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

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee with the following members present: Stephen Adams, Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: None. 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. Absent: Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator.


President Lee welcomed Steve Adams as a new commission member.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2006.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of
February 1, 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:

Lee announced there was a request from planning staff to suspend the agenda and move agenda item 4-8 (ordinance establishing a moratorium on new subdivision plats within the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction) after Item No. 3-4. The three items are related and should be discussed together. Item 4-8 would still be up for preliminary approval but would become 3-4.1.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO SUSPEND THE AGENDA AND MOVE AGENDA ITEM 4-8, CHANGING IT TO 3-4.1 IN ORDER FOR ALL THREE ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED TOGETHER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES, LLP, FOR FINAL 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 had been before the commission several times under different formats. The plat has been finalized and staff’s recommendation was for final approval subject to the technical changes.

Lee asked if the street between 41st Avenue South and 42nd Avenue South had been named. Gengler answered it had not been finalized with a name but would have to be named prior to March 20, 2006.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES, SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Provide utility master plan.
3. Name street between 41st Avenue South and 42nd Avenue South.
4. Plat approval recognizes a variance to the subdivision regulations 18-0907(2)(I) relating to right-of-way widths for local streets.
5. Ten-foot utility easements could be removed from the west lines of Lots 1 and 24 of Blocks 2 and 3.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 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 request allowing indoor shooting galleries and ranges. At the February commission meeting, the decision was made to remove the CUP (conditional use permit) option for indoor shooting galleries and ranges in the downtown district (B-4); allow indoor range as a CUP in the I-1 (light industrial) district and the I-2 (heavy industrial) district; and further, not to provide for the CUP option in the B-3 (general business) district until a specific request was received to consider it. At that time, consideration would be given on whether or not to allow it in the B-3 district. The ordinance before the commission would allow indoor shooting galleries and ranges in the I-1 and I-2 Districts, but does not include the conditions to be attached to such a facility. The individuals who want to start the business have also mentioned other uses they might want to have considered as part of the CUP. In addition to the 12 conditions of the CUP, they would like consideration to allow retail sales of firearms and other related materials within the structure as an incidental use to the business. In order to obtain an arms dealer license, there are certain provisions to be met at the state and federal level. The applicant would also like to incorporate a concession stand (food and beverages; no alcohol). Gengler noted the additional uses might need to be considered when the application for the facility is made. He also recommended ten (10) years expiration on the CUP when application is made. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance.

There was a discussion on the retail sale issue in the I-1 or I-2 Districts.

Lee asked if members had questions on the issue. Since there were no more questions, Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MAYOR BROWN TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ALLOWING INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES AND GALLERIES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) IN THE I-1 AND I-2 DISTRICTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.




Lee announced the following agenda items, 3-3, 3-4 and the newly re-numbered 3-4.1 are related items and would be discussed together. She turned the meeting over to Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO).

Haugen stated he had a 30-slide power point presentation with some of the slides giving historical background on the issues and others with recommendations that needed action by the commission.

The desired end results:
1. Extend to preserve agricultural land and preserve the future growth of the city.
2. Impact existing land uses as little as possible from changed jurisdiction
- Existing non-farm residential developments
- Existing platted, recorded vacant lots designed for non-farm residential developments
3. Stop more non-farm subdivisions
4. Allow farm families to have more than one dwelling on farm
- Currently allow more than one dwelling but need clarification

How We Get There
1. Acknowledge that these are important issues
2. Clarify the city planning efforts
3. Recognize the need to continue communications
4. Present recommendations
5. Re-write codes.

Haugen stated that Commissioners Malm, Drees and Matejcek have raised important issues as well as the township officials and other people in the areas. The representatives of the areas are affecting the outcome.

Haugen said there had been some confusion in the difference in jurisdiction and growth area. They are different. Planning in Grand Forks refers to both jurisdictional area and where the plan is to grow as a community. Jurisdiction provides the means to direct the growth. The tier system has always been used in Grand Forks to accomplish that. The tier system has allowed for most of the jurisdictional area to be agricultural preserve land; not growth land. He showed a map of the Year 2000 Plan with the two-mile jurisdictional area shown as an arc. The map showed the areas the city wanted to preserve as growth areas and reserve growth areas, but the majority of the area was shown as agricultural preserve land.

The Year 2015 Plan map showed the ET (extraterritorial area) squared off at the quarter quarter lines if the majority was within the arc. The city identified growth areas close to, contiguous and compact with the existing city and also identified the area for reserve growth areas, but the majority was once again for agricultural preservation. The future land use map for Year 2015 Plan was shown and indicated the land in the ET area was not indicated to be a growth area. The 2015 Land Use Plan is still valid with the primary goals: 1) to achieve compact development; 2) to preserve agricultural land; 3) to encourage “growth management;” and 4) to achieve desirable patterns of growth. The current plan supports extension.

Why Extend Now?
1. Growth is occurring in and around the city;
2. Some growth is conflicting with the city’s vision for its growth;
3. Extension is the way to allow the city to plan its growth;
4. The City of Grand Forks is updating the Land Use Plan. The county is also updating the county’s land use plan and the GF Regional Airport Plan update is also underway.
Inventory of what is out there:
Existing Land Use Map shows: farms, farm dwellings, non-farm residential,
commercial, industrial and parks/open space. Maps also indicate the parcel size
and the non-farm residential developments. A table of rural residential
subdivisions indicate 300 total lots with 200 lots vacant.

Recommendations
1. Move forward with extending to four (4) miles
2. Propose moratorium on future subdivisions in all ET areas
3. Continue communications
4. Recognize need to revise the code
5. Recommendations coordinate with county proposed moratorium

Haugen stated that most agree some extension is warranted. He showed the Brenna Township proposal which was for the corridors a quarter mile either side and one mile into Walle Township from the current two-mile line.

What area should be covered? In extending to four miles, the following was considered: 1) corridor concerns; 2) existing city facilities, landfill and lagoons that should be brought in under the city’s jurisdiction; 3) there are islands that would create confusion unless included within the city’s jurisdiction; 4) concerns regarding the county’s rural residential proposal just at the end of the city’s jurisdictional line. What happens beyond that point in the county?

