City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota April 5, 2006 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee with the following members present: Stephen Adams, John Drees, Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, and Gary Malm. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Tom Hagness, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was present. Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning); Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator; Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the GF-EGF MPO and Julie Romig, Senior Planner for the GF-EGF MPO. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 1, 2006. Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of March 1, 2006. There were no corrections or additions noted and Lee declared the minutes approved as presented. Lee offered congratulation to Brad Gengler on being selected as the city planner of the Grand Forks Planning Department. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES: 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF NEW SUBDIVISION PLATS OR APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION. Gengler stated the city council, on March 20, 2006, adopted the ordinance extending the city’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction an additional two miles for a total of four miles, as well as giving final approval of the text amendment in order to change the land development code. The third element in extending the extraterritorial (ET) zoning is the moratorium on the approval of new subdivision plats or applications for rezoning proposed to be located within the city’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. He noted the ordinance in members’ packets was not the final ordinance version. City attorney Howard Swanson is still finalizing the language. He pointed out that paragraph four would reflect December 31, 2006, and would be the sunset date for the moratorium. There was discussion at the city council on whether or not to set a trigger date on the submittal of applications to the city or to the county relating to new subdivisions and rezonings in the ET zone. The date of March 20, 2006 was established as the trigger date and anything submitted to the city or county planning after that date would be subject to the moratorium. After approval by the planning commission, the moratorium ordinance will be forwarded to the city council for final approval on April 17, 2006. Gengler referred members to agenda item 4-5 (Trent Olson Second Subdivision) and said the plat would be relevant to action taken on the moratorium issue. The plat application and fee was received in the planning department office on March 21, 2006 and the preliminary plat drawing was received on March 22, 2006. The application did not meet the deadline established for the moratorium, but did meet the statutory deadline of March 22, 2006 for placing major plats on the planning agenda (14 days prior to a planning commission meeting). In discussions with the city attorney, Gengler said he was told he would have to accept the plat application and allow it to be entered into the system since the ordinance had not received final approval. City council will make the final determination on April 17, 2006 on the deadline date of March 20, March 22 or April 17, 2006. The ordinance does not preclude an existing property owner of a legally recorded plat of record (regardless of the size) to continue with their plans. However, the moratorium will not allow further subdivisions of a large lot until the moratorium is lifted. The ordinance is in place to allow the planning staff, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff and consultant (still to be selected) to finalize the land use plan update as it relates to the land development code. The agricultural areas (A-1/limited development district and A-2/agricultural reserve district) will be critically reviewed for determination of changes or modifications. Kreun asked what the normal cutoff date would be for submission of plat applications. Gengler replied it was March 22, 2006 or 14 days prior to the next planning commission meeting. Kreun stated the plat might not fit all the rules established but the idea from the beginning was not to take away a landowner’s ability to do something if it was determined that it was legal to do so. Gengler stated he received a position paper from the attorney for the Olsons which identified the process that had been on-going for the proposed subdivision, but he noted the subject area is identified as part of Tier 3 in the land use plan. The intent of Tier 3 is for agricultural reserve and the plat submitted is for non-farm rural subdivisions that is not encouraged or allowed under the land use plan. Gengler explained staff’s recommendation for denial. The land use plan is on the agenda for final approval and the proposed plat request is on the agenda for preliminary approval and does not meet the requirements of the land use plan update. Hutchison asked the significance of the March 20 deadline date. Gengler said city council discussed it for the first time on March 20, 2006, and finally agreed to the date of March 20, 2006. Malm stated there was no moratorium until the ordinance was approved. Lee opened the public hearing. Tarek Howard, 1305 Custer Circle, said he was representing his father-in-law and brother-in-law, Bill and Trent Olson. He said the moratorium is not currently in place and will not be until April 17, 2006. The first time an effective date was talked about on the moratorium issue was at the March 20, 2006 city council meeting when the moratorium received preliminary approval. The date of March 20, 2006 is a retroactive date for the moratorium. Mr. Howard said it was unfair to impose a moratorium retroactively and it’s unfair to use the date of March 20 since the motion took place after the close of business and there was no place to file the application until the next day. The county’s moratorium ordinance procedure was not approved until March 21. It was impossible to get any type of approval from the county after March 20. The first available time they had to submit the application after the city took over jurisdiction of the additional two miles was on March 21, 2006. The drawing was submitted on March 22, 2006. He asked that the commission make a recommendation to the city council that the moratorium ordinance be adopted when actually