Print VersionStay Informed
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
February 1, 2006

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Sheryl Smith and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Tom Hagness. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, Interim Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning); Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the GF-EGF MPO and Julie Romig, Senior Planner for the GF-EGF MPO, Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator. Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 4, 2006.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of
January 4, 2006. There were no corrections or additions noted and Lee
declared the minutes approved as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF PROMENADE THIRD RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 18, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4, PROMENADE FIRST ADDITION, LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH AVENUE NORTH EAST OF NORTH 55TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request, stating final approval was being sought for the north half of the city’s affordable housing district. Urban Development wishes to expand the housing area into townhomes and twin homes. There is also a request for variance of the subdivision regulations that limits the minimum size lot by 25 feet. Some have already been reduced to 18 feet for the five-unit townhomes. Staff recommends final approval of the plat and approval of the variance subject to the special conditions as shown on the review copy.

Lee asked if there were any questions from commission members. There were none. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AND VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add a 20-foot utility easement, 10-feet on either side of the line between Lots 25 and 26 of Block 2.
3. Add a 10-foot sanitary sewer crossover easement across Lot 26, Block1 for the benefit of Lot 27, Block 1.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (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 TO INCLUDE ALL OF BLOCKS 1 AND 2, PROMENADE SECOND RESUBDIVISION AND ALL OF BLOCKS 1 AND 2, PROMENADE THIRD RESUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH 53RD STREET AND NORTH 55th STREET, NORTH OF AND SOUTH OF 8TH AVENUE NORTH. THE APPEAL IS FOR VARIANCES TO DECREASE BUILDING SETBACKS, INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS, ALLOW FRONT YARD PARKING AND STACKED PARKING, PROVIDE CONTINUOUS DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES, AND TO REDUCE LOT SIZES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSES.

Durrenberger said this item was a companion item to the previous item. He presented the detailed development plan, located north of 8th Avenue and said it would complete the buildout of the city’s affordable housing district. He indicated on the map the various types of homes planned for the area such as twinhomes and townhouses along 55th Street. There are variances requested and these differ from those requested when the first phase was submitted. The development is restricted on access of North 55th Street due to the functional classification of the street so one of the variances is to allow front yard parking. There is a variance request to allow townhomes to be located along North 55th Street to extend southward into the first phase of the Promenade development. There is also a variance request to allow a maximum impervious surface area of 56%. Durrenberger said it was a PUD (planned unit development) with R-3 type uses and the normal maximum impervious surface would be 40%. He noted that 56% was slightly higher than what would be allowed with an R-4 zoning. It is not a variance request for the entire area. The request would only apply to the individual townhouses on the west side of the development. Staff recommends final approval of the plat and various variances.

Lee asked if commission members had questions regarding the plat and/or variances. There was no response. Lee opened the public hearing.

Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, wanted to make certain the variance only applied to a specific number of the townhouses. She becomes concerned when it is a blanket 56%. If it is per property, it can be regulated but a blanket variance is very difficult to regulate.

Durrenberger said the 56% imperious variance was per lot townhouses on the west side of the development.

Collings asked if there was a variance for the front of the garage door and Durrenberger answered yes. He said there was a request for a variance from the required 20-foot setback on front yard garages to a reduction of 18-feet. The same request was made for phase 1.

Kerian stated the city just passed an ordinance that requires one parking space per bedroom and that was citywide. Durrenberger replied that was for rental units. The dwellings in Promenade are individually platted lots with common walls. Kerian also noted the 56% variance for impervious surface had previously been granted for other areas in the development.

Lee asked what the reaction would be of people when they observed neighbors who had parking pads or higher impervious surface? What is the distinction? Durrenberger said the design is as shown on the detailed development plan. Others would have to seek a variance if they were not approved for the higher impervious surface. City inspectors rely on the site plan when they inspect properties and that includes the impervious surface.