Addressing existing non-farm residential developments:
Previously everything was to be zoned in the city’s A-1 zone and this created some ambiguity for existing non-farm residential developments. Instead of creating the A-1 district, those areas would be zoned A-2, which would almost eliminate the non-conforming issue. It would also provide for same regulations the city imposes within the zero to two-mile ET area for the non-farm residential developments. Also, building activities would not be halted.

Haugen showed a map of the potential A-2 zoning in the ET area. He also showed a comparison of building fees and construction between the county and the city. There is a difference in fees, but with the difference, there is service.

Haugen showed the chart for agricultural lot requirements between the county’s A-1 zone versus the city’s proposed A-2 zone. Both are very similar, if not the same and should not create much hardship. He discussed farm dwellings and said the city proposal was to allow three total dwellings on a farm for other family members or farm workers. Two of the three can be separated from the farm parcel. If at some point in the future, the farm ceases to exist, the three dwellings could be separated and classified as non-farm residential dwellings.

Fire Works:
The current city code prohibits fire works in all zoning jurisdictions of the city. The code would be changed to amend that and prohibit them within two miles of the city and also inside the city. Where existing sites are located, fire works stands would be grandfathered in as temporary uses in the A-1 districts during periods of state-allowed sale of fireworks and further require approval by other appropriate bodies of government.

Moratorium:
The moratorium applies only to subdivisions, not building permits. If an owner has a lot that is subdivided and recorded with the registrar of deeds and they want to build, there should be no problem getting a building permit. If the lot is not subdivided and recorded, the moratorium applies. The moratorium will include the complete extraterritorial area, zero to four miles. The county moratorium will cover the area around the airport and in the county rural residential district. There may be a time lapse where the county moratorium governs the two to four-mile area until the city’s approval process begins. A map of the moratorium area was shown.

Haugen said they were committed to a major re-writing of the land development code. Request for proposals will be sent out in March, hire a consultant by May and complete the process by the end of 2006.

Dr. Kweit said he wanted to acknowledge the work done by Haugen, Gengler and Lane Magnuson (county planner). There were very contentious issues and they worked hard to come up with rational recommendations.

Matejcek stated that at the beginning of the process, people were told nothing would change and now there are going to be changes as far as fees and whether or not the property has been platted and recorded. The city should level with the people so they know up front what the changes will be. People in the two to four-mile area are getting different answers from different people. What guarantee is there that what the people in the two to four-mile area are told tonight will actually apply?

Haugen said decisions are made by the city council. The changes proposed for the people in the two to four-mile area are similar to what the county is proposing for the same area.

Matejcek asked if the changes were on paper where the people would know exactly what it meant to them?

Haugen said the residents should have the written form of the A-2 jurisdiction for the existing residential non-farm dwellings. The existing A-2 zoning district regulations are down in black and white and it is the same regulations the city uses for the zero to two mile area.

Matejcek asked what happens to someone who is located in the two to four-mile area with five acres and they want to sell two and one-half acres.

Haugen replied, under the moratorium of both the city and the county (if passed), that would not be allowed for the period of time needed to make the code changes. Once the moratorium is completed, the city will have rules and regulations in writing for the people in the two to four-mile area. It is not in writing now and that is the reason for the moratorium.

3-3. (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 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 gave a brief summary of the three ordinances dealing with the city’s jurisdiction extension to four miles. The first ordinance (agenda item 3-3) will extend the extraterritorial jurisdictional area from two miles to four miles; to rezone that area within the two to four miles to the A-1 limited development district, with the exception of all recorded lots of record less than 40 acres which would be rezoned to A-2 agricultural reserve district.

Hutchison asked how long the moratorium would last for subdivisions. Gengler replied there has been no set date but it would be a minimum of 30 days and would last until the city was able to get all questions answered.

Lee opened the public hearing. She announced there was a large contingent of people present and set a few ground rules. Anyone that desired to speak would walk to the podium, speak into the microphone and first give their name and address. Each person would be limited to three minutes and she also asked that people not become repetitious in their comments.

Richard Klein, 5702 70th Avenue North, rural Grand Forks, showed an excerpt from the North Dakota constitution. He referred to the United States Constitution, Amendment No. 1 (in part) Freedom of religion, speech, right of assembly and petition and Amendment No. 9 (in part) “the rights retained by the people, the enumeration of the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to or disparaged by others retained by the people.” Amendment No. 14: All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Mr. Klein said the zoning law does not allow the people in the affected area to be able to vote on the change because they are not part of the city. They cannot participate in city elections or run for council. The city will put regulations and restrictions on the people in the affected areas and they have no say about it. The extension of jurisdiction is wrong because it takes away from the peoples’ right of expression and free speech. He stated this is not New York or LA; it is Grand Forks, North Dakota. The people in North Dakota and Minnesota take pride in having the best common sense and can determine right from wrong and good from bad. The zoning law is wrong and he asked that the city not take a bad law, created by the legislators, because state law says they can.

Jim Mulligan, 4690 70th Avenue North, Grand Forks, ND, Falconer Township, stated the city is like a big dog and will do whatever it wants. There is no need for the zoning change to proceed, especially north of Grand Forks. He said he could die and come back in 200 years and the city would still not be close to where he lives (three miles north of Grand Forks). If Grand Forks was committed to agricultural reserve as it stated, they would have stopped growth in the south end of Grand Forks years ago. That is the best farmland and stopping development to the south would have forced the city to move west rather than south. The zoning extension is self-serving. There is no need for the extension and asked that the city stop the process. He sold land to the city for the diversion ditch and was given promises that were never delivered. He has very little trust in the city when they do not keep their promises. The city has no right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his land.

Vern Gornowicz, 1400 Kuster Court, city of Grand Forks, ND, stated he owned land within the two to four mile limits. He opposes the extension. He owned land in Oscarville Addition and in 1990, the city decided to annex that area within the city. It was protested 100%, but lost. They were promised all kinds of services but 16 years later, they still have septic tanks and no sanitary or storm sewers. He spoke on the landfill in Manville. He is not opposed to the landfill in Manville and owned land across from it but sold it; not because of the landfill but because they had an offer. He feels the city felt they had the power to put the landfill in Manville so they did it. If the city had negotiated with the people, they probably would have not minded the landfill being there. What can they expect from the city if the extension takes place? He stated he was opposed to the plan.