finalized on April 17, 2006. Ralph Applegren, Section 3, Allendale Township, stated he had a development in the planning stages with the plat being worked on, but he was unable to get the information in to the city on time. Now they’re subject to the moratorium. They have developed some lots already but it would take several weeks for them to be ready. He was sure they could have the plats completed and the applications in before April 17, 2006. Lee closed the public hearing. Gengler referred to agenda item 3-3 (Ridgeview Addition). The plat area is located in the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction and similar to the Trent Olson plat. The Ridgeview plat received preliminary approval last month and is up for final approval from the planning commission tonight. It is also up for final approval from city council on the same date (April 17, 2006) the moratorium is up for final approval. The city attorney has determined the Ridgeview plat should be processed because it has been in the works for a longer time. Dr. Hall asked if the request for the Trent Olson plat could be forwarded without reference to the timeframe. Gengler said that would be up to the discretion of the membership but at some point, a date has to be established. Kreun said that would be one of the options and would not be thought of negatively by city council. It could be sent forward with a suggestion of a change in the deadline. He said the council probably should have left the date as the date it would be due to the planning department for inclusion on the agenda, which would be March 22, 2006. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE WITH A SUGGESTION TO COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE DEADLINE DATE. Grasser said as it moves forward to the city council and evaluation is made of the trigger dates, it might be beneficial to know how many lots have been platted recently and how many have been approved by the governing agencies since the first of the year. Gengler stated the MPO has made an inventory of existing plats, developed and undeveloped lots and another list of plats approved over a period of time. By passing the moratorium on to council as is, when the Trent Olson Subdivision is addressed later, by default the Commission is recommending the moratorium deadline be changed. Drees asked about the 14-day rule for accepting plat applications. Gengler explained the planning department has rule that applications, fees and plans of major development must be in the planning department office 14 days prior to the next commission meeting (ex-for the commission meeting date of May 3, 2006, plans, applications and fees would have to be in the office on or before April 19th. Drees said he did not agree with a deadline being retroactive. MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO AMEND THE MOTION BY STATING THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS A MORATORIUM DATE OF APRIL 17, 2006. THAT WOULD BE THE DATE OF THE FINAL APPROVAL BY COUNCIL. Malm said he understood the motion but would argue that until the 17th of April, there is no moratorium. There may be others with plans in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and there are people with plats but some have never been recorded. He asked if other property owners in the ET zone might consider filing applications. Malm asked Gengler if others came in the office tomorrow, would he accept the applications and plans. Gengler answered he would have to do as he did with the Trent Olson Subdivision since the moratorium would not be adopted until April 17. Gengler further stated that, depending on what happens between now and April 17, the city has the ability and obligation to refuse the plan if it is turned in incomplete. Kreun said Ridgeview is safe because it is up for final approval at city council and the Trent Olson plat is only up for preliminary approval. Gengler said that was correct. The plats could be accepted but they would not receive final approval by April 17th. Lee asked for a vote on the amendment to recommend the moratorium date be set for April 17, 2006. LEE SAID BASED ON A VOICE VOTE, THE AMENDMENT FAILED. THE ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED WITH DREES VOTING NAY. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL 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 introduced Garneth Peterson, SRF Consulting, and consultant for the Grand Forks 2035 Land Use Plan. Ms. Peterson thanked everyone for their patience and help during the last year while working on the land use plan update. She gave a power point presentation of the 2035 Grand Forks Land Use Plan. A complete copy of the presentation is on file in the Grand Forks Planning Department and is available upon request. Ms. Peterson gave reasons for update the land use plan, the primary objectives, and the information gathering process. She showed a map of the existing land use and stated the MPO adopted a 1.2% annual increase in population rate. Advanced Engineering subcontracted with SRF to provide information on utilities which included water service, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and the flood protection. The goals, objectives and policies are listed in Chapter 3. The plan is to continue using the tier boundaries with Tier 1 as the primary growth area and would meet the growth needs until 2035. Tier I is the area closest to the city that has infrastructure to support growth. Tier 2 is the urban reserve area. This area should remain undeveloped until needed for future growth. Tier 3 is the agricultural zone and should be left as agricultural land. The plan recommendations were future land uses, the addition of new districts, adding overlay zones, design guidelines from the consultant for three pilot areas, enhance development review process and by monitoring growth. She also talked about each of the pilot area goals and showed possible designs of each one. Ms. Peterson gave an overview of the development review process by stating that if the city is going to upgrade how planning is accomplished, more planning staff is needed. More people are needed in order to implement the planning tools and also to provide the services that citizens will expect. The system needs to be upgraded in terms of what is expected from people and what decisions staff and the commission will be making. An annual review and evaluation of building and platting in all land uses should be accomplished