Lee asked if there were any other comments from the audience. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

Malm stated that several months were recently spent changing the zoning on a piece of property and now there are exceptions to the rules. People are going to be upset that some neighbors can park on the lawn and others cannot. Durrenberger said if people were parking on the lawn, the enforcement department would take care of that. Parking on the lawn is prohibited. Malm noted that people would sell a unit and not pass along any of the rules to the new owner.

Hutchison said he assumed the variances were to make the housing more affordable. What is now considered affordable? What are the prices of the homes in Promenade?

Bobbi Hepper-Olson, Hepper-Olson Architects, stated the row houses start at $86,900 and there are units available at $88,900.00. The goal is to stay below the $135,000 mark for a single-family home.

Hutchison asked if that price could be met without the variances? Ms. Hepper said no.

Dr. Kweit asked if the police would know which homes will allow the residents to park in the front and he questioned the stacking of cars. Durrenberger explained the parking spaces would be in front of the units. People have gotten variances from the Board of Adjustments in the past to allow parking in front of the garage. Normally, this is not allowed for multiple-family areas because there are designated parking stalls, but there is precedent for the standard zoning to allow parking in front of the garage.

Dr. Kweit said it may appear haphazard to others and wonders how it will be dealt with in a rational manner.

Ms. Hepper-Olson stated there are six-inch curbs in front and most of the parking is in the rear for the center units. The rear parking is accessible through alleys. There will not be front yard parking in the whole development. The parking for the townhouses is off 53rd Street and not off Thames or Promenade Courts. A portion of the development does not include rear access to the lots so the only way to have parking is to allow it in front of the unit. The front yard parking is only intended for the units that have understall garages. That will allow one parking space inside the unit and two park spaces outside the unit. These units are all in a row and have curb cuts so those dwellings are distinguishable from the others.

Kreun said the question and discussion is about garages and allowing parking in the driveway.

Malm asked how many parking spaces are allowed per unit without street parking? Ms. Hepper-Olson answered that a two-bedroom duplex would include the garage and one parking space for a total of two parking spaces. A three-bedroom would include four parking spaces if cars were parked in tandem.

Malm asked the commission members if they were satisfied with two parking spaces in an area with low-income housing and families with children who will have vehicles. When someone sees their neighbor parking on the front yard, they will question why they cannot do that too.

Kreun explained the parking would be on the driveway; there is no parking on the front yard. The variance allows an approach to the driveway and will permit parking in front of the structure.

Malm said No. 6 on the appeal list shows front yard parking on certain lots and does not indicate driveway parking.

Durrenberger was asked to define front yard. He said front yard refers to the impervious surface that can be utilized for parking.

Kreun suggested changing the wording to reflect “driveway” instead of the term ”front yard.”

Lee asked if the driveway leading to the garage is considered part of the front yard. Durrenberger answered yes. Lee said she also thought the front yard meant grass as well as many of the other commission members.

Ms. Hepper-Olson told commission members the lots are not accessible any other way. If the homeowner is not allowed the variance for parking in the “front yard” (or driveway), they have no parking except for the street.

Lee said she could see a potential problem, but the city is dedicated to providing affordable housing and they are willing to try this avenue to see what will happen.

Kreun asked if the variance was requested for the previous development and Durrenberger said yes.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO APPROVE THE APPEAL FOR VARIANCES AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BALTIC FIRST RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT 202 NORTH THIRD STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the property was the Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce building. The city has purchased a portion of the property for flood protection and the replat is to relocate the property lines. No right-of-way is involved in the replat and staff’s recommendation is to approve the replat subject to special conditions.

Kerian asked if the building would continue to be there and Durrenberger answered yes. Only the property line would change.

