City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 5, 2004 17 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota May 5, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek, Sheryl Smith and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Tom Hagness. A quorum was present. Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Brad Gengler, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 7, 2004. Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of April 7, 2004. Grasser asked that a change be made on page 13, second paragraph from the bottom, second sentence. The sentence should state “He said he was not comfortable…” instead of “He said he was comfortable…” MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECONDED BY LEE TO APPROVE THE APRIL 7, 2004, PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES WITH THE CHANGE ON PAGE 13. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS: 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO SUN-BEAM PUD, DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK F, OF A REPLAT OF LOTS 13-17, BLOCK F OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 18 AND BLOCK 19, SUNBEAM ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 51, 55 AND 59 SLOPING HILLS COVE . THE APPEAL IS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE IMPERVIOUS AREA REQUIREMENT. Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the item had been on the agenda several months and had been tabled at the request of neighborhood residents. The plat of the properties, approved by the Commission in April, 2004, resulted from a flood control project. The dike behind the properties caused the properties to be shortened up and as a result, the lots do not meet the impervious surface area requirements for single family zoning. There were concerns by the neighborhood that the restrictive covenants were not being recognized. The covenants do not allow a reduction in lot size. At the April 7, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the item was tabled and it was recommended that the city attorney’s office and attorney for the neighborhood meet and discuss the issue. Durrenberger said both attorneys were present at the meeting. Staff recommendation was for approval of the variance. Malm opened the public hearing. Grant Shaft, attorney and representative for the neighborhood homeowners on Sloping Hills Cove, Inland Hills Court and Rolling Hills Circle appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The homeowners he represents reside within the district of the requested variance. Mr. Shaft presented a petition with 25 homeowners’ signatures who oppose the requested variance. He said in July, 2002, the city council adopted an amending ordinance with regard to property rights-of-way that were taken and the affect it would have on impervious areas. The ordinance was passed and provided some coverage to the city in the cases where property had been acquired for flood control purposes and the impervious area requirements of the code were being affected. The result was non-conforming lots. The ordinance basically stated that in the cases of public interest, i.e. flood takings, and the lot becomes non-conforming, the lot would be deemed conforming as long as the lot was within 75% of the prior restriction. Durrenberger answered that calculations were made by planning and engineering staffs and the reason for the variance request was that the lot was below that criterion. Mr. Shaft said the commission and city council addressed the issue of the sub-standard lots that were being created as to impervious area restrictions. It was determined that the 75% non-conformance was the acceptable point. The variance request was beyond what was deemed acceptable in 2002. Mr. Grant cited 18-0912 of the Land Development Code on variances. The neighborhood clients feel the variance is detrimental because the 75% variance was instituted. That was the line to follow but now the city is requesting an even greater variance on the lots than was deemed detrimental in 2002. The practical concern of the homeowners would be the devaluation of the homes in the area. The homeowners have been less than thrilled with the property being purchased by the city and renting the properties out until the city would be ready to sell them. The homeowners know the future plan is to sell the homes and lots. However, when a home is located on a postage-stamp size lot, the home would have a lower valuation in the resulting sale. The lower valuation would affect all the surrounding homeowners and their valuations. He said the line has been crossed since a determination was made in 2002, and further by granting the variance, the valuation of the surrounding properties would be lowered. Mr. Shaft passed out pictures of the properties being discussed and said they were taken by Mr. John Satrom. He discussed the issue of private restrictive covenants that have existed in the Sunbeam Addition since 1976 when the properties were originally developed. He agreed that the issue of the variance does not affect the private restrictive covenants. The restrictive covenants do not speak to a variance in impervious area requirements. However, the plat, although approved, has not been filed. The lot dimensions would change as a result of the replat. He recited several of the private restrictive covenants recorded as Document Number 347266 in Book 122, Miscellaneous Records, page 261 with the Grand Forks County Recorders Office. Mr. Shaft quoted paragraph E of the restrictions “No lot shall be made smaller in back or in frontage from the dimensions as platted but lots may be enlarged, combining with adjoining lots and not more than one residence shall be erected on each platted lot.” He stated the replat violates the restrictive covenants. The homeowners request the variance be denied based on the detriment to the existing homes in the surrounding area and the end result properties would have unmarketable title because it violates protective covenants. John Satrom, 