City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota August 6, 2008 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Doug Christensen, John Drees, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Dana Sande and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Steve Adams, Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Tom Hagness. 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 JULY 2, 2008. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of July 2, 2008. There were no corrections or changes to the minutes and Lee said 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 DEVELOPMENT HOMES, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE PERKINS THIRD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5, ALL OF PERKINS 3^RD, 4^TH AND 5^TH ADDITIONS AND ALL OF PERKINS 6^TH THROUGH 12^TH RESUBDIVISIONS TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (3880 SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD). Brooks reviewed the rezoning request by indicating on the map the location of the property with townhomes to the west and the Dairy Queen to the north. The proposed change under the PUD would allow for B-3 uses as well as a six-unit townhome. Under the B-3 uses, residential housing is allowed on the second floor. The requested change is to allow residential on the first floor of the structure. Calls and visits to the office were received from the townhome president and residents. A request was made for additional trees. Staff had recommended bufferyard “A” which required six trees per 100 feet and the request of townhome members was for ten trees per 100 feet. That was felt to be a good compromise and staff will make that a requirement. Development Homes was agreeable to the additional trees and plan to start construction in the fall of 2009 with the plantings in the spring of 2009. Brooks showed a schematic of the building for the six-unit townhomes. Staff recommendation is for approval with bufferyard “A” with ten trees per 100 linear feet as opposed to six trees. Lee asked if there were questions from the commission members. There were none. Lee opened the public hearing. Leo Brock 3901 Shady Lane, stated he lived just west of the proposed development. He voiced appreciation of the trees but said he understood it was difficult to put in the trees because of the pipeline easement and asked where the trees would actually be planted. Brooks stated there is a 100-foot pipeline easement as well as a 20-foot utility easement. The trees will probably be planted on top of the utility easement. There is enough room to plant the trees. Cullen Goenner, 3917 Shady Lane, president of Shady Lane Townhome Association South, said he represents 21 of the units due west of the proposed development. They support the building and zoning change subject to the additional trees being planted Sandy Marshall, CEO of Development Homes at 3880 South Columbia Road, said she spoke to the president of the townhome association at the north end of the Shady Lane complex. He indicated to her they supported the development as long as the additional trees were planted for screening. Lee closed the public hearing and returned the issued to the commission members. MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE OF ADDITIONAL TREES AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. Malm commented it was a real pleasure to hear that neighbors like a proposed development and it was a nice way to start off the meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF BIG SIOUX TRAVEL PLAZA INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 22^ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 4401 32^ND AVENUE SOUTH. Achman reviewed the request and stated it was part of the Big Sioux Travel Plaza. The extended portion of the plat on the south side is being squared off to allow a truck wash and lube development for large trucks. There will be a crossover agreement with the Travel Plaza for access to the lot. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Change lot number to Lots D and E. 3. Include access control between Lot “D” and South 42^nd Street. 4. Private crossover agreement will be needed with Lot “D” for ingress/egress and connection to other utility services as the closest public connections are on 32^nd Avenue South. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF MARVIN OMLID, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MAGDALENE SUBDIVISION, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 150 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. Durrenberger reviewed the request by stating the purpose of the plat was to split the farmstead from the agricultural property. There have been some changes from preliminary review with added right-of-way and the plat is for the entire 40 acres. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the technical changes and conditions. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show access control along the south and east sides of Lot 2, Block 1. 3. Switch lot numbers on Lots 1 and 2. 4. Add a 10-foot utility easement along the south line of Lots 1 and 2 and along the east line of Lot 2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH, SMITH, NOLTING & ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF RED RIVER VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 26 AND 27, BLOCK 1, PROMENADE THIRD RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT NORTH 53^RD STREET AND 8^TH AVENUE NORTH. Durrenberger reviewed the request for a lot split in the North Congressional Subdivision (Promenade Third Resubdivision) to create four single family lots for Habitat for Humanity. By splitting the lots, the proposal is for two single family attached homes. Access would be on North 53^rd Street. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the technical changes and conditions. Questions on the lot split were answered by Durrenberger. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Remove building footprint and note from Lots C and D. 3. Extend existing crossover easement across Lots B and C and use the same description as on the original plat. 4. Correct bearing and distance along the south line of Lot D to match previously platted data. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ALLEN AND CAROLE EIDE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT H, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION OF THE REPLAT OF LOT E, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 3351 32^ND AVENUE SOUTH. Achman reviewed the replat request stating the property is located next to the Golden Corral and in front of the Kohl’s store. The property is to be split into two lots to allow for the development of two separate restaurants. Due to the agreement with Kohl’s and their visibility, the layout shows the proposed building to be located on the easternmost portion of the lot with the main parking spaces located on the western side and other parking located north and south of the building. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITION SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add curve number 3 and 4 to curve chart with data. 3. Include bearings with all line segments for the lot line common to Lots L and M. 4. The legal description in the owner’s consent and dedication should be the same as the plat title. 5. The signature line should read: The owner of Lot “H”. . . . . . . . MOTION CARRIED UNANINOUSLY. 3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN PLAINS DESIGN AND ALLEN AND CAROLE EIDE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL TO PERKINS 2^ND PUD, DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BUFFALO WILD WINGS AND SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT H, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION OF THE REPLAT OF LOT E, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT 3351 32^ND AVENUE SOUTH. THE APPEAL IS TO DELETE THE BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENT ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. Achman reviewed the appeal. The request was to delete the bufferyard along the eastern portion of the property line because of the way the buildings had to be situated on the lot. Instead of deleting the entire bufferyard, staff asked that a five foot bufferyard up to the drive through area of Subway be provided. The request also recognizes that the setback for the pavement would be less than five feet. Malm asked about the impervious area. Achman answered that the property is within the allotted impervious surface area. Malm asked about signage for the property. Are common signs allowed on 32^nd Avenue South? Gengler said the large scale development, similar to Target, does have one large common sign for other sites on the development. The one large main sign will allow the names of the businesses on it as well as one standard ground monument sign on site that identifies the two restaurants. Any building signs have to meet the certain criteria based on the size of the lot. Hutchison asked if there would be a problem with deleting a portion of the bufferyard next to the Golden Corral. Achman replied the Golden Corral’s bufferyard is much bigger than they needed so the deletion of a portion of bufferyard on the proposed site would not be apparent. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JAMES BRADSHAW, ON BEHALF OF LANDMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) IN AN I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY TO BE PLATTED AS LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, STRATA THIRD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT I-29 AND NORTH 48^TH STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES, PROCESSING OR STORAGE OF SAND, GRAVEL, STONE, RECYCLABLE MATERIAL OR OTHER RAW MATERIAL, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PRODUCTION. Gengler reviewed the request and stated there are three requests for the same property. There is a request for a conditional use permit (CUP), a request for annexation and also a plat request. The conditional use permit approval should include a contingency of the annexation and the plat approval. The Strata Company has purchased additional property (56 acres) to the north of their current location in order to expand their operation. The additional property purchased has been divided into three lots and the company wants to develop Lot 3 immediately and add to their existing operation for the purpose of construction facilities, processing or storage of sand, gravel, stone, recyclable material or other raw material, asphalt and concrete production. The conditional use permit would cover both Lots 2 and 3. Based on questions regarding the railroad tracks, Gengler stated that Strata owns the strip of prior railroad land and the railroad still has use of the tracks, but any crossings to the new property would be internal to their site. There were questions about bufferyard requirements on I-29. Gengler stated one of the requirements is the approval of the detailed development plan and the extension of their present bufferyard will