Lee asked if there were further questions from the commission members. There were none. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Change 3rd Avenue North to University Avenue.
3. Include 40-foot wide utility and bikeway easement as shown on previous platting and dimension to nearest lot corner.
4. Verify accuracy of the distance 156.60 on the north line of plat.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE AND REZONE FROM SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SOUTHERN ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 6, ALL OF COLUMBIA PARK 24TH AND 26TH ADDITIONS, COLUMBIA PARK 29TH RESUBDIVISION, ALL OF SOUTHERN ESTATES FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LOCATED EAST OF COLUMBIA ROAD, BETWEEN 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the Southern Estates area continues to grow and will eventually be completed. The request shows little change other than restructuring of the existing proposed roadway network. Originally there was a drainway crossing proposed at South 26th Street; that has been shifted to the east to be more in line with South 25th Street and 47th Avenue South. The subsequent item is the plat for the area. Staff recommendation was for approval of the Planned Unit Development.

Lee asked if there were further questions from the commission members. There were none. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Show the current proposed configuration of Southern Estates Addition, without the vacation.
2. The final Concept Development Plan, as submitted, generally conforms to the Land Development Code. The drawing is subject to final review and approval by staff prior to final approval by the City Council.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SOUTHERN ESTATES 5TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 20TH STREET, SOUTH OF THE DRAINWAY AND NORTH OF 43RD AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating it was the third time to be presented to the commission members. Originally the plat was submitted as an affordable housing district; then it was submitted with variances as a standard subdivision. That plat received final approval by city council but the plat was not recorded. The developer decided to make minor changes to the plat and, as submitted, will allow it to connect to other areas within the Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff recommendation is for final approval.

Kerian asked about the street naming. Gengler said the plat shows a street named 41-1/2 Avenue South. The city’s database will not recognize one-half and cannot be entered as a .5 or a fraction. The new avenue falls between the alignment of 41st and 42nd Avenue South so the developer will have to name it.

Kerian asked about the turnarounds. Gengler stated the property immediately west of the plat property is unplatted and the city requires a temporary cul-de-sac to be installed until the next plat opens up the existing roadway. The temporary cul-de-sacs are necessary for fire trucks and other large vehicles to be able to turn around.

Kreun asked if the plat had to go before city council again since it was given approval before. Gengler stated reconsideration of a plat could be used if it had been approved one month before. However, this plat was approved in November, 2005 and had to be processed as a starting item.

Lee asked about the variances on the list of special conditions. Gengler said the subdivision regulations require a minimum of 80-feet of right-of-way per street. Under a former approval and based on the affordable housing district regulations, planning and zoning commission and city council approved the variance of 70-feet right-of-way for streets in the area. However, with the 70-feet variance, the developer had to allow 15-foot utility easements, which is also part of the affordable housing district regulations adopted by the city. That was a compromise on the development.

Lee asked if any motion to approve would automatically include the variance. Gengler said yes.

Kerian asked if the compromise was only for this development or were other developers allowed to utilize it? Gengler replied the 70-foot variance for streets was clearly part of the affordable housing program. The first submittal of the plat as an affordable housing development was denied, but the 70-foot variance was negotiated with the developer to allow it. The variance is based on a case by case basis. Any subsequent new plats for property must have the 80-foot right-of-way unless the developer can prove a need for less.

Lee asked if there were further questions from commission members. There were none.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE PLAT AND VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINT SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Provide backyard drainage plan.
3. Name street between 41st Avenue South and 42nd Avenue South.
4. Show 25-foot permanent slope easement along the southend drainway.
5. Plat approval recognizes a variances to the subdivision regulations 18-0907(2)(I) relating to right-of-way widths for local streets.
6. In the planning and zoning commission approval, show Paula H. Lee and Lyle A. Hall as president and secretary, respectively.
7. Remove Note. No. 2.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 18-0217-B-4 (CENTRAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (2) USES PERMITTED; SECTION 18-0216-B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, SUBSECTIONS (3) CONDITIONAL USES AND (11) SPECIAL CONDITIONS; SECTION 18-0218-I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES; AND SECTION 18-0219-I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES, ALL RELATING TO INDOOR SHOOTING GALLERIES AND RANGES.