Todd Leake stated he farmed in Fairfield Township, rural Grand Forks County, and was president of the Grand Forks County Farmers Union. In December, they passed a resolution opposing the extraterritorial expansion to four miles and he presented it to the commission for the record. He referred to the North Dakota Century Code 40-47-01.1, the statutory authority for extraterritorial jurisdiction, and read the first sentence: The city may by ordinance extend the application of a city’s zoning regulations to any quarter quarter section of an unincorporated territory if the quarter quarter section is located…..Mr. Leake said the quarter quarter section is 40 acres, a quarter mile at a time in any direction. He said the city is planning to extend out to four miles because that is the maximum amount that can be done. What is the appropriate thing for the city to do? Is it appropriate to extend out into the fields and farmsteads of Brenna Township and other surrounding townships? He does not think it is appropriate and based it on NDCC 40-47-03 which states: The regulations provided in the chapter and made accordance in a comprehensive plan should be designed to 1) Lessen congestion in the streets; 2) Provide for emergency management; 3) Promote the health and general welfare; 4) Provide adequate light and air; 5) Prevent the overcrowding of land; 6) Avoid undue concentration of population; and 7) Facilitate adequate provisions for transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Mr. Leake noted there is no congestion, was told there would be no emergency management and the city would not provide services such as those listed in No. 7. The legislature did not do a very good job of mandating city zoning to allow extraterritorial extension to four miles. It is not necessary to go to the full four-mile limit. The city should go where it is appropriate if the city wants to extend municipal services.

Robert Drees, Brenna Township, thanked the MPO, city and county staff for the work that had been done during the last few weeks. The township and the city are diametrically opposed. The township is looking out for the interest of the township. When the city takes another two miles for jurisdiction, it drives development two miles further out. When the city goes out west of County Road 5 where there are numerous amounts of minimum maintenance roads, it will cost the township money to fix up the roads. The suggestion was made that when developments go in, the township create an assessment district to build up the township road. That’s not as easy for the township to do. The township is charged with the authority to maintain the township roads as long as they are on section line roads. The developments are responsible for maintaining roads within the development. He noted there have been 30 new homes built in Brenna Township since 2000. Each home built in Brenna Township adds value to the township and the school district. The township feels the extension and zoning of A-1 or A-2 will stop development in the four-mile zone. Going out to four miles will take in almost 66 to 70% of Brenna Township. The plan they presented (and drawn by Earl Haugen of the MPO) allowed the city to control the access and development along the corridors. The biggest interest of the city seems to be the areas along the corridors and their plan would help in that regard.

Mr. Drees stated he received a letter from the Planning Department and referred to a meeting that township officials were invited to on January 23, 2006. The announcement might have been in the paper but they did not receive a letter about the meeting. He said it gave the appearance the townships were involved in the process when, in fact, they were not. The township leaders were working with the county planner on the rural residential zone. He encouraged the city to take only those areas needed to control development.

Gengler clarified that letters were mailed to the county commissioners, county planning and zoning members and the chairs of the boards of township supervisors with the intent that they would inform other members of their boards about the meeting. State law requires the bodies of actual zoning authority be notified and that would be the county. The planning department took it a step further by notifying the township chairs.

Beau Bateman, 6500 32nd Avenue South, rural Grand Forks, stated he compared the amount of square feet required to support the populations between Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota. They were similar and less than 10% apart when it is considered that Fargo has 90,000+ population and Grand Forks has a population of 50,000+. Each city borders a river and is surrounded by agriculture. Considering the current growth of the population of Grand Forks and the amount of square footage required per person, it will require 115 years to fill in the two-mile extraterritorial area currently controlled by the city. He referred to city code 18-0206 for the A-1 limited development district and said one of the intentions is to preserve the land necessary for actual and anticipated residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes for a period of 25 years or less for reasons of practicality and municipal fiscal integrity. Considering the additional two-mile extension and the square footage encompassed therein, it represents 160 years of growth using a compound growth number based on Grand Forks’ growth since 1970 to current. Mr. Bateman said he approved the moratorium in order to allow time for the people in the county to know exactly what the rules and regulations will be. Half of the development that has occurred in Brenna Township during the last five years would not have been allowed based on the current city code and that directly affects the Thompson School located in Brenna Township.

Randy Leslie, 1998 Prairie Rose Court, city of Grand Forks, ND, represented the Grand Forks Traill Water District. In 2000, Trail Water District and the city of Grand Forks agreed on different service areas. Traill Water District increased infrastructure to take care of the areas of service and those areas fall between the two and four-mile zone. He referred to ND Century Code 6-09-4-22 which states the water district would have to be reimbursed for infrastructure taken or for service area. He said he hoped the city council would take staff’s recommendation for a moratorium in order to look at the consequences. It will cost both entities money for legal fees and he suggested everyone come to some consensus on the extension issue.

Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, Grand Forks, ND, stated he owned a small portion of land in Brenna Township just outside of the proposed extension. He was speaking out of general concern. He spoke on the three R’s of reasonable government: respect, restraint and responsibility. Just because the city can do something does not mean it should. Grand Forks has grown mostly to the south and some to the west. The reason people move out into the county is because they do not want to live in the city but want to live close enough to drive into the city and participate in city functions. Grand Forks is not solving problems by extending the extraterritorial jurisdiction out to four miles. He said the city is growing and some further extension into the county might have merit, but he asked that the city consider restraint and respect for the people who will be affected by the plan. His suggestion was to use the English Channel Diversion Drainway as the westernmost barrier for the city’s extension. That would be a compromise. The other suggestion is to stay on the section lines when drawing the maps. Brenna Township’s suggestion to stay on the corridors of main arterials was very good.