be required to the north and west. Malm questioned the current bufferyard requirements. Gengler did not have the previous plan to show, but said it was probably a bufferyard “E”, a 15-20-foot planting schedule. Malm said he did not think the plan was followed and the property should be buffered from the interstate. Gengler stated any previous approvals would be reviewed and verified that it was followed. Lee opened the public hearing. Doug Herzog, CPS Ltd., said the trees are in the growing process and the mounds are being mowed. It is a very nice bufferyard along the interstate. He also verified that the crossing would be an internal one to all of the Strata property. The tracks are still being used by the railroad but now owned by Strata. He asked if the current conditional use permit had an expiration date. Gengler said he was unsure if there was an expiration date on the current CUP, but the recommendation for the proposed CUP is not to have an expiration date. However, the uses change or other modification are made, the CUP would have to be amended or adjusted. Mr. Herzog said after talks with the owner, Lot 1 should also be included in the conditional use permit. A detailed development plan, including the drainage plan, will be made for the entire area recently purchased. Gengler replied that Lot 1 could be added to the CUP but could not be utilized for any use until annexed to the city. Christensen asked why a conditional use permit is required? Gengler explained that the storage and use of the materials used by the Strata Company in the I-2 District could operate under a conditional use permit. It is a continuation of existing use under the permit. Christensen said it was not logical. Why not make it a permitted use? Gengler said it was stated in the code as a conditional use in the I-2 District and to make it a permitted use, the code would have to be amended. Mr. Herzog agreed that it should be a permitted use under the I-2 zoning. Gengler said he did not know why it was labeled as a conditional use many years ago but he pointed out that I-2 uses could be on Gateway Drive. It was probably addressed that way in the code to control the uses along various corridors. Dr. Hall said he remembered the first CUP for the Strata Company and it was based on the storage and use of asphalt. Other members agreed. Kreun agreed on the asphalt as being one of the main reasons for the conditional use permit. He also commended Mr. Herzog on submitting a detailed development plan and drainage plan for the entire area instead of in a piecemeal fashion. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GIVE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND TO INCLUDE ALL THREE LOTS IN THE PERMIT, CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AND PLAT: 1. Requires administrative approval of the detailed development plan, which must be in conformance with the utility plan in the area. Master utility plan to be included with the detailed development plan. 2. This CUP will run indefinitely but must be reviewed if the use on this property changes in the future. 3. Landscaping required for the southern portion of the property along I-29 be completed and extended to the north property line of the site. 4. Final approval of the CUP is contingent upon the annexation of Lot 3, Block 1, Strata 3^rd Addition and the recording of the Strata Third Addition plat. 5. Annexation schedule of Lots 1 and 2 – Year 2023 or when used for the operation, whichever occurs first. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-8. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JAMES BRADSHAW FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO BE PLATTED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, STRATA THIRD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2400 BLOCK OF NORTH 48^TH STREET. Gengler reviewed the request for annexation of Lot 3 and referred members to the draft ordinance passed out to them. Lot 3 is subject to immediate development and requested by the owner for annexation. Lot 2 is not being requested for annexation until 2023 or whenever the property is needed for use in the operation. Lot 1 is not included in any annexation plans at this time. The current operation for Strata Corporation was also a phased annexation and staff felt it was reasonable to accept a phased annexation for the proposed property. Lee asked if the draft ordinance would affect the annexation point rating system. Gengler answered that staff had not recalculated the point system based on the new ordinance, but reminded commission member that the annexation was a request from the owner. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. Christensen asked if future councils could decide to annex Lot 2. Gengler said his understanding is that future council could not negate an ordinance once it is adopted. John Drees said the city and rural homeowners have agreed to delayed annexations in different cases and those agreements have never been broken. Gengler said there were phased annexations in the Shadyridge area for Year 2014 and others on Gateway Drive where annexation was delayed because of delivery of water. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0301 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE SIGN REGULATIONS. Gengler reviewed the request stating that staff had met with the sign subcommittee and sign representatives on several occasions. Recently the Chamber of Commerce expressed interest in being involved with discussions on the ordinance and to help in getting information out to various businesses. Currently the city attorney is reviewing the ordinance and due to the chamber’s request to also review the ordinance, Gengler asked that it be tabled. Christensen said the council decided not to have a moratorium and his concern is the time it is taking to get the ordinance in place. Bismarck has a six-month moratorium in place as well as other cities in the state. The ordinance or a moratorium needs to be in place. He wanted to know what the chamber has to add to the ordinance. Gengler said the goal was to have it back before the commission at the September meeting. It gives staff a month to get input from the chamber and make any final changes. Kreun agreed with the tabling of the request. At the last meeting there were four or five sign company representatives in attendance as well as some businesses representatives. The sign companies have been a good source of information and want to work with the city to get a good ordinance. It would be good to have the business community buy into the ordinance as well and that could be done through the chamber. Kreun further stated it was important to educate the business community on the repercussions if the ordinance is not followed. Hutchison stated he was unsure that getting the business community on board with the ordinance could be done in one month. Christensen said his understanding was that the current sign owners have the ability to change the programming internally to meet the code and we decided against a moratorium. He does not want the ordinance delayed for any length of time. Gengler stated the intent of the ordinance does not have the ability to tell business owners that a new ordinance is in effect and they have to replace their sign. Kreun said business owners do not have to change to meet the programming capabilities but if the programming capabilities are in place, the city will request they make those changes. Gengler said if a business owner has the programming to set a two-second hold time, they would be expected to do so. Business owners with the sign capability to make some programming change to meet the code will be expected to play by the same rules as other businesses will have to do once the ordinance is approved. If they do not have the capability to do program changes, they will be grandfathered in. However, if business owners request a new sign, they will have to follow the new rules. Kreun noted that, according to the sign representatives, there are very few signs in the community that do not have the capability to make programming changes. Christensen said he did not want businesses to feel they had to make costly changes based on the ordinance. Kreun and other sign subcommittee members said that was not the intent of the ordinance. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY KREUN TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE REQUEST UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2008, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) 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 map of the Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision. A previous plat of the area was approved and never recorded. The current plat has been changed several times. He discussed the various issues that had been brought up at previous meetings. On July 7, 2008, the plat was reviewed by city council and the finding was that the developer obtains all signatures of all parties of the plat prior to this commission meeting. All parties to the plat have signed it. Gengler noted several changes such as reconfiguration of lots adjacent to Adams Drive. At one time there were seven or eight individual driveways accessing onto Adams Drive; now there are only five single-family lots that will access onto Adams Drive. Approval of the plat would recognize and approve a variance to the subdivision regulations to allow single-family access to a collector (level 5) roadway classification. Years before the flood when the city updated the functional classification maps, the original Adams Drive was designated a collector street. He noted the plat would go to the council on August 18, 2008 for their final review. Dr. Hall commended city staff and the developer in getting issues settled before it was brought back to the commission. Gengler commented that several of the technical changes had been made on the plat. One change not made is the street naming. Terrace View Drive and Terrace View Court need to have a name change; there is an existing Terrace Drive in the city, and for safety reasons, those names would have to change to negate any future confusion. Kreun asked about the concerns on right-of-way and the roadway. Gengler replied that every effort is being made to attempt to correct any errors made years ago when the roadway was staked. The roadway did not end up where the platted roadway showed it to be. Drainage plans, grading plans, etc. are still pending and have not been finalized through the engineer’s office. Gengler showed on the map where the roadway was built and where it should have been. Jerry Pribula, surveyor, said a backyard drainage plan and a master street and utility plan will be submitted. They will work closely with the existing homeowners to get their input in the plan and also with the city engineering department on the curb elevations. He noted the plat had been a struggle in order to obtain the necessary compromises. Everyone with an interest in the plat has signed it. Grasser said the project was bid out several years ago under the original alignment. When the property