Print VersionStay Informed
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
January 7, 2009

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

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

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

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17, 2008.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of December 17th, 2008. There were no corrections or changes to the minutes. Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented.

Lee stated there were no public hearings or final approvals on the agenda so the meeting would commence with No. 4 – Communications and preliminary approval section.

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

None.

Frank Matejcek and Bill Hutchison reported to the meeting.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

4-1. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING P&Z SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.

Gengler stated staff included membership listings of the various subcommittees in order to allow people to change or move around on committees. The sign subcommittee, park dedication committee and the land use subcommittee have been the most active lately. He expressed a desire to rejuvenate the annexation subcommittee and review the policies adopted under the 2035 Land Use Plan. He suggested enlarging the subcommittee to five members instead of three. Gengler summarized the task of each subcommittee. He stated that back some years ago, the commission appointed the then-serving city planner as the representative of the commission on the park and open space committee. Since that time, each city planner has been a voting member of that committee. He said he had an issue with a staff member as a voting member of the committee. The request was to assign a commission member to replace him as a voting member on the park and open space committee; however, he would still administratively staff the committee.

The Land Use Subcommittee will need to be convened with the extraterritorial zoning bill that is currently in front of the legislature.

There were no other questions.

4-2. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS.

Gengler reviewed the park regulations for on and off street parking as compared to other cities in the region. There has been a shift in the market in recent years and four bedroom apartments are now more common. Grand Forks meets or exceeds the standards set in other regional cities. Gengler suggested a committee (land use subcommittee or a newly formed committee) be established to study parking ratios.

In the recent past, there have been many complaints from citizens located around 12-plex or 24-plex apartments that enough parking is not created on site and tenants are using on-street parking, congesting the area. Staff looked at requiring one parking stall per bedroom, rather than per bedroom unit. The requirement of more parking stalls per bedroom also creates the need for more land and paving. With more paving, there is the concern of more impervious surface area for stormwater runoff. Gengler referred commission members to the one page handout showing existing apartment buildings and the parking ratios under the existing code and what it would be per bedroom.

Grasser said people are surprised at the trend to have three and four bedroom apartments. They perceive them more as dormitories. The answer may be to have more parking stalls or maybe put a limitation on the number of bedrooms that can be allowed in a unit.

Gengler said there had been no complaints about Campus Place on University and 42nd Street because it is all self-contained and located on two arterial roadways so there is no parking on the streets. The areas where there are problems include single-family housing or one and two family dwellings. It appears to be the location of where the apartment housing is occurring. If there is a 12-plex near two or three local streets, there is usually a higher probability of increased traffic and of tenants using the local streets for parking.

There were no other questions.

4-3. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING SENATE BILL NO. 2027 RELATING TO EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING AUTHORITY.

Gengler noted that including the item on the agenda was not to debate the merits of extraterritorial (ET) authority; it was added for information and to update commission members. The bill has been introduced on the senate side and will be reviewed shortly in the government and veterans affairs committee. City staff has been attending the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) meetings in Bismarck. The interim commission was formed to deal with the extraterritorial issue. There have been eight or nine bill drafts with a wide range of results. One prohibited all ET zoning while others were more relaxed. Senate Bill No. 2027 was the final outcome and was written and endorsed by the League of Cities but was amended on the floor before leaving the ACIR. The bill refers to a joint district or jurisdiction. All of the ET area would be covered under paragraph 3, page 4 of the senate bill. Gengler stated the League of Cities had submitted a bill that the first two miles (or whatever zoning jurisdiction cities’ had) would remain the same. Anything that was added to that would fall under the joint authority or jurisdiction. A single body does not act on anything. Under the League of Cities’ bill, the first two miles in Grand Forks would be handled the same as always, but the additional two miles would fall under the joint authority or jurisdiction, the city would review plats, rezonings, conditional use permits, etc., but the county would also carry on the same process. If the parties do not agree to the findings or there are issues, they can petition to the administrative law judge process. The administrative law judge would go through a mediation process with all parties to determine the outcome. The city would still govern the entire extraterritorial area assumed by the city but the decision making process would be altered. If a township in the ET area had zoning authority, they would be involved in the decision-making process also.

Robert Drees stated that if townships had zoning authority and that process had to be shared between the city, county and one or more townships, it would become cumbersome to follow the process with so many entities involved.

Gengler agreed but said that once the city of Grand Forks had already established zoning authority, the township cannot decide to establish zoning authority after the fact. The city of Grand Forks does not presently have any ET area where a township also has zoning authority. He gave the website address of ndgov.com to the commission members if they wished to stay on top of the issue.

Christensen stated Gengler’s interpretation does not address how the bill is written. He believed the township, county and the city all have jurisdiction. Before the next trip to Bismarck on the issue, the city council will write a position paper as to the city’s opinion on the bill. This will mess up zoning for every city, every township and every county and would be a step backward for all entities to support the bill. The bill is poor public policy for planning. Everyone seems to have lost sight of the reason for a planning and zoning commission. Cities were to plan out proposed streets and infrastructure. The planning and zoning commission should address the overall planning and zoning regime that is currently on the books. The senate bill is the wrong way to go and will set back planning and zoning and regulation by years. He invited the city planner to take a leadership role among other city planners and also do a position paper.

Matejcek said the senate bill should not be a surprise to anyone. Grand Forks, Fargo, Mandan and other cities in the state abused the process. That is the reason for the legislation. People were not allowed to have a vote or voice their concerns in the two to four-mile range. Grand Forks decided to make a landfill a permitted use in the ET area. He suggested to members that they ‘google’ landfills and find a city or county where a landfill is a permitted use. They might be allowed as a conditional use but not as a permitted use. Matejcek said he did not feel there would be any confusion. The people in the ET area will not have a problem because most of the time, the issue will be for building a house or a farm shed, etc. However, something controversial such as a landfill will be a problem. This will not set zoning back. It will set zoning ahead because the people in the affected area are going to have a say in it.

Christensen said when zoning issues are made within the territorial jurisdiction of the city proper, people in the county or township are not affected and should not have input on those issues. He referred to the issue of having a landfill at one time in the Surbaine???????????????? Township. Christensen said the bill would not be finalized in its form as shown in the packet. There are too many people involved on too many minor decisions. It might possibly go back to where it started. There will be planning and zoning on what is permitted outside the city of Grand Forks or the city of Fargo, but there will not be people on the commission dealing with zoning issues or interior issues. The body will go back to where it should have been in the first place: planning and zoning for areas beyond the annexed territory of the city.

Lee asked if treating the corridors that lead out from the city differently would be helpful. Gengler talked about the land use plan that included all the main corridors of the city. Gengler said he supported the concept of keeping the original two miles as is and then entering into some form of a joint agreement (but not the joint agreement as stated in the senate bill). Grand Forks had two miles of jurisdiction for many years and people were accustomed to it.

Hutchison asked when the position paper of the city would be completed. Gengler said he would let all commission members know the outcome or schedule by email as soon as he was informed.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF UPDATING COMMISSION MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION.

Gengler said the commission members contact information was included in the packet. If corrections or changes needed to be made, members could talk to staff.
6-2. MATTER OF ATTENDANCE RECORD FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR 2008.

Gengler noted the attendance record for 2008 was included in the packet. This was offered as information.


Gengler said they would be gearing up for the APA (American Planning Association) Conference in Minneapolis soon. The number of commission members going to the conference had been lowered in previous years because of funds but since it will be held in Minneapolis, there might be a chance for more members to attend. The dates of the conference are April 25 – 29, 2009.

Matejcek urged any member to attend the APA, if possible.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President