58 Sloping Hills Cove, stated he lived across the street from some of the properties. He asked that the city take better care of their rental property. He said the lowered valuation on the homes purchased for flood control, would have a negative effect for the immediate area of other homes. Jeno asked Mr. Satrom the size of his lot. Mr. Satrom answered it was 90 feet in frontage and maybe 110 in depth. Jeno asked about the size of the lots the city purchased. Mr. Satrom stated the size varies. Potter read off the frontage for Lots E, F, G and H with the smallest being Lot E at 53 feet and the largest being 110 feet. Jeno said the size of the lot was not the question as far as detrimental value to surrounding properties. The size of the lots in question appear to be larger than Mr. Satrom’s property. Mr. Satrom said the property may be larger in square footage but would be less after the taking for the flood project. Loren Dusterhoff, 50 Sloping Hills Cove, stated he put his property up for sale in October and it still has not sold. He feels the reason for that was the condition of the homes in question. The homes are not being taken care of properly. Some homes have been removed from the area and removing the four homes in question does not seem excessive. He stated his property was appraised and he was not asking too much for the property but feels the condition of the four homes had something to do with it. John Warcup, assistant city attorney, stated the issue before the commission was for the variance. The issue on the replat has been approved by the commission. He said the private covenant quoted by Mr. Shaft was not enforceable by the planning commission and the commission was not subject to the terms and conditions of the covenant. The covenant does not refer to impervious surface area. The impervious surface area was made smaller than required by the code but the reasons for the impervious surface would be for proper drainage. The property, as platted, is going to remain as grass and would be pervious. The 75% ordinance referred by to Mr. Shaft does not refer to only flood takings. It is for anything. Mr Warcup noted there was no direct evidence shown that granting the variance would be detrimental to surrounding homeowners. Mr. Warcup stated the variance lots are similar in size or larger than the lots across the street, therefore the lots across the street are not detrimentally affected by the other lots decrease in size. Mr. Warcup said the variance should be approved by the commission. Grasser noted there were properties purchased by the city at the request of the property owners that did not need to be full takes. Mr. Warcup agreed by saying that the properties only needed to be partial takes and the full property was purchased at the request of the property owner. He also noted the properties in question purchased by the city were currently occupied by the original owners on a rental basis. Kerian asked what would happen to the properties owned by the city. Mr. Warcup replied that the intent was to sell the properties but he did not know when that would take place. Kreun said the properties would be sold when the dike was completed. The city does not want to buy property at a premium price and sell at a discounted price and then give compensation to the homeowner for any damage to the yard created by equipment working on the dike. Kweit said nothing has changed on the property except the slope behind the houses is now owned by city and the property is smaller in terms of the ownership of the parcel. Warcup said that was correct. Drees asked why the city as a landowner would not follow the same rules they make for other landowners. Mr. Warcup said he was not suggesting the city should not follow the same rules as other landowners. However, there have been numerous replats throughout Sunbeam and if Mr. Shaft’s take on the covenants is correct, none of the replats were permitted. Drees said the lots still become smaller. Mr. Warcup agreed that the lots in question are smaller, but that was not the issue before the commission. The replat is completed and approved. The issue before the commission is the variance. The property will remain as grass and will be pervious allowing water drainage. Hutchison asked about the 75% rule for the city. Potter answered there were properties purchased for the dike protection and ended up with a smaller parcel. Hutchison asked if the 75% was already a variance. Mr. Warcup said no and explained that if the lot met 75% of the setback or area requirement, no variance is required. Durrenberger explained that in an R-1 District the lot coverage was 35%, but if a single family home is built in an R-2 District, the lot coverage could be 40%. Loren Dusterhoff stated that one of the homes had not been lived in for 20 months and is not being kept up. He noted the city paid upwards of $300,000 for some of the homes and he did not understand how the city would get the money back. People would not buy the property with a dike in the backyard. Further discussions continued on the restrictive covenants and impervious surface. Malm closed the public hearing. MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY JENO TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. Malm stated he was in doubt of the voice vote and asked for a roll call vote. VOTING AYE: SMITH, MALM, KWEIT, KREUN, KERIAN, JENO, HALL AND GRASSER. VOTING NAY: WHITCOMB, MATEJCEK, LEE, HUTCHISON AND DREES. MOTION CARRIED 8-5. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JERRY PRIBULA, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS COUNTY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF FAIRGROUNDS THIRD RESUBDIVISION BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4 OF A REPLAT OF BLOCK 4, FAIRGROUNDS SUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 81, NORTH COLUMBIA ROAD AND GATEWAY DRIVE. Durrenberger reviewed the request. He stated commission members received a different plan at the April, 2004 meeting. At the end of the presentation on the issue at the April 7th, 2004 meeting, the consulting engineer presented a proposed new plan for the area and that revised plan was before the commission members for final approval. The revised plan indicates removal of public streets and has them listed as easements for access and utilities. One access onto Highway 81 was also eliminated. The county is replatting the property to sell. Staff recommendation was for final approval. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add delta or interior symbol in curve data on both C-1 & C-2. 3. Add shading to building/structure box in legend to match drawing. 4. Label southwest corner of Section 33. 5. As sufficient space exists, show lot square footage and acreage on drawing under lot number. 6. Locate and dimension two existing driveway access locations onto Columbia Road. Show access control line along the remainder. 7. Label Lot 2, Block 4 as Fairgrounds Subdivision. 8. Submit covenants as necessary to address utility lines common to multiple lots. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BOBBI HEPPER-OLSON, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 22 THROUGH 27, BLOCK 2 OF PROMENADE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 5300-5400 BLOCK OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 2, ZONING; SECTION 18-0204 (2) DEFINITION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION – LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO FIVE. Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the City Housing Authority was replatting an area of the Promenade First Addition. The Housing Authority has an interested buyer for the property and the lot lines needed to be relocated. In order to expedite the process, they requested a fast track replat. However, the code limits a fast track to five lots. There are more than five lots so the approval of the replat also includes a variance for exceeding the five lots. The area would be developed as twinhomes and also was a designated district for affordable housing. Durrenberger stated the next item on the agenda would be for a reduction in the lot size. The design shown would be contingent on the variance because the lots do not meet the required zoning area for twinhomes. Staff recommendation was for approval of the replat and the variance. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST AND THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITION: 1. Submit title opinion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BOBBI HEPPER-OLSON, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE PROMENADE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NORTH CONGRESSIONAL PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PROMENADE FIRST ADDITION, LOTS 22 THROUGH 27, BLOCK 2, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WEST OF NORTH 53RD STREET AND NORTH OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH. THE APPEAL IS FOR VARIANCES TO DECREASE BUILDING SETBACKS, INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS, AND REDUCE LOT SIZES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWINHOMES. Gengler reviewed the request stating the appeal is based on the detailed development plan (site plan) that goes along with the replat addressed in the previous item. He said there was a three-part variance scenario to the variances. The first variance would be a reduction in the maximum allowable impervious surface area. The area was a PUD with R-3 type uses with a 45% maximum allowable impervious surface area. The range goes from 33% to 44%, however, staff recommended an increase to 48%. He said the reason for establishing a maximum of 48% was that once the property was sold and the owner wanted to construct a sidewalk that would extend from the rear of the house to the garage, it would eliminate the need for the owner to request another one or two percent variance. Gengler said the standard minimum lot size for a townhome was 3500 square feet and the request was to reduce it to 3410 square feet to accommodate the townhome structures. Gengler stated staff supported the request. The third part of the request involves the rear yard. The detached garage would be located in the rear and adjacent to a 25-foot platted alley. The standard zoning regulations set a minimum of 20-foot setback from the alley to the garage. The request was to reduce the minimum 20-foot setback to 18-feet. Gengler stated staff did not support that recommendation. Gengler stated he had conversations with engineering and was told the alley would not be paved at the full 25-feet width. With a minimum of 20-foot setback, there would be unpaved areas on both sides. Gengler noted that Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, had a concern about the front yard setback. He showed the site plan noting that the main structures of the buildings would be set at 21 feet. There is a six foot porch that encroaches into the overall 21 feet. If there is a detached rear-load garage, the zoning regulations allow a reduction of no more than 20 feet for a front yard setback. He noted the concern was determining what the porch actually was. An unenclosed porch allows the owner to extend into the required front yard up to six feet. If the porch were considered enclosed, it would be considered part of the main building. He suggested approval of 15 feet for a front yard setback regardless of whether it was enclosed or unenclosed. Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, said to avoid confusion in the future, it could be stated that the rest of the structure could not be set out to the 15 feet. That would eliminate someone putting on an addition to the front of the structure in years to come. Gengler recapped by stating the request: 1) Approval from 45% to 48% for maximum allowable impervious surface area; 2) Decrease the 3500 square foot minimum to 3410; 3) Reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet (not recommended by staff); 4) Allow a front yard setback for the porch at 15 feet, to include steps. Grasser asked about steps. Terry Hansen, Director of the Housing Authority, answered there were steps in front. He suggested the structures be pushed back so that the front steps are off the 15 foot front yard setback. Grasser asked if the 15 feet should include the porch and steps, otherwise the steps would be in the easement. He stated that utility companies are being encouraged to be on the outside edges of the easement so they do not conflict with the heavy underground construction. Grasser stated he would prefer not to have any encroachments in the easements. Hutchison asked the approximate price of the townhomes. Terry Hansen answered the individual units would be on the market for under $100,000. The units would be 24’x28’ and would not include a garage but there would be space available for a garage if one was wanted. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. Collings said she wanted to clarify that the steps not be considered part of the structure. There could be substantial steps added to the structures. She was unsure if the structures would fit if the steps are included as part of the structure. Terry Hansen said the structures would be pushed back and he was confident that the structures or steps would not encroach into the easement area, especially since the commission was allowing the 18-foot rear yard setback. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE 48% FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, REDUCE THE LOT SIZE FROM 3500 SQUARE FEET TO 3410 SQUARE FEET, REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 18 FEET, AND TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, FOR FINAL (FAST TRACK) APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 3, DEACON’S GARDEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT COLUMBIA ROAD AND 62ND AVENUE SOUTH. Gengler reviewed the request. He stated the six Winter Garden Townhomes (three buildings) presently located on the old Elks property on Belmont Road would be relocated to the Deacon’s Garden Addition. The replat is to modify the existing townhome lots in order to accommodate the units. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Label west and south one-quarter corners of Section 28. 3. Add access control line along 62nd Avenue South. 4. Add monuments set at common lot lines. 5. Label 10-foot utility easement on east end of Lot G, Block 3. 6. Add square footage on Lots A-F. 7. Check square footage of Lot G. 8. Correct scale is 1” = 40’. 9. Show platted lands as 50 feet north of section line. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 37 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 55TH AVENUE SOUTH AND CHESTNUT STREET. There was a request received in the Planning Department to table the issue until the June Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY LEE TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JON RAMSEY, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE K. ADAMS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADY RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADY RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF SHADY RIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE THIRD ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES FOURTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADY RIDGE COURT. Gengler reviewed the request stating it was denied by the Commission in April but was given preliminary approval by the City Council and returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval. The request is to rezone from R-1 Single Family to R-1 Single Family, attached condominiums. There is a vacation and a replat of the property that follows. Gengler said there were property ownership issues earlier in the process but that has been clarified. All of the platted Lots 1-8 are under one ownership. Drees said one of the reasons for denial was the sanitary sewer problems and the lack of area for a drain field. Eventually there would be a city sewer in the area but now was not the right time. Kreun said there had been much discussion on the issue. One of the additions in the same area was already annexed into the city and would require 70% of all voters in the community to de-annex. He said there was an area planned to be annexed to the city in 2014 and that area could not be de-annexed. Instead of having islands in the area that would not be serviced, the city would develop a city sewer system and water system up to 62nd Avenue South. All the homes in those areas would have complete city sewer and water services. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. Lee asked about the term single family attached. Gengler said that was the request of the applicant to construct single family dwellings that are attached, otherwise known as a townhome or duplex. The current zoning only allows one single family attached structure. Gengler noted that the concept development plan will restrict the number of housing units within Shady Ridge 5th Resubdivision to 14 units. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT REZONING SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Provide the full legal description for the entire PUD. See review copy. 2. Show approval dates and ordinance numbers. See review copy. 3. Show all current plats/replats in Shady Ridge Estates PUD and the general area. 4. Update and show the data table from the original Concept Development Plan. See review copy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-8. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE THE 25-FOOT STORM SEWER EASEMENT 12-1/2 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1,SHADY RIDGE ESTATES FIFTH RESUBDIVISION. Gengler reviewed the vacation request and said the staff recommendation was to approve the vacation request. Malm asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. There was no one to speak. MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY LEE TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF SHADY RIDGE FIFTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADY RIDGE COURT. Gengler reviewed the request and said the property was being replatted to allow the construction of the 12 condo lots discussed under Item 3-7. He also showed a conceptual drawing of the proposed plan. MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show areas to be vacated on drawing and include document number in legend. 