Gengler reviewed the issue, stating the concept of indoor shooting ranges has some history in Grand Forks during the 1980s. Currently the Land Development Code only allows them as a conditional use in the downtown. The interested party (Mr. Thacker) is in the process of developing one and provided background information on indoor shooting ranges. Staff and the interested party felt that allowing them in the downtown was inappropriate. The ordinance removes the ability to have them in the downtown but allows them, through conditional use, in the I-1 and I-2 Districts. Gengler felt the commission should also consider allowing them in the B-3 District. The conditions for indoor shooting ranges included in the packet are the same as those approved for the downtown in 1988. Gengler stated that Mr. Thacker and his partner provided a summary of recent NRA regulations and after reviewing them, the conditions are fairly close to those approved years ago. However, further review by staff and the city attorney needs to be done before final approval of the ordinance such as length of permit, expiration issues, revocation issues, etc.

Lee asked if the section 21-2501 on shooting ranges included in the packet was part of the city’s code? Gengler stated when the commission and city council adopted the ordinance that allowed a conditional use in 1988, the city council also adopted a formal licensing process for shooting ranges. The licensing process adopted is very detailed and applicants would be subject to the provisions as noted.

Matejcek asked if staff felt shooting ranges should be included in the I-1, I-2 and B-3. Gengler said staff feels it should be restricted from the B-4, allowed within the I-1 and I-2 and considered for the B-3. Nationwide, shooting ranges are considered a destination type amenity and depending on the commercial area, it is feasible that shooting ranges could be included in B-3 areas.

Lee said she felt the commission should decide on the B-4 District first, then discuss the I-1 and I-2 District and finally discuss whether or not shooting ranges belong in the B-3 District.

Kreun said the police department has an indoor range and they are located in the B-4 district. Gengler said law enforcement agencies are exempt from the provision as stated in 21-2520 of the muni code that was included in members’ packets.

Kerian asked if some of the recent technical changes would be included in the conditions. Gengler replied the changing technologies were in the line of construction material or minimum width of a shooting lane compared to what it was in the 80’s.

Kerian asked if there would be changes in the ordinance because of the differences that he mentioned. Gengler said it would not change the existing licensing ordinance. The conditional use permit is different for indoor shooting ranges because there are conditions placed in code. The one under discussion as it exists today is simply stated as indoor shooting ranges in the B-4 without conditions in code. The city attorney drafted the conditional uses and they are the starting point for staff to consider. The conditions will not be placed in the code; they will be attached to the approval document.

Dr. Hall asked if the conditions were established when the shooting range was located by the water treatment plant. It was designed because the building was there.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO SEPARATE THE ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO REMOVE THE B-4 DISTRICT AS A PERMITTED USE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Lee asked Gengler to talk about automatic weapons. Gengler said the automatic weapons dates back to the 80’s also. When the city council adopted Section 21, there was a specific decision to prohibit automatic weapons from the site. That is still intact and a request to change that would require the city code to be changed. Approval today would not allow automatic weapons.

Dr. Kweit asked why the B-3 District should be considered.

Gengler said it was being removed from the B-4, the B-2 District is almost non-existent and B-3 District is the catch-all general business district. It was included to allow a wider variety of locations.

Kerian said most of the general business is probably small frontage business with shared lots. One of the concerns in the letter was being around other people with a shooting range. The industrial district appears to have a better chance with an appropriate building.

Dr. Hall asked if there are any facilities located in a B-3 District that do use an indoor shooting or firing range at their location. Gengler said he did not know of any. Dr. Hall wondered if sporting goods stores had an enclosed area for a shooting or firing range.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THE B-3 DISTRICT UNLESS A SPECIFIC REQUEST IS RECEIVED. HOWEVER, INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE I-1 AND I-2 DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Lee asked if there was further discussion regarding the B-3 District. There was none.

4-3. 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 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS AS IT RELATES TO THE EXTENSION OF THE CITY’S EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION FROM TWO (2) MILES TO FOUR (4) MILES.