Jason Uhlir, 5086 12th Avenue NE, stated he owned property in Brenna Township. He reminded everyone that Columbia Mall was built approximately 30 years ago and the city has only grown out about a mile since then. Given the forecasting offered by Mr. Bateman and then looking at the four-mile radius, the two-mile radius is as much as the city is now. Because the city can do something is not always in the best interest of the community to do so. He and his wife were going to build a house in the spring and now he is re-thinking that. He said they would move further out because he’ll be forced to do that. He works in the city but wants to live outside the city. He asked that the city use common sense. If these are county issues, let the county deal with the issues.

Wendell Ekness, 1291 16th Street NE, stated his family has been in Brenna Township when it was named Oakville East in 1878. They maintained and cared for the land since then. He has been concerned since the courts allowed cities to take land by eminent domain. The city is looking for a landfill site and he wondered if the city would take his land.

Eliot Glassheim, Grand Forks City Councilman, said there were a number of claims made and he felt he is not in a position to make a decision at the city council without much more information on the issue. He needs to know answers to questions such as what is the harm of going 40 acres at a time or the harm in taking less than the full amount, or what is the harm in waiting on the plan if it will be 100 years before the city reaches out to that area? He hoped staff could answer the questions. The other comment was about the moratorium. At the land use subcommittee meeting, Mr. Malm and others raised very specific questions about how it would operate, who it would affect and what the rules would be. He said the city should have a moratorium while the land use subcommittee clarifies some of the questions that have been raised. Although it does not mean the plan would be prevented, they can consider the issues raised by the people who would be affected. People have the right to ask the questions and have them clarified before the plan is continued. He suggested the items be tabled until clear decisions are made. He stated he would find it difficult to vote when consequences are not known and are not in writing. This plan is a major change and if the process takes longer, that would not be unusual.

Darrell Adams stated he had lived in the township 67 years. There were good sound comments made by people from the townships. Those people know more about the township than the city who wants to make the rules for them. The issue should be left as is and take another look at it in Year 2140.

Lee closed the public hearing and returned the issue back to the commission members.

Dr. Kweit stated he was the chair of the land use subcommittee and he was hoping they could get all the pieces together before a decision was made on what areas the city should have jurisdiction over. Mr. Christensen made a point in an earlier meeting about development going on at corridors that would affect the future of Grand Forks. Originally, the land use subcommittee looked at the corridors and then hired a consultant to help with the land use plan. The consultant made the point that once the city takes over the corridors, it becomes unclear about where boundaries are and who is in charge, which creates other problems. The area to be controlled by the city does need to be determined. The commission should move forward with the moratorium. There are people who might not want to develop for several years, but with this eminent threat, will go ahead and develop in areas that would not make sense (i.e. close to the new runway of the airport). He said the issues being voted on needed to be tabled but he did want to see the moratorium move forward.

Drees said he agreed with Dr. Kweit but he said the moratorium was supposed to only be for the subdividing of land. The intent was to stop the subdivisions until there was time to take a look at the whole situation. There is a need to study the issue long and hard since the decisions will affect people for many years.

Kreun stated the rules in effect today would not change very much. There are zoning requirements in place now from the county and townships. The county planning and zoning commission is working on the same issues. There have been inaccurate and incorrect rumors throughout the county on the issues. The planning staff will present information that will explain the issues. The Brenna Township plan was looked at in-depth by the consultant. Kreun said people feel the city is rushing on the issue, but work was started on it a year and a half ago. People were invited to meeting but they don’t always show up. He spoke on the rural water system and said the issues there were based on the differences of opinion of attorneys. The city’s interpretation is the water district is paid if they are servicing individuals, but the water district is not paid for potential lost business. Although the issues and questions are not new, some issues need better explanations and that is the reason for the moratorium for new subdivisions. He brought up the issue of the Columbia Mall by saying when it was built it was in the middle of a field. They planned that. Now the area is filled in and the city needs to plan further out. The point that the extraterritorial area will not fill in for another 160 years is not the intent. Planning for the future takes many years and if it is not done, the city is being shortsighted and a hindrance to the community. Kreun said the process should continue and a moratorium needs to be in place to halt the development of clusters and subdivisions.

Gengler referred to the supplemental two-page handout given to members that explained definitions and terms. This would deal more with the next agenda item (3-4).

Drees spoke to the Grand Forks Traill Water District contract. In 2000, the city paid the water district approximately $230,000 and that was for hookups for potential customers.

Kreun said that was negotiated and not required by law.

Kerian asked about the process for voting. Would they vote for each item separately? She wondered if it might not be helpful to have a discussion of the definitions. There might be reluctance to pass agenda item 3-3 without understanding the definitions.

Gengler discussed the definitions on the two-page handout and stated the changes were included in the power point presentation by Haugen. He read the definition of a farm as a “parcel containing no less than 40 acres” and noted there was some confusion of descriptions of a farm since some of the uses were described in other parts of the code. The other primary change was to allow up to three farm dwellings on a farmstead. Another issue being changed was to allow the fire works stands. There may be other changes, but those were the major ones.

Dr. Kweit noted the suggestions and changes were very good but he felt it would be helpful to take another 30 days to work on other questions. The delay cannot go on forever but looking at the questions raised would be beneficial.

Hagness said he had been on the planning and zoning commission for many years. The reason he supported the recommendations to extend from two to four miles is for proper orderly growth. Streets, utilities and structures should be in a planned orderly development that then results in less cost, maintenance and special assessments for homeowners. One of the big costs and decisions for new developments is lift stations and where they should be located. The cost to build a lift station is $500,000 to one million dollars and they should service one mile in every direction. When roads and streets are planned, houses and utilities should not be in the way and have to be moved at additional cost. To get the full benefit, there must be advanced planning. This is not a popular issue but a recommendation should be made to continue the process.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS AND TO EXTEND THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO FOUR MILES BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND REZONE TO THE A-1 DISTRICT ALL THE LAND BETWEEN THE TWO TO FOUR MILES BEYOND THE COPORATE LIMITS AND EXCLUDE ALL RECORDED LOTS OF LESS THAN 40 ACRES WHICH SHALL BE REZONED TO A-2 DISTRICT AND FURTHER TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE ON MARCH 20, 2006.

