003 STREET AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT) TOGETHER WITH ALL APS, INFORMATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DATA CONTAINED THEREIN.

Haugen stated the MPO is at the last stages of updating the street and highway element of the long-range transportation plan. He referred members to their packets that included a map with recommendations and time frames for the improvements.

Grasser thanked Haugen and the MPO for the breakdown of the recommendations into time frames as well as costs. This is a helpful tool for prioritizing the city’s limited resources.

Haugen noted that color prints were available for any member that wanted one. He also told members the MPO website contains the full planning document draft if anyone wanted to download it.

Whitcomb complimented Haugen on his work.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT OF THE 2003 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4.2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF PEABODY ENTERPRISES LLC AND DESOTO ASSOCIATES, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PEABODY’S SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT SOUTH 20TH STREET AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the plat request stating the plat includes the vacation request discussed earlier. The plat also includes a 40-foot strip of property being purchased by Mr. Peabody and is only usable by him. With the purchase of the additional property and combined with the remainder of Mr. Peabody’s property, a developable parcel will exist. There would be shared parking as well as shared access onto South 20th Street. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval of the plat.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY STEVE ADAMS FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Change the plat name to Peabody’s Second Resubdivision as plat contains unplatted lands.
3. Enlarge plat boundary to include South 20th Street right-of-way adjacent to unplatted lands.
4. Include right-of-way width on 36th Avenue South.
5. Add 10-foot utility easement along 36th Avenue South.
6. Check replat location in the vicinity map.
7. Correct title and land description in the owner’s certificate.
8. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
9. Add access control along all of the west line of Lot 2 and the west 150 feet along 36th Avenue South.
10. Consider a crossover and shared driveway agreement with Lot 1.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF PEABODY ENTERPRISES LLC AND DESOTO ASSOCIATES, 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 PEABODY’S PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF PEABODY’S SECOND RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH 20TH STREET AND 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

There was a request by staff to table the item until next month.

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO TABLE THE REQUEST UNTIL THE NOVEMBER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 41 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT LEWIS BOULEVARD AND SEWARD AVENUE.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat by stating the property is another flood protection project located in the Riverside area. The plat shows the consolidation of the property purchased by the city for the flood wall. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY DR. HALL FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include a land description within the owner’s consent and dedication.
3. Show monuments set at all corners.
4. Add map revision date for floodplain note.
5. Plat needs vacation of Lewis Boulevard.
6. Show arc length on all curved line segments.
7. Include lot and block numbers for all lands within the plat boundary
8. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to 18-0907 (1)(L) of the Land Development Code with regards to two-foot elevation contours.
9. Use shorter version of the city council certificate as no right-of-way dedication is necessary.
10. Plat does not need a street and highway ordinance.
11. Include 100-year flood line.
12. Provide additional lotting or easements for existing infrastructure.
13. Correctly distinguish between previously vacated lands and lands to be vacated.
14. Submit application and documents to vacate certain public grounds.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 42 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT SOUTH THIRD STREET/MINNESOTA AVENUE TO BNSF RAILROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request stating it is related to the flood protection project. The plat covers property purchased for the flood wall and consolidates the various purchased parcels into one large property. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include a land description within the owner’s consent and dedication.
3. Show monuments set at all corners.
4. Add a revision date to the floodplain note.
5. Include lot and block numbers for all lands within the plat boundary
6. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to 18-0907 (1)(L) of the Land Development Code with regards to two-foot elevation contours.
7. Use shorter version of the city council certificate as no right-of-way dedication is necessary.
8. Include 100-year flood line.
9. Remove previously vacated Franklin Avenue from area within Auditor’s Resubdivision No. 23.
10. Provide additional lotting or easements for existing infrastructure.
11. Check current status of dedication public lands within the plat area and vacate if necessary.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF WILBUR-ELLIS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF WILBUR-ELLIS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 2220 BACON ROAD.

Brooks reviewed the plat request by explaining some history. Staff received a request from the Wilbur-Ellis Company to put liquid fertilizer tanks on the property, similar to Simplot to the south. In starting the site plan review, it was discovered the land was not zoned properly. The company representatives were told they would have to plat and rezone the property prior to site plan approval. They hired CPS, Ltd. to process an application and plat drawing for the Wilbur-Ellis Addition. After receiving the application, it was discovered there was a plat that had been processed and approved in 1996 as well as a rezoning ordinance. This was for a blending tower they wanted to build. They started the building project because it was getting late in the building season, knowing it could very well be denied. However, the plat was never recorded. It was felt that with the flood of 1997, everything was basically forgotten. The current employees had no idea that prior platting and rezoning had taken place. When the plat was originally drawn in 1996, Advanced Engineering (AE) did the plat drawing. CPS, Ltd. suggested the company might want to go back to AE since they would have the prior information. There is a sunset clause on plat approvals and after 11 years, the platting process had to be restarted. The rezoning of the property does not have a sunset clause and that ordinance will take affect when the plat has been approved and recorded. A street and highway ordinance for the north half of Bacon Road is necessary for the plat. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Change all dates to 2007.
3. Show current people as signers.
4. Update 100-year flood information.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

Gengler gave a brief update on the 2007 legislation bill regarding impacts on cities’ extraterritorial zoning authority. He attended a committee meeting, along with other city officials from other larger cities in North Dakota. The committee will continue to meet and he said he would prepare a report based on the committee meetings for commission members.

Matejcek asked to be kept informed about meeting dates.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President