Gengler reviewed the issue, reminding commission members of the January 23rd Zoning Transition Meeting with city council members and county governing bodies also in attendance. The meeting was held according to state law to start the process of changing the extra-territorial zoning (ETZ) district from two mile to four miles. There are two separate ordinances to consider. One is to amend the zoning map and the next item will deal with an ordinance to change the text of Chapter 18 to reflect all reference to the ETZ from two to four miles. The existing two-mile zoning jurisdiction area that encompasses from the city limits to the end of the current two-mile jurisdiction boundary is currently zoned A-2, agricultural reserve. The proposal is to extend everything from two miles to four miles and convert to the A-1, limited development, based on today’s standards. This would be one of the major changes with the extension of the city’s jurisdictional area. Gengler said the ordinance is preliminary and would be sent to the city council for preliminary approval. The commission would have the ordinance before them at the March meeting for final approval and then city council would review it for final approval. Gengler stated the existing A-2 rules would need to be reviewed and considered as far as the land use plan update.

Lee said the item before the commission is the ordinance dealing with the extension of the zoning map. The extension of the city’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction from two miles to four miles is based on a state law that changed several years ago to allow cities with a population of 25,0000 or more to extend their jurisdiction. A subsequent state law required the zoning transition meeting. Lee noted that Fargo and Bismarck have extended their boundaries and the proposal is for Grand Forks to consider doing the same.

Gengler said a decision would have to be made as to whether or not the new boundary line will be static or change based on annexations. It is a policy decision by ordinance.

Kerian said a third option is available – to remain static until a stated period of time when it would be reviewed.

Hutchison said the current line moves with each annexation. Gengler said that is the rule, but further stated that the map has not changed much until the large Kannowski Addition was platted and annexed which move the line further south. Many of the annexations do not affect the overall boundary.

Kreun said he understood the only thing that changes is the boundary. Whatever currently exists in the two-mile area extends to the four-mile limit. No other changes are made. The only change will occur if someone decides to build or subdivide; they have to come to the city instead of the county for a building permit.

Drees said his understanding was the difference between A-1 and A-2 districts. The rules change considerably. How can the commission make the decision to extend to four miles if it is not known what the rules are going to be for the agricultural districts. He suggested more review of the rules and regulations before a decision is made to extend the jurisdictional area. How many of the proposed changes in those districts would be enforced? People living in that area should know what will be allowed before the commission votes to extend the area.

Lee asked about the zoning designation for the area beyond the two-mile limit. Gengler replied that currently the area outside the existing two-mile limit is under county zoning jurisdiction. Lee asked where the change from A-2 to A-1 is located? Gengler explained the A-2 (agricultural reserve) district included the rural subdivisions that have been in front of the commission occasionally. This includes the minimum 2-1/2 acre, non-farm single-family residential lots with a minimum of a 20-acre plat. That would be one of the significant changes as far as homes or dwellings whereas the A-1 refers to farm dwellings. The existing A-1 rules include a definition of a farm that refers to 40 acres. When he made the comment about reviewing some of the A-1 rules, he was not suggesting a complete overhaul of the intent of the district. The intent is to preserve it as agricultural uses and lands. There have recently been some questions and ambiguities raised about the definition of a farm and other land uses allowed. That was the type of thing he was referring to as far as review.

Kerian asked where the A-2 area would be if the city extended to the four-mile limit. Gengler answered that the A-2 area would encompass the area from the city corporate limits to the existing two-mile zoning jurisdiction. That area would remain A-2. It will be subject to discussion in other concepts through the land use plan.

Kerian asked where A-1 would be. Gengler said that would include everything from the existing two-mile limit to the four-mile limit. It is proposed to be in the Tier 3 concept.