Hagness further stated that he hoped the city council would start the groundwork of the moratorium on March 20, 2006. When the county commission meets on March 21, 2006, it is hoped they will also agree to a moratorium. Hagness said the issue comes down to proper orderly growth and he realized that people might not understand that. If proper planning is not done, people will ask years from now why the city did not plan better for growth beyond the city limits.

Kreun said the motion referred to exclusion of lots of record of less than 40 acres. If an individual has property with an older home on it and they wish to build a new home, they can do so as long as the property was a recorded plat. The only difference would be that the property owner would go to the city for building permits rather than the county. He asked that Gengler verify if there were other major changes required by the people in those circumstances and areas. Gengler replied that other than going to the city versus the county, there would not be a significant impact. The idea of isolating the already platted and recorded subdivisions is to allow the people to develop their properties (or redevelop in the case of a remodel) to the extent allowed by the A-2 District.

Kreun said that was his point. The idea is not to infringe on anybody that has recorded lots. The idea is for the city and the county to put the moratorium in effect in order to stop future rural subdivisions. While the moratorium is in effect, the city and county can work on differences that will occur.

Drees said he wanted it down on paper what the city will and will not do. He asked if the county was committed to the moratorium. Malm answered he would present the moratorium at the county commission. He could not speak for the other county commissioners but he is willing to have a moratorium between the two and four mile area if no other changes were made.

Malm said he was torn on the issue. He said he has tried to tell people two things when they call him on the issue: 1) State law says the city can extend out to four miles; 2) He wants to get the best deal for everyone concerned in the city and the county. Malm said he would like to see everyone stop and put the rules in place first so people would know up front what the rules would be. He did not want to move to the four-mile line now when there were still so many questions to be answered. The county will work with the city, but the people within the two to four-mile area with questions needed more explanations and answers. There has been much misinformation floating around throughout the county and he wants to see all the rules and regulations down on paper so everyone knows the requirements up front.

Kerian said there was a basic concept that would never go away and the idea is to determine how best to handle it. The conflict appears to be that one of the basic things is that people own property and they should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want and they do not want the city interfering with that. At some point there will be conflicts with roadways or in the way that services can be provided. A person subdividing the land today probably will not have a problem, but it is not the current generation the city is planning for. The city is planning for future generations. For proper planning, the extension needs to be done. The only question she has is how can the city take care of the people with smaller plots and people who are not looking at major subdivisions? What can the city do to make sure farmers can continue to run their operations? She said she wants to continue to work on the issues.

Hutchison agreed with Malm and said the city should be doing things to change the perception people have of the city. Many people do not care to live within the city but they support the city. The city needs to listen to the people and not shove this down peoples’ throats before rules are down in writing.

Matejcek said it is not a good idea to pass this and then decide on the rules after the fact. People in the county do not trust city government and that’s because of problems they’ve incurred over the years from promises that were made but not kept. There are going to be changes for people and they have a right to know what the changes are before the zoning takes effect. The state law says the city can extend out to four miles but why not listen to the people and be up front on the rules before it is approved.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.

Malm called a point of order. If the issue is tabled, can the city act on the issue anyway.

Lee said her understanding was that the city council would take the commission’s recommendation and then make their own decision on whether to accept it or not. The commission is an advisory body.

Gengler said in the past when agenda items were up for preliminary approval and were tabled by the commission, those items were not forwarded to the city council. However, when items are up for final approval and table by the commission, it is forwarded to the city council and they can decide to accept the commission’s action or not.

Lee asked for a roll call vote on the motion to table.

VOTING AYE: LEE, DREES, DR. HALL, DR. KWEIT, WHITCOMB, JENO, HUTCHISON, ADAMS, MATEJCEK AND MALM. VOTING NAY: HAGNESS, GRASSER, KERIAN, KREUN AND MAYOR BROWN. MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED 10-5.

There was no vote on the original motion.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 CHAPTER XVIII AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY’S EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION.

Gengler said agenda item 3-4 is an ordinance that changes the wording throughout the land development code to reflect the change from zero to two miles to zero to four-mile jurisdiction district as the extraterritorial area.

The ordinance was to amend all of the text of Chapter 18 to agree with the four-mile jurisdictional extension and also amend the A-1 zoning District.

Dr. Kweit said he had no problems with the A-1 in the Tier 3 and the A-2 District being grandfathered in but wondered if it would still be relevant since the previous item was tabled.

Gengler said the two agenda items (3-3 and 3-4) go hand-in-hand and it would be appropriate to table agenda item 3-4.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL THE APRIL COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4.1 (PREVIOUSLY LISTED AS AGENDA ITEM 4-8)
MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF NEW SUBDIVISION PLATS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS TWO (2) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

Gengler stated agenda item 3-4.1 is the ordinance that would create the moratorium for subdivisions in the zero to two-mile area.

The moratorium was to include the zero to four miles area on all new subdivision plats; however, based on the previous vote to table the extension of the extraterritorial zone out to four miles, it might not be appropriate to approve the zero to four-mile area.
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON ANY NEW RURAL SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE ZERO TO TWO MILE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT MALM PRESENT THE MORATORIUM TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ADDITIONAL TWO TO FOUR MILE AREA.

Kreun asked why have a moratorium in the zero to two mile area when the city already has jurisdiction in the area.

Gengler explained the primary intent of the moratorium from zero to two miles for new subdivisions was to allow the MPO, consultants and planning staff to further refine the tier system and the individual code implications that will identify the specific code changes.

Kreun asked why the moratorium was needed when the issue was tabled?

Gengler replied it was still the intent of the Land Use Update process to follow through with the moratorium.

Kreun said nothing would take place then. If a moratorium were placed on everything within the two-mile zone, then there is no need to address the problems that have taken place. Everything would stop and the land use plan update will not be completed.

Kerian asked if dates should be applied to the moratorium.

Gengler said it was uncertain what dates should be specified until council took action.

Grasser asked if the moratorium cover all subdivisions, whether rural or not? Gengler said it would cover all newly proposed subdivisions adjacent to the city.