owners saw where the road would be, they were disappointed. A young engineer no longer with the city, spent a great deal of time with the neighborhood and tried to work out a right-of-way shift that would fit the right-of-way back to where the road sits today. The current plat works out what was worked out with the neighborhood. When the project is started, city engineer will once again work with the neighbors on it. He noted that whenever they work on a project of alignment or sidewalk placement in an existing neighborhood, they reserve the right to make minor adjustments to make sure things fit. What cannot be worked out on the right-of-way shifts will be adjusted in the design shifts. There will be adjustments and accommodations made when the actual design is made. Grasser said a grading plan has not been received and the master plan has not been approved. His request is that all plans are received in the engineering department before final approval by city council. Christensen said some homeowners have requested that Desiree Drive be constructed because of problems in the winter and in the spring. Can that be scheduled for 2009? Grasser said that was his assumption. The engineering department will check with the neighborhood to make sure that is what they want. The design work will be accomplished during the winter and bid it in January or February so the contractor can do it early. The paving and stormsewer will be constructed at the same time. The right-of-way fits with the concept plan previously done. However, he noted that paving is protestable so he could not guarantee it. Mr. Pribula noted there was a development agreement between the city and the developer. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one else to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Label utility easements between Lots 14-15, 22-23 and 27-28 as private. 3. Along Adams Drive, extend access control to include all of Lots 8 and 14, Block 2. 4. Plat requires street and highway ordinance. 5. Plat requires 8% park and open space dedication. 6. Submit backyard drainage plan. 7. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code 18-0907(L)(b) with regards to access onto Adams Drive. 8. Submit master utilities plan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-11. (PUBLIC HEARING) 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 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 rezoning for the Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision. For years, part of the area has been zoned R-3 which allowed for townhomes. All parties agreed to the rezoning from R-3 to R-1 which would only allow single-family residences. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-12. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA AG PARK II FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO CHAPTER XVIII, SECTION 18-0224, CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, 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 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST IN GRAND FORKS COUNTY. Brooks reviewed the request for an appeal to the corridor overlay district. The appeal was before the commission in June and since that time, there have been meetings with the Land Development Code Revision Committee as well as a representative from Brown Corporation. There were discussions on how to landscape the whole area and screen it from the two corridors that need to be protected and where design standards apply. It was decided to create a Corridor Overlay Design for the area and the design is the landscaping. They talked about five rows of trees through the area and actually decided on a shelterbelt design. That will flow from the bottom of the southeast corner of their property to the corner of Merrifield and 42^nd Street. Brooks referred to pictures in the packet that showed the various types of trees that would be utilized. One change made for their plan is to have two rows of evergreens based on the fact that when some of the trees lose their leaves, there is not much in the way of screening. The two rows of evergreen will be off-center from each other and be placed 10-12 feet apart. Once they are mature, there will be nice screening throughout the area. The total landscaping will be 50 feet wide. The Land Development Code Revision committee agreed to the plan. Brooks noted there was one area that would not be 50 feet wide and that is the reserved right-of-way for a future interchange section. The property is a good industrial warehousing property and will be important to the development of the city. Staff recommendation is for approval based on the design theme. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. Robert Drees directed his comment to Nick Brown. When approval was given to the building that was under construction was the same type and look that the other buildings were in the area. The building being built will have the same outside appearance but it does not look like the other buildings. Nick Brown said the one they built but not quite finished is a multi-unit building and another building currently under construction is also multi-unit. One building contains nine units and one has four units with varying sizes. Robert Drees said he was under the impression that the buildings would be the large steel warehousing structures similar to the others on site. When the stud walls went up, it was not anything like the other buildings. Mr. Brown stated they would be steel buildings with brick on the front. Brooks stated there was no discussion on what was holding up the walls but were concerned about the skin on the buildings and with the screening in place, the skin will not be very visible. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one else to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE APPEAL REQUEST AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 18-0224 RELATING TO CHANGES IN THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. Brooks reviewed the ordinance and said it was a follow-up to the previous discussion on the appeal. Staff is suggesting six changes based on feedback from the public and builders. The changes have been reviewed and approved by the Land Development Code Revision Committee. 1. The district would be reduced from 600 feet back from the right-of-way of the corridors to 400 feet. This distance is still over one city block in distance. 2. We’ve written a provision into the code allowing for areas to require design themes to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The process would follow as an appeal from the Corridor Overlay District Ordinance. 3. Buildings will be allowed to meet the Building Design criteria if they provide a mix of all the allowable materials to over 50%. The previous wording required one material to have over 50% of the building face. 4. Industrial buildings will not be required to meet the 20% glass requirement for the ground floor building facade. 5. The drainage pipe requirements have been removed. 6. Separate building setback requirements are now provided for commercial and industrial buildings. The goal was to no longer require a maximum distance setback for industrial buildings. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF LANDMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF STRATA THIRD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 2400 BLOCK OF NORTH 48^TH STREET. Durrenberger reviewed the plat request for the Strata Third Addition and stated it was currently zoned for industrial. This was discussed earlier for a conditional use permit and annexation of Lot 3. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval of the plat subject to the technical changes and conditions. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Plat requires street and highway ordinance 3. Plat requires annexation. 4. Expand North 48^th Street right-of-way to 50 feet of width on the east side of the quarter line. 5. Show access control along 27^th Avenue North and North 48^th Street (Level 5). 6. Include former BNSF Railroad right-of-way within the plat boundary as Strata now owns this strip. Label as a railway easement. Correct legal descriptions accordingly. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 5-1. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR REZONINGS AND OTHER PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS. Gengler said when the item was placed on the agenda, the agenda was much lighter. There was a discussion at a council meeting on public notification during the go-kart issue. He noted that staff has followed a certain policy for years on notification of rezonings. Now it is time to change some of the process. Staff will decide on some changes and bring the issue back to the commission at a later date. 5-2. MATTER OF THE UPDATE FROM TODD FELAND ON THE SITING OF A LANDFILL IN RYE TOWNSHIP. Todd Feland, Public Works Director, presented an update on the landfill. The current landfill permit has been extended to October 1, 2009 or at such time that the east-west runway under construction is completed. At the time of completion, the landfill must cease operation. The runway construction is set to be completed by November 1, 2008 and until the permit extension was granted, the close date for the existing landfill was set for October 1, 2008. However, if there is a delay on the runway construction, they will be able to continue the solid waste operations into the following year. They are making plans now to truck to the Gwinner landfill or Fargo landfill as a backup. He described and showed on a map the areas of the existing landfill that have already been closed. There is one area of the landfill still open for airspace. Feland pointed out the location of the baling facility and the inert landfill (construction/demolition material). After transition from the existing facility, the baling facility will continue to be used as the transfer point either to Rye 13 or to Gwinner. The inert landfill will continue to be used and there is 20 to 30 years of airspace left for that area. The existing municipal solid waste landfill will be used for non-bird attracting waste (organics). They are going to ask for a modification of the permit to be allowed to accept things that are not municipal solid waste related (ash and asbestos). As part of the change, they will implement the bale and bag system that will be started this month. The bagging will be necessary at the Rye Township site in order to meet the Board Mitigation Standard because they will be within five miles of the FAA Advisory Zone. They also want to be a good neighbor at the new site. Bagging will make for a neater, cleaner landfill. The city started the landfill siting course over a year ago and reviewed several different sites. There were several sites on the south end and some on the north end. The sites were submitted to the North Dakota Department of Health for pre-application. The city received pre-application for the four sites on the south end and parts of those on the north end. The city decided to look at the Rye 13 site. Landfills are a permitted use in the A-1 