Matejcek thanked Earl Haugen for supplying the section numbers for the current ETZ area and the area to the four-mile limit. He said according to his calculations, there would be an increase of about 24,600 acres between the two-mile and four-mile area. That is a lot of property with farmland and rural residences. He said it was true that nothing would change between the two-mile and four-mile area if people just sit on their property and never makes any changes. But if someone wants to subdivide property, the owner has to meet the city planning commission and building permits have to come from the city and if property is subdivided, owners will be subject to the 8% park dedication.

Gengler said that was a true statement, however, there have been recent discussions about reviewing the park dedication requirement process, specifically as it relates to the A-1 district.

Matejcek said there would be changes at some time and people should be told up front and what can trigger the changes. The owners should know what the differences in permit fees and other costs would be with the city versus the county. He stated extending the boundary is not necessary at this point and he would vote against it. There is plenty of land in the two-mile area to deal with and the county has a good planning staff to handle the rest.

Malm stated his concerns were basically the same but his major concern was moving the boundary out to the four-mile until everyone knows what the code will reflect. There is no inventory of what is already out there or what people are doing. Will they be allowed to continue? If someone wants to expand a building, it has to be inspected by the city and then the city will want to know what is inside the building. He said he understood what the city wants to do, but felt going out to four-miles is a big leap. He gave an example of what they listen to at county planning: Someone comes in and asks to build another dwelling (beside the main home) on his 40 acres for a son or daughter. The owner is denied because they’re not allowed to build another house. Will that be allowed? The city needs to consider these things and do it correctly. The city needs to know what is currently out there and what they will stop people from doing. He was not referring to the large subdivision but about people who want to do things on their own land without permission. It should be spelled out in writing what the city will allow people to do with their land.

Hutchison said two-miles seems far enough for the city and asked what the advantage was for extending to the four-mile limit.

Gengler said it is a planning concept and all about smart growth and growth management. It is a tool provided to cities by the state legislature to plan for the future. Since the tool is in place, Grand Forks wants to take advantage of it.

Dr. Kweit said he agreed in principal with the others but as chairman of the land use subcommittee, he wanted to deal with the issues at the same time. It appears there a great deal of activity now that is being rushed into within the two to four-mile area before the city makes any changes. Problems are created which is why the city would be considering making changes in the first place. He was sorry to see it become a major issue separate from the land use issue. They need to get on track if they are going to deal with the land use issue. This is not the way he wanted it to be, but felt they need to move further.

Kerian said Grand Forks did not invent this and Bismarck and Fargo have moved ahead on the issue. She asked how it compares to what those two cities have done with the issue.

Gengler said it was hard to make comparisons with Fargo because of their growth patterns and annexation policies. His understanding is that Bismarck has a joint city/county planning and that in creates a unique twist to the situation.

Kerian asked Gengler how he sees some of the issues being handled or what might be the process to handle some of the issues.

Gengler replied that it is important to know what is out there and what to tell people so they know upfront what they can or cannot do. It would be advantageous to review the A-1 district and try to determine what someone might want to do and then compare it to what the land use plan is suggesting for the Tier 3 development. The plan is to go through the land use plan update process and identify goals and objectives through the tier system and the zoning regulations need to follow that. The land use plan update and zoning regulations need to be parallel.

Lee said her understanding was that Fargo has had trouble with small areas that have incorporated and limited development in some areas. That might have been within their two-mile area. Does the change in state law help to prevent small areas from incorporating?

Gengler said he did not know. It depended on who one talked to.

Dr. Hall noted the school boundaries are not listed. There were problems in Fargo with overlapping boundaries on school district property. In looking at developmental growth, they want to encourage the city to develop within the school district lines rather than moving outside of it. He said it would be helpful to have that map overlay.

Matejcek asked what happens to the area that is out of the floodplain. The city appears to already be boxed in because they don’t want to go where there is no flood protection and have to provide it at some point.

Gengler said he did not know enough about the technical aspects of the flood protection system to speak on the issue.