Malm said the ET area is only a portion of the Land Use Plan Update. The Land Use Subcommittee can continue to work on other area of the plan.

Dr. Kweit said he seconded the motion in order to give everyone a chance to look at the jurisdiction the city feels they need and the conditions to be place on development in the ET areas that the city takes. The idea is to make sure that nothing happens in the interim.

Kreun asked if development could continue outside the city limits? Dr. Kweit said that people could not subdivide.

Kreun said there are developers and people who plan on building and holding people up for 30 days is not right. Dr. Kweit said subdivisions could not be approved before next month. The city does not have the authority to place a moratorium on the three and four mile area; only on the zero to two-mile area. The motion also included a recommendation for the county to put a moratorium into effect.

Hutchison said this was still just preliminary approval on the moratorium.

Gengler reminded the commission members that an ordinance requires a 60-day cycle. The moratorium could not take effect prior to April 17, 2006.

Grasser gave an example of a potential issue. The city has installed utilities on 40th Avenue South and there is a paving project on 40th Avenue South this year. What happens if the landowner on the south side decides to plat a 20-lot subdivision immediately adjacent to existing utilities and city limits. The way he understands the motion, the landowner could not start that plat. Since it is March and a developer is delayed by a month or more, that could possibly delay the construction by a year.

Dr. Hall said the current draft would have prevented development if the previous two agenda items had been passed.

Matejcek said if a subdivision was next to the city and services were available, the city would want to annex the property and then it would be allowed.

Grasser said the platting comes first and then the annexation.

Malm said anyone can do what they want until the moratorium is passed on April 17, 2006.

Gengler said any plat that comes in after this month would be in front of the commission for preliminary approval in April. Then if the moratorium was approved on April 17, there would be some discussions in May when the development was up for final approval.

Malm said he was told that once subdivisions were submitted, the city could not stop them halfway in the process. Gengler said he had heard both opinions on that issue and that was a legal matter.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE MORATORIUM FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE ANNEXED AS IT IS PLATTED.

Drees stated he made the original motion and the amendment to allow time for all parties to cool down and let the people in the affected areas know that the issues are being worked on with the city and the county. Discussion on the amendment followed.
Grasser asked that a wording change be made to reflect that only those subdivisions that are submitted with an annexation request would be exempt. He felt Drees’ wording inferred the annexation request would follow after the plat request was processed but there is no way to guarantee that.

Drees said if that was required he would set the moratorium for six months. After discussion, Drees agreed to the wording change on the amendment to reflect Grasser’s suggestion. Dr. Kweit, as second, agreed.

Amendment now reads:
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE MORATORIUM FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SUBMITTED WITH A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION.

MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ORIGINAL MOTION, AS AMENDED, FOR THE MORATORIUM CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Hagness asked for clarification on the tabling of agenda item 3-3 for the time limit. Drees said the intent was to table for 30 days or until the next meeting.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, THE SOUTH 495.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 685.00 FEET OF THE EAST 420 FEET OF THE WEST 690 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (ALSO KNOWN AS MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION), GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AND CONTAINING 207,900 SQUARE FEET OR 4.77 ACRES.

Gengler reviewed the item stating it was previously approved but after approval from city council the boundaries changed slightly. The new annexation ordinance with the revised legal description needed to be approved.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE CHANGES ON THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARTHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF ICON-McENROE LAND DEVELOPMENT, FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, THE NORTHERLY 767.72 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (ALSO KNOW AS MCENROE FIRST ADDITION), GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, CONTAINING 21.69 ACRES MORE OR LESS.

Durrenberger reviewed the annexation stating the annexation of the property was approved August 19, 2005. Due to a change in the legal description, a new annexation ordinance with the revised legal description needed to be approved and processed through city council.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE CHANGES ON THEANNEXATION ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROH, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS A & B, BLOCK 4, HUBERT’S ADDITION AND INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 2, ZONING; SECTION 18-0204 RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SUBSECTION (2) DEFINITIONS, DEFINITION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 701 SOUTH 5TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the item was another flood related replat. The lot line was moved to the river to make the area more salable. He noted there was a request from the engineering department to add easements. Approval of the request includes a variance to the definition of a minor subdivision.

Grasser stated the easement would be a 10-foot utility easement on Lot C. Another technical change needs to be added to the list.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DREES TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Remove “sidewalk elevation” from legend.
3. Show plat boundary distance on south and east lines of platted area.
4. Plat approval recognizes a variance to the code with regards to a minor subdivision involving newly created utility easements.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CHRISTIAN, ON BEHALF OF ALLEN EIDE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT E, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3300 BLOCK OF 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the replat subdivides a large lot into three lots and is located in front of the Kohl’s development. The replat is for a restaurant to be located on the middle lot.

Durrenberger was asked which restaurant was building and he replied it was the Golden Corral.

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

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Scale should read 1” = 60’.
3. Dimension private roadway easement on Lot H.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVEN L. ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR GREENBERG JR., FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL OF COLUMBIA PARK 28TH RESUBDIVISION NOT CURRENTLY ANNEXED, INCLUDING 140 FEET SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 38TH AVENUE SOUTH LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Adams asked to be excused from voting on agenda items no. 3-9, 4-1 and 4-2.
MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DREES TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3-9 (ANNEXATION REQUEST), 4-1 (PLAT REQUEST) AND 4-2 (CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Durrenberger reviewed the request for annexation and said an additional 140 feet of property to the south was recommended for annexation. The additional 140 feet of property was added for the purpose of spreading special assessments. The annexation request was submitted previously and denied on September 19, 2005 by city council and the plat was pulled at that time. The annexation request was being re-submitted again for approval and the plat and concept requests follow as preliminary agenda item. The area to be annexed is south of Revolution Sports.

Hagness asked why the annexation was denied. Adams answered it was a timing issue.