and A-2 Districts but that does not mean the city can do whatever they want on the land. There are standards they have to follow with the North Dakota Department of Health standards as well as their own standards they implement in order to be a good neighbor. The new site will have a 1,000 and 2,500-foot buffer. He talked about the five homeowners that live close to the new site. The city is now having appraisals for those properties for a buyout. The city has already accomplished some fieldwork with borings to measure ground water, but there are several tests and reports that must be accomplished with siting a landfill. Feland said they are on target with the timeline and plan to submit landfill permit application in September, 2008. The ND Department of Health has 120 days to review and by December, 2008, they hope to have members of the ND Department of Health visit Grand Forks and hold a public hearing regarding the permit. The goal is to have a landfill permit in January or February, 2009. If that happens, they will start construction in the summer of 2009 and operating in the fall. If they have to haul solid waste to another landfill, it will be very costly. The city will be in charge of the landfill and they will not sell it to waste management and they will not allow rail garbage from Chicago, New York or any other city. The city will own and operate the new facility for the immediate region and deal with people in a proper manner. The city continues to look for alternative sources. There was a proposed ethanol plant that was requesting to locate in the general vicinity and that was an opportunity to divert some of the landfill material. Feland said he plans to continue meeting with the township, county and city officials. The city of Grand Forks has several public facilities in Rye Township and in talks with the township officials they feel they have not received any tax revenue from the city or from the airport. Currently, they bring in $12,000 to $15,000 a year in township taxes and part of their negotiations will be talks on revenue issues for the township. Landfills will be a challenge for the United States in the future. They are dwindling in number but the municipal solid waste is going up. Feland indicated on a map the landfills for Fargo, West Fargo and Bismarck. He talked about the five specific issues to be discussed with the townships. The Rye 13 site will be a much better landfill for Grand Forks and the region. Feland offered thanks to the Brad Gengler and Ryan Brooks for their assistance in helping the landowners around the proposed landfill site. He noted there had been nothing but positive feedback from the landowners when they called or visited with planning staff on moving to other areas. Dr. Hall stated landfills have changed over the years. Instead of a large pit where materials are tossed in, there are liners or barriers that are used. Feland remarked there is a higher ground water table. There will be a double liner system and a much deeper buffer than exists at the current site. The goal of the landfill is to last a long time and to use it less and less each year. He talked about the roads for the landfill and the improvements needed for the township roads to the landfill. Feland also talked about the stormwater and drainage system for the landfill and the need to not create negative harm for people. Kreun remarked that people have been building homes and encroaching on the Bismarck landfill for years and continues even now so people appear to have little fear of being closer to a landfill. The proposed Grand Forks landfill will be even better than the one in Bismarck and should help to ease people’s fear of them. Lee spoke on the need for requiring people to recycle instead of making it optional. Feland responded that recycling was very important. The city has a curbside recycling program and is the only one in the state. Now there is co-mingle recycling where people can throw all recyclables into one container. The next big change is to use 90-gallon solid waste containers; one for recycling and one for solid waste. The big challenge is that the containers cost money. His hope is that by 2010 when the new facility is in full operation, they can work to create recycling methods that are easier, simpler and better. Robert Drees noted that people dump furniture and trash in the county ditches. Can township officials bring garbage collected from the ditches to the facility without a fee? The more garbage someone has, the more they have to pay to take it to the landfill so they just dump it in the county ditches. It becomes unsightly and unhealthy. Feland said that has already become an issue in the Rye Township. They were asked to define the area that would be the responsibility of the landfill. The city of Grand Forks is willing to do whatever they can but there has to be some reciprocation from the county. It is hard to speak to groups and people on the issue of the landfill and tell them how the city will help them and then the city receives nothing but negativity. The city of Grand Forks can get more things done for the region than anyone else; they have the equipment and the facilities to get things done. In trying to work with the county and the townships to make things better for the region, the city continues to get negative feedback. The city wants to partner with the county and the townships to work together for the common good for all the people in the region. Matejcek stated that $2,500 of the township budget was used to clean up the ditches in Falconer