3. Delineate area that has been removed from the floodplain on the drawing and include the legal description with the general notes. 4. Show contour line on drawing for 100-year flood elevation of 833.90 feet. 5. Add additional 15-foot sewer easement along Shadyridge Court (north line of Lots B&C). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BOBBIE HEPPER-OLSON, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS HOUSING AUTHORITY, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF PROMENADE SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED BETWEEN 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND BETWEEN NORTH 53RD STREET AND NORTH 55TH STREET. Potter reviewed the request stating the replat had two parts. He stated there was not a valid plat submission prior to sending out the agenda packet. Since then, there have been discussions among all parties and a preliminary plat drawing was submitted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004. Staff recommendation was to grant preliminary approval to the replat of Promenade Second Resubdivision. Potter said the development was very large and was one of the designated affordable housing districts. There would have to be a series of variances granted but that would be necessary to achieve one of the goals of the city regard to affordable housing. The development would be the lowest end of the affordable housing areas. Terry Hansen, Director of the Housing Authority, presented the preliminary concept of the development. The City Council approved Promenade last year as one of three affordable housing developments in the city. The property is owned by the Grand Forks Housing Authority and the homes in the development would provide entry level housing. The cost would be approximately $85,000 to $115,000 and would provide homes for below median income. Mr. Hansen said that Phase I would involve putting in the infrastructure on 8th Avenue North and Promenade Court. Constructing the street this building season is doubtful but housing construction would begin this year as they have access through the alley that would be installed to the single family area as well as the multi-family area. The multi-family area would be townhomes and would be owner-occupied. There are only two places in the area that would have driveways off the street. The homes are single family with rear loaded detached garage coming off the alley. He showed the twinhomes area with detached garage that would be off 53rd Street. In the center of the lots would be five-unit townhomes and the property line would run down the middle of the common wall. Some of the homes would be three stories with the garage located underneath. The homes in the area would typically be two story homes with a basement as an option. The garage would also be optional. Some of the homes would be slab homes. Mr. Hansen stated it was very hard to make an entry level home and can only be done by being subsidized by the federal government. In exchange for the federal dollars, the housing authority would assure that 51% of the homes would be sold to families at 80% or less of the area median income. One of the requirements of the affordable housing district would be that 75% of the homes be at price points of $132,000. The Housing Authority proposes to sell most of the units at price points of under $120,000 and many of them being sold for $85,000. With other incentives and programs the city offers, the Housing Authority would be able to put families in the homes with a first mortgage of approximately $78,000. That is a very achievable cost for a low-income family. When the 51% is reached, 49% does not have to be low-income owners but because it is an affordable housing district, they have to stay under $130,000 for 75% of the homes. Mr. Hansen said they would do that. He noted that someone could finish out a home and make it a high-end home on one of the lots and that cannot be stopped once the development is built; however, they can control the development to keep the design. There are five footprints of a home that can be utilized in the development. Mr. Hansen passed out a document to commission members explaining the concept of affordable homes. He explained that the Richards West area at one time was a low and moderate income (LMI) area but that was no longer the case. There is no longer an LMI area west of the interstate. Mr. Hansen said the PUD would be presented to the commission at a later date and along with that would be a request for various variances. Under a PUD zoning, variances are allowed and the variances would help to make the affordable housing work. Malm asked how to prevent people from building on the lots because of the variances and then selling the units. Mr. Hansen said the development would be under the Housing Authority. They will contract the work and they will be the developer of the initial units. The Housing Authority would like to find a developer to be a partner with them to build what has been designed. He stated it was the intent of the Housing Authority to keep the area as entry level affordable housing. They do not want to compete with other developers in the community. Grasser said there had been many staff discussions on the issue. They resolved some of the difficult issues and compromised on others. He stated this was a workable product. He would not support this except in the very unique affordable housing area. Kreun said that 89% of the units built in the other two districts designated as affordable housing have shown to be in compliance of the regulations put into place. The Promenade area would be a true affordable housing area. The other two would be the next step up. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add “being a replat of Lots 1-21, Block 2 and Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Promenade First Addition” to the plat title. 3. Include bearings and distances on plat boundary. 4. Add alley vacation for Block 2. 5. Plat requires street and highway ordinance for new alley in Block 2. 6. Label all easements. 7. Include bearings on all lines. 8. Show square footages on all lands replatted. 9. Label North 55th Street as a collector and show access control. 10. Show all monuments found and set. 11. Lots 22-27 south of Block 1 should reflect current replat. 12. Include all curve data. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SCOTT STAUSS, ON BEHALF OF HAMPTON CORPORATION, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE PERKINS THIRD PUD, AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE PERKINS THIRD PUD, CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, LOTS 26-33, BLOCK 2 OF PERKINS FOURTH ADDITION AND ADJACENT VACATED PINE CIRCLE THERETO, AND ALL OF PERKINS EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3000 BLOCK OF 40TH AVENUE SOUTH. Durrenberger reviewed the rezoning request. Initially the request was to replat Pine Circle (vacated last month by the Commission) from single family lots while the new development proposes duplex units with an increase in density. To provide access to the townhomes, a private roadway (and utilities) replaces Pine Circle. In reviewing the request, staff discovered the townhomes previously built (Perkins 8th) had an incorrect zoning. Staff included Perkins 8th Resubdivision and Perkins 4th (currently being replatted at Perkins 10th) in the rezoning request. MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Remove metes and bounds legal description if all of Perkins 3rd is platted. Change legal description to Perkins Eighth Resubdivision and Perkins Fourth Addition, Block 2 (to be replatted as Perkins Tenth Resubdivision). 2. In legend change “boundary Perkins Tenth Resubdivision” to Perkins Fourth Addition, Block 2 (to be replatted as Perkins Tenth Resubdivision). 3. In Land Use Summary Table include original areas from Amendment No. 2 and re-label R-4 Type Uses as Amendment No. 3 and revised B-1 Type Uses as Amendment No. 3. 4. Check figures for B-3 Type Uses as Amendment No. 3 has no change in the B-3. Also check acreage of rights-of-way as the vacation of Pine Circle reduces the amount of dedicated right-of-way. 5. Add the following general notes: a. Future lot and block designations shall conform to sub area numbers when practical. b. Final approval of a planned unit development (PUD) project – As per Grand Forks City Code Section 18-0223. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SCOTT STAUSS, ON BEHALF OF HAMPTON CORPORATION, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF PERKINS TENTH RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 26-33, BLOCK 2, PERKINS FOURTH ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3000 BLOCK OF 40TH AVENUE SOUTH. Durrenberger reviewed the replat request, stating it was the replat for the previously vacated Pine Circle. The proposed replat would re-subdivide Pine Circle to create lots for townhomes. Staff recommendation was to grant preliminary approval. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add the words “and easements” to the title and owners consent. 3. Label 40th Avenue South as a collector. 4. Dimension access control lines to a width of 40 feet. 5. Add document numbers for vacated lands. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-5. MATTER OF REQUEST FROM RICK TONDER, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR A FINDING OF A FITTING AND COMPATIBLE USE WHICH ALLOWS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ACCESSORY USES RELATED THERETO IN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT. Potter explained that Dr. Sheridan’s genetic corn research site was currently located on the Bronson property. The University of North Dakota now desires to have non-research development on the Bronson property and relocate the research site to leased land located in the northwest quadrant of University Avenue and North 55th Street. To facilitate the relocation, the Commission was being asked to determine a “fitting and compatible use” for the UND Agricultural Crop Research and Research Associated Structures in the B-3 designated area. When the research work is ended, the fitting and compatible use determination would be removed. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request. MOTION BY KWEIT AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT A FINDING OF “FITTING AND COMPATIBLE USE” WHICH ALLOWS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ACCESSORY USES RELATED THERE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED WITH DREES ABSTANING AND MATEJCEK VOTING NAY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 5-1. MATTER OF PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR 2005. Potter reviewed the planning department budget for 2005. He noted it was basically a hold-the-line budget. The difference from the 2004 budget would be $13,969.00. Salaries and benefits account for the majority of the increase with the department operations request totaling $3,296.00. Matejcek asked if the planning department had a car and Potter answered yes. MOTION BY HALL AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO APPROVE THE BUDGET REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Malm gave a few comments about the American Planning Association trip to Washington, DC. He reported the training emphasized that Planning and Zoning Commission should look at and react to Economic Development Plans, the Historical Preservation Plans, and the Capital Improvement Plans in order to do their job properly. 7. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION BY LEE AND SECOND BY KREUN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.