Malm asked if the annexation point system would still be part of the process and Durrenberger answered yes.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COLUMBIA PARK 28TH RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 28TH ADDITION AND UNPLATTED LANDS SOUTH THEREOF TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED AT 36TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was submitted last fall. The plat was pulled when council denied the rezoning and annexation request in September, 2005. The plat is for contractors’ offices and storage facilities. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval subject to technical changes shown or attached to the review copy.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Identify temporary turnaround with a 65-foot radius.
3. Plat requires a street and highway ordinance and annexation.
4. Include Paula H. Lee and Lyle A. Hall as signers in the planning and zoning commission approval.
5. Show recent replat of Columbia Park 22nd and vacated South 42nd Street.
6. Submit utility master plan.
7. Show temporary turnaround on the west end of 38th Avenue South.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4.2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVEN L. ADAMS ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR GREENBERG, JR., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT AND THE COLUMBIA PARK WEST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE COLUMBIA PARK WEST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, INCLUDING JOHNSON’S WEST FIRST ADDITION, COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION, THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION, COLUMBIA PARK 23RD ADDITION AND COLUMBIA PARK 28TH RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF 36TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, explaining the zoning is part of a PUD (planned unit development) with B-3/I-2 type land uses. When the request was presented last fall, there was discussion on screening the storage areas and that verbiage was listed on the plat. The engineering staff recommended that the screening issue not be placed on the plat. Staff is recommending preliminary approval and asked that the screening verbiage be included on the concept plan and detailed development plan for a 10-foot high obscuring fence.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES:
1. Show South 42nd Street as a future minor arterial.
2. Change Amendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 3.
3. Check legal description—Amendment No. 3 includes only the replatted Columbia Park 28th not any unplatted area to the south.
4. Amend summary table by splitting the Columbia Park 28th Addition and adding Columbia Park 28th Resubdivision (Block 1, Lots A-D and Block 2, Lots A-D).
5. Change Columbia Park 22, Block 2, Lot 1 to Lot A (from Replat of Lot 1).
6. Show southern boundary of the PUD as the centerline of 38th Avenue South.
7. Add note: All exterior storage to be screened with a ten (10)-foot high opaque fencing material and no storage be visible above the sight line of the fence.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JOE SIERRA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINES) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT, LOTS 14, 15, AND 16, BLOCK 58, ALEXANDER AND IVES ADDITION, LOCATED AT 901 NORTH 6TH STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request to rezone an office building from B-3 to R-4 for apartments. He addressed the surrounding land uses. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

Hagness asked if the building was the old television station and was told it was the Vilandre office building.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF RIDGEVIEW ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 8TH STREET NE AND ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 6.

Durrenberger reviewed the request for a rural large lot subdivision. Based on the previous proceedings on the moratorium, Durrenberger asked if the intent was to include the request under the moratorium?

Lee noted the moratorium had not been approved and would not be until April 17, 2006.

Durrenberger stated the timing was such that the moratorium ordinance and final approval ordinance for the plat would occur at the same time.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Include minimum 2-foot ground contours along Cole Creek and spot ground elevations.
2. Identify Paula H. Lee and Lyle A. Hall, in the Planning and Zoning Commission approval, as president and secretary respectively.
3. Show floodplain boundary line and reference “flood hazard boundary map” panel number 380033-0212-A.
4. Plat requires 8% park and open space dedication.
5. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
6. Establish benchmark near plat area.
7. Show access control along the east line of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 1.
8. Add note to address private roadway and public utility easements.
9. Add note relating to the best available flood elevation information.
10. Add note to address minimum building elevations.
11. Note that lands south of plat boundary (adjacent to the quarter line) are to be reserved for future right-of-way.
12. Submit title opinion.
13. Plat title should reflect Section 2, not 25.

Malm said he made the motion because it is not known what will happen to the moratorium. The request should be allowed to move forward and then see what happens. If the city attorney says it cannot be done, they can deal with it then but projects should not be held up based on the moratorium.

Durrenberger said the plat was consistent with the A-2 zoning regulations.

Kreun said it should be approved but if it goes through the city council and the moratorium is decided prior to approving the plat, then what? Malm stated the city attorney could decide at that point.

Drees asked if an application fee was paid for the plat and he was told yes. Durrenberger said the item was on the agenda prior to the moratorium agenda being added.

Hagness said the development is what the city wants and it should move forward.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDIANANCE RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS, OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN.

Lee turned the floor over to Earl Haugen who presented a summary of the Year 2035 Land Use Plan.

Haugen said he shortened the presentation since several members had viewed it several times, but he had information to impart to the commission members as a whole as well as members of the public who might be present. Haugen said the main thing was to continue the tier system which has been part of the Land Use Plan for Grand Fork for many years. He showed a map of the proposed tier boundaries. Tier 1, adjacent and contiguous to the city, is the area the city wants to see future growth to occur.

Tier 2 is the urban reserve area for future growth. Although development is not encouraged, if it does occur, the development should be to urban lot sizes and urban services. When the city reaches the area, it would be easy to convert to urban standards. Also, the development should ensure adequate right-of-way, access management and performance standards on transportation corridors. The Tier 2 boundary was set based on existing development, flood control boundary, school district boundary and airport compatibility zones.

Tier 3 is the area to preserve for agricultural land uses with residential associated with agriculture (one unit per 40 acres). This area would utilize private utilities and rural water.

Haugen discussed the five growth management objectives: 1) Growth management monitoring which includes annual evaluation of building and platting, determining if tier modifications are needed and fixed boundary option; 2) Fiscally responsible growth includes contiguous development, using existing utility capacity before extension, using the CIP (Capital Improvements Program) to plan and program infrastructure and utilize a variety of funding methods; 3) Equitable funding of infrastructure which includes establishing a funding policy and identifying city or property owner financing; 4) Annexation which means including “surrounded pockets”, incorporating costs and benefits into the annexation system, annexation with infrastructure extension and including annexation agreements with development approval; 5) Development review process includes reviewing/defining existing regulations, ensuring adequate staffing, ensuring complete development applications, formalizing in-house development review, and institute briefing and work sessions on major development proposals.

Haugen showed the future land use map and what is expected to be different land uses for the different tiers.

Haugen discussed the residential and commercial uses. Commercial uses are focused on nodes, rather than strips. The nodes better integrate into neighborhood.