Grasser stated there were differences in the city growing into a floodplain area versus wanting to control the growth and manage the planning aspects in those areas. The council will have to address those issues as they review the land use plan. He said there are areas closer to the river more flood-prone and the city may choose not to incorporate them. There are areas for 2-1/2 acre lots with the anticipation that it would always be served by rural water and septic tanks. As the floodplain relates to the two-mile versus four-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, Grasser said he would segregate out planning activities in those areas versus areas that are anticipated to be fully incorporated within the city.

Kreun asked Matejcek about his comments regarding the 8% park dedication. Matejcek stated that land in the existing two-mile zone that is platted or subdivided would trigger the 8% park dedication requirement. It would also affect the two to four-mile range.

Kreun said he thought the 8% fee requirement is paid only when property is brought into the city through annexation.

Matejcek said that was incorrect. Any land within the two-mile limit and also in the four-mile limit would be subject to that requirement except for commercial or industrial property. Rural residents should know that before extending to the four-mile limit.

There was a discussion between Matejcek and Kreun on the issue.

Kreun asked that commission members remember they are trying to preserve agricultural land. The idea is not to allow hodge-podge developments to ruin the agricultural portion and that is done by good and proper planning. He noted the county planning and zoning commission did not vote for the cluster developments; they thought people should be allowed to build wherever they wanted. That is not proper planning but they passed it. If planning does not happen further out, how will planning work when developments get closer to the city? Kreun said extending out to four-miles would create more development in the floodplain protection zone. The city planning and zoning commission has the responsibility to control growth where infrastructure is the best and the infrastructure is best closer to the city. The lines for the main pump station that pump sewers to the wastewater treatment plant are paid for through different funds. Special assessments do not cover all the infrastructure costs. Highway users fund and other funds are used that are earmarked for other projects because the costs get so high for individuals. When rural developments or annexed property is brought in, the people are not paying the portion that everybody else paid. There are approximately 50,000 people in the two to four-mile area and the exceptions noted are for 50 to 100 people.

Gengler referred back to the 8% park dedication issue. He noted that the 8% park dedication requirement within the city limits is for residential property. Within the two-mile area, it would only refer to the non-farm single-family residential subdivisions and it is tied to the platting process for residential lots. He said he did not know how the policy would apply to the A-1 district, minus the platting process. The A-1 does not allow residential subdivisions.

Jeno said it appears the city was growing at a 1.2 % or 1.7 % rate. The two-mile area will not be developed for a very long time. However for planning purposes, the four-mile limit would be good. He questioned the figure of 50,000 people that would be affected and said that figure constitutes another city. There has been much talk on what is exactly included within the two-mile limit. He asked what the normal notification process would be for the 50,000 people. When would landowners hear about the process? If it is just prior to final approval, that would not be appropriate.

Gengler said the zoning transition meeting was the formal announcement by the planning and zoning commission. He agreed there should be an aggressive advertising period of formal notification. This would be discussed with the city attorney to determine the legal parameters of the necessary notifications, but the notification of the public hearing would be mailed out sometime before the March 1 planning and zoning commission meeting.

Earl Haugen referred back to the questions regarding incorporated towns around the Fargo area. He explained that the incorporations around Fargo occurred well before the issue of the two to four-mile extension. The incorporation around Fargo occurred prior to the current state law regarding incorporation. Prairie Rose and Frontier communities easily incorporated some years ago. Currently, the process takes a petition and review and approval by the county board of commissioners prior to a vote to allow incorporation to happen. Haugen stated large communities are learning that once a boundary is set at four-miles, people will jump to just beyond the four-mile limit. At two-miles, it is the same thing. The compromise was to create a four-mile limit for cities of 25,000 or larger. The current land use plan shows a Tier 4 and is the area outside the two-mile boundary. The current plan shows that area for agricultural preservation. When the A-1 zone is suggested, that is the most appropriate zone that matched the Tier 4 area in the land use plan. The current land use plan does have language and maps that indicate the area past two-miles and how to plan for it. Years ago the city could not do it, but that has changed. The philosophy in the current land use plan and throughout the land use plan update is growth management. Growth in our area should be in the city or contiguous with the city so that the city grows - not at the expense of the remainder of the area. Incorporations around Fargo occurred under a complete and separate operation. State law and the two to four mile expansion was merely a recognition that at two-miles, people were moving just beyond that limit, so the law changed to the four-mile limit. A long time ago, Grand Forks and other communities could extend out to six miles. The communities that need to grow and plan for the growth have gone to the full extent provided by law to help them decide how to grow.