in order to determine if enough land is available for each land use. Then a determination can be made on whether or not to adjust the tiers. There is approximately 200 lots outside the city limits to be developed but the most fiscally responsible growth is to encourage contiguous development. The city should continue to annex properties for orderly growth and development, efficient provision of municipal services, equitable sharing of the tax burden and have one municipal government for urban area. With annexation, the boundaries will match the provision of services. Continue the use of the annexation point system using future development as well as existing development. Ms. Peterson further recommended an annexation study that studies both the costs and the benefits. A summary of the implementation directions is to adopt the 2035 Land Use Plan, use the future land use map, revise the zoning code, revise the subdivision regulations, complete a comprehensive policy review in city hall (annexation policies, fiscal policies), identify the urban design guidelines, develop additional planning documents, staff support by providing the staff to do the work, and encourage citizen participation. Lee asked about the annual evaluation of tiers. If changes were needed, would that be accomplished by amending the map? Ms. Peterson said that could be done, but generally there is so much land available, it’s a very long time before more is needed. Earl Haugen, Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), gave a short power point presentation. There have been some changes in the plan. One landowner asked that a change be made along South 42nd Street, changing a portion of the area south of 17th Avenue South from residential to commercial. Policy redrafts cover the Tier 2 flood prone areas, annexation, park and open space, stormwater facilities, trunk infrastructure maps. The annexation policy exists in the procedural manual but did not appear in other documents (1.10.1). Another policy redraft is to require dedication of land or create an impact fee for providing stormwater facilities along with 8% park and open space dedication (8.3.7). A policy redraft dealing with dedication of land or fees or creating an impact fee system to create park and open space areas in Tiers 1 and 2 (6.2.1). The overall land use map has been modified to include existing platted, but vacant, rural lots instead of just the existing rural homes. Kerian asked about the impact fee system. Haugen replied there is an ordinance to donate 8% of land (or money in lieu of) when platting residential property. This also includes land in the ET zone. Dr. Kweit stated the impact fee would affect the entire city, not just the residential area, to handle federal regulations on storm water storage and drainage. Haugen said the impact fee system was studied in 1996, but the flood occurred and the work was halted. The work that was done will be reviewed and updated to make sure calculations are updated. Lee opened the public hearing. Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, spoke on the ET zoning and how it affects the land use plan. The move to four miles is wrong. There is significant growth to the south but virtually no growth west of existing city infrastructure. The land use plan benefits the city. It is a mistake to push people further out into the county because they want more property in the form of 2-1/2 or 5-acre lots. He suggested that the city’s western edge of the ET zone end at the English Coulee Diversion because it is a natural barrier. Robert Drees said he would be in the Tier 2 system and wanted to know if it limited him in building or reconstructing anything on his farm sites. Gengler answered the intent was not to hamper or harm any existing agricultural operation. Kevin Romig, 517 South 6th Street, said he was speaking on behalf of the public and in support of the land use plan. He noted there had been a lot of talk about the 2-1/2 acre lots and while they are popular and allowed in the county land use plan, it does not mean they are good for the public. Just because people want to have them does not mean they should be built. There is no such thing as a 2-1/2-acre cluster. In terms of managing space and growth, there is a need to adopt the plan to make sure that unsustainable growth (2-1/2 acre lots) does not continue to hamper the future growth of the Grand Forks area. Jerry Waletzko, 5041 West Elm Court, said he was a real estate agent and was representing the party that sought the change in the zoning map on 17th Avenue South and South 42nd Street. He wanted members to realize that the Alerus was an island with a roadblock south of 17th Avenue South. According to the Land Use Plan, there can be no restaurants, bars, or hotel developments around the Alerus. He said the surrounding area could be a real asset to the Alerus and everyone wants to see it be a success. He also noted the land use plan does not capitalize on the traffic along I-29. He asked that the members keep an open mind in the future about changing the map if development wants to go in the area of the Alerus. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN. Malm said he was going to support it because he is in favor of planning. The document will have to be reviewed and changes will occur over time. He noted they tried to open up 17th Avenue South with I-29 in order to create more access, but that hasn’t happened as yet. The flood created many problems and rules and regulations were not followed. The land use plan is a roadmap to follow and he would support it. Lee spoke on the policy redraft 1.5.2 dealing with flood prone areas in Tier 2. The policy can go into the plan but it will probably be back for further discussion. There is a possibility of having a strip of land between the dike protection and the river and also further south and this would not be annexed into the city as the city grows south. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED WITH DREES VOTING NAY.* Haugen expressed his thanks to SRF, Advanced Engineering, and Garneth Peterson for the work that has been accomplished on the land use plan update over the last year. He also thanked Dr. Kweit for his leadership on the land use subcommittee, the members on that subcommittee and the city staff for all their efforts on the land use plan update. He announced that RFPs (Request for Proposals) were due on Friday from consultants to help in the development of