The decision was made to accept new commercial categories such as mixed use which includes high density residential, neighborhood commercial and community commercial and would be used along the I-29 corridor and south of 32nd Avenue South on either side of I-29. This adds more flexibility and creativity to the corridor.

Another new term is office parks and is primarily the extension of the industrial park south of 17th Avenue South and west of the interstate. The area is viewed as a corporate type setting with design standards to ensure a more aesthetically pleasing area.

Industrial uses area would continue where currently located in the northwestern part of the community.

Public/Semi-Public uses would include maintaining a relationship with the airport authority as they determine their own compatibility issues. The public/semi-public uses would also address the existing landfill and lagoon areas.

Agricultural uses would be the Tier 3 area and is not intended for development.

Overlay districts would be used with base zoning districts to modify regulations. The existing overlays include floodplain, floodway, and the downtown design district process. New overlays would include the PUD (planned unit development) process and transportation corridors.

Haugen stated the recommendations include future land uses, the new districts of neighborhood/limited commercial, mixed use and office park and the new overlay zones such as PUDs (planned unit developments) and transportation corridors. The next process for code revision puts the changes into text and regulation.

Haugen stated a landowner had presented a letter to each member regarding changes in his property as far as land uses. He asked that the commission refer the issue to the Land Use Subcommittee for a decision.

Dr. Kweit stated the presentation was only a part of the 2035 Land Use Plan and deals with the extraterritorial areas and suggestions by the consultant. Included in members’ packets was a re-working of parts of the 2015 Land Use Plan and he requested members read and study it prior to final approval.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN AS PRESENTED.

Jerry Waletzko, realtor, asked that Roger Birkholz be allowed to speak to the commission regarding his letter.

Roger Birkholz, 2554 Lawndale Road, stated the land use plan caused much discussion in his family. He appreciated having the letter and his requests referred to the land use subcommittee for study.

Lee said the Birkholz letter should be included in the land use subcommittee meeting.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE BIRKHOLZ LETTER AND REFER THE ISSUE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION TO THE LAND USE SUBCOMMITTE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMIOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK AND DREES VOTING NAY.

4-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED; CHAPTER XVIII, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTING ARTICLE 12, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the ordinance was the result of federal mandates regarding stormwater management and stormwater regulatory measures. The ordinance will now be part of Chapter 18 of the Land Development Code. It is a complex ordinance and will require some fine-tuning.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE.

Drees asked Grasser about the ordinance and referred to the construction sites in the ordinance. He noted the township was asked to account for some of the runoff water from the fields down to the ditches. He wondered if this would effect the stormwater retention ponds being dug south of the city. Will the water have to be sampled for nitrates or chemicals?

Grasser said the ordinance being discussed did not cover that issue. The ordinance was strictly for construction sites and erosion control. There is a second step mandated in the stormwater ordinances that may address water sampling but they haven’t started that at the city level. That would be a different ordinance.

Drees asked if that would be something townships would have to be concerned about since the field runoff water goes through a pipe and goes through the city’s drainage system.

Grasser apologized and said he simply did not know enough about it to discuss or speculate about it. His prediction with EPA is they tend to get tougher over time.

Kerian said she understood construction people may look forward to the ordinance because it gives them direction. She asked Grasser if construction workers or contractors had been part of the discussions.

Grasser replied contractors were part of the discussions and the ones that are knowledgeable will appreciate it because it gives protection from the EPA. He reported that EPA went into West Fargo and levied fines again the construction community because the ordinances were not in place. The contractors who know the background know they need it and know it is for their own protection. Once the ordinance has preliminary approval, the engineering department will have training sessions with the contractors.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-7. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATING TO SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING ON SIGNS SERVING A PUBLIC PURPOSE.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the park district approached the planning department with a request to erect a ground monument sign at the Apollo Complex at 17th Avenue South and Columbia Road. The sign would be located on the Apollo Complex and is a concept of sponsorship. There would be several sponsors of the complex and would be allowed advertising on scoreboards as well as on the ground monument sign. The existing sign code would determine it to be off-premise advertising but the issue was not covered in the overall sign code amendment. Staff has not researched it thoroughly but it is being presented from the sign subcommittee to address the basic concept of the type of sponsorship advertising that would be located on a sign under the guise of the park district. Also, there would be an electronic message center on the sign and that has a separate review process.

Dr. Hall asked how it differs from the signage at the Englestad on Columbia Road? Gengler said the Englestad, as well as the Alerus signage is defined as event center attraction signs and addressed in a different ordinance.

Dr. Kweit stated, as chair of the sign subcommittee, when the subcommittee reviewed the request they determined it was basically the same as the Englestad but much smaller. A precedent has been set.

Kerian said she did not have an ordinance in the packet. Gengler said the issue was a late submittal so the formal draft of the ordinance has not been produced as yet.

Kreun asked if approval should take place prior to any information being available. He wondered if all the documents and issues should not be in writing and in order before approval is given. He said the issue should be tabled.

MOTION BY KREUN TO TABLE THE SIGN ISSUE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SIGN AND SPONSORSHIP ABILITY AS PRESENTED.

Grasser asked if there was a limit to the number of signs provided at a public facility. He also wondered how much revenue a governmental entity can generate by putting signs on their properties.

Gengler said there would have to be a differentiation on not-for-profit organizations. The request and approval by the sign subcommittee was in the nature of a public purpose. A way to deal with it is through the general provisions of the sign code to define what type of advertiser it is, i.e. PUD versus conventional zoning.

Malm asked if the sign subcommittee would review the ordinance before it is presented to the commission for final approval. Gengler replied the commission could direct that.

Kreun said the commission discussed an issue for several hours earlier and tabled the issue and then turned around and made a motion on this item without complete documentation.

Dr. Kweit said there was a difference in that this was for preliminary approval and before final approval, he would make sure there was a very clear ordinance. He also noted Kreun was at the sign subcommittee meeting and agreed in principle with the signage. Kreun stated he had a right to change his mind.

MOTION PASSED 10-5 WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS VOTING NAY: KERIAN, KREUN, MATEJCEK, GRASSER AND MAYOR BROWN.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:07 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary



___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President