Matejcek asked Gengler about his remark on the joint city and county planning and zoning commission in Bismarck.

Haugen explained that each body is separate just as Grand Forks and Grand Forks County are separate in authority but Burleigh County and Bismarck share staff. The city planning director is also the county planning director. They do not share responsibility in the four-mile area.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AS IT RELATES TO THE EXTENSION OF THE CITY’S EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONE FROM TWO-MILES TO FOUR-MILES. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: VOTING AYE: GRASSER, JENO, KERIAN, KREUN, DR. KWEIT, LEE, SMITH AND WHITCOMB. VOTING NAY: DREES, HALL, HUTCHISON, MALM AND MATEJCEK. MOTION CARRIED 8-5.

Gengler asked that the commission recognize the zoning issue of A-1 between the two to four-mile area. This was offered as a point of clarification to the motion. The Commission acknowledged the clarification.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 CHAPTER XVIII AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY’S EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION.

Gengler presented the second ordinance that amends the text of Chapter 18 of the Land Development Code changing all reference to the extraterritorial zone from two to four miles. The ordinance coincides with the amendment to the zoning map.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE THAT AMENDS THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGING ALL REFERENCE TO THE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONE FROM TWO TO FOUR-MILES.

Malm referred commission members to page one of the ordinance under appointment; membership (2) which denotes the two ex-officio members. He said the mayor has made one appearance to the planning and zoning commission during his tenures. There have been times when his absence or presence determines a quorum.

Lee noted the appointment is established by the North Dakota Century Code.

MOTION CARRIED WITH DREES AND MATEJCEK VOTING NAY.

4-5. MATTER OF UPDATE ON 2035 LAND USE PLAN FROM SRF CONSULTING.

Lee said there would be no vote on the land use plan. It is being presented as information.

Haugen reported the city requested the GF-EGF MPO to update the 2015 Land Use Plan. In May, 2005, the consulting firm of SRF was hired to assist in that endeavor by using the commission’s Land Use Subcommittee as the guiding body through the process. Although most of the members have seen the presentation previously, there were some that had not seen all of the information. He asked that members pay special attention to the future land use map provided to each member. He further stated the three pilot areas would be discussed but asked that members pay special attention to the pilot area No. 3 (Gateway Drive corridor).

Haugen introduced Garneth Peterson from SRF Consulting to present an update on the 2035 Land Use Plan and also said that Advanced Engineering provided assistance on the update.

Garneth Peterson offered her appreciation to the commission members for their patience to sit through the power point presentation again. Ms. Peterson presented the power point presentation. Copies are included in the file and available upon request.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF ATTENDANCE RECORD IN 2005.

Gengler said the attendance record for 2005 had been corrected and was included in members’ packets for information.


Gengler stated the American Planning Association national conference was scheduled for April 22nd through April 26 in San Antonio, TX. They would be sending two people and would prefer to send those who have never attended one as a start to the selection process. It needs to be decided soon in order to get all the paperwork in. It was noted that Bill Hutchison and John Jeno have never attended one of the APA conferences.

Dr. Kweit suggested that the ones who have never gone and would like to go to let someone know. Then select the two that have been on the commission the longest and have not attended one of the conferences.

Matejcek told commission members to consider attending the conference because they are very beneficial.

Gengler said the final decision would be given to president or the executive board.


7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:37 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary



___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President