Township last year. He did not think letting the townships have free dumping is the answer. Once that is known there will be three times the trash and garbage in the ditches. If the landfill at Rye 13 is approved and rates are increased in the city for the landfill, there will be an even bigger problem of dumping in the ditches for townships. The answer to the problem is to catch people dumping and prosecute them with a severe fine. That will require a joint agreement with the sheriff and/or police to patrol the area. The dumping is not being done by the county residents; it is being done by people in the city who do not want to pay the landfill fees. Grasser remarked that Feland has been saying for years that the landfill must be kept as affordable as possible. The problem would be much greater if the city had to go to some of the exotic treatment processes or continue shipping to Gwinner. It becomes a regional issue to try and keep the waste disposal as close and inexpensive as possible. It becomes everybody’s best interests to support the landfill issue. Christensen said the county and the townships have to understand that the landfill issue is the “we” deal. The city, county and township officials should be going together to the state to tell them landfills are a “state issue.” The common goal of the county and the townships are to stop the landfill in the state legislature in January and that would be a tragedy for the entire region. It was the “me” thing that forced the city to do what they did for the 76% of the people that live within the city limits. He hoped this was the last regional landfill that has to be sited in the state and encouraged others to get the legislature to make landfills a state issue and where they are sited should be for the common good of the state. Matejcek said he would go to the state legislature with Christensen to see about making landfills a state issue, if Christensen would put a stop to the Rye 13 landfill. Christensen said if people had had a vision when the process was started 12 years ago, a regional landfill at that time might have been an option. It may not happen this legislative session but it will in four years if everyone works together. The city acted for the common good of all in the region. It will not help the state landfill issue if the county continues to fight them. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Gengler stated that Jack Wavra had been in talks with staff regarding the potential rezoning or re-use of the former Labelle’s/Best building. Jack Wavra, 673 High Plains Court, realtor with Greenberg Realty, stated he wanted to discuss the building at 2500 South Columbia Road. He referred members to a brochure he had passed out before the meeting. The property is zoned B-2/B-3 and he has a non-conforming use for the property. The land to the west of the property and owned by Art Greenberg has been for sale for 25 years. The back of the building at 2500 Columbia faces the Alerus bank. There is a ditch behind the building with trees so it is screened. There is a large parking lot in front with three or four small buildings to the west and two are vacant. There is currently a dollar store in 30,000 square feet of the building. Mr. Wavra said he is requesting the zoning change to allow LM Glasfiber warehouse space. LM Glasfiber is running out of space in the Industrial Park and they cannot acquire more land or buildings there because of the expense. The property needs work and they need the space and he is requesting the commission help to solve their problem. If they are allowed to use the building for a warehouse, they could clean up the space, paint it and take care of the landscaping. The company would have three to twelve trucks daily going to the site with one semi parked there permanently behind the buildings on the west end by the loading ramps. No one would know they were in there. He asked at the Batteries Plus store if they would mind a warehouse in the building across the street and the owner said it would not be a problem. Mr. Wavra also suggested the city consider giving LM Glasfiber a seven year permit to utilize the building as a warehouse and then it could revert back to retail. Gengler was asked if it would require a zoning change and he answered the building was in a PUD with B-2/B-3 uses. Any type of warehouse or industrial use should be located in the I-1 or I-2 Districts. Mr. Wavra stated that LM Glasfiber is not the only business that would like to utilize the building. There is not a 50,000 square foot building available in Grand Forks. When asked what they would store in the building, Mr. Wavra stated it would be the materials they use to make the windmills. Christensen asked why they don’t build a building if they need one. Mr. Wavra replied it costs too much. Christensen said someone’s growing problem suddenly becomes the city’s emergency. The commission cannot deal with this issue without considering how it will impact other businesses or people. Matejcek suggested LM Glasfiber talk to the owners of Brown Corporation who is in the business of building warehouse buildings. Mr. Wavra said they do not have a 50,000 square foot building and the cost of building a new building is too expensive. He requested that any consideration would be helpful. Kreun asked staff to research a conditional use permit for additional buildings such as garages, office type space, and guest homes within the four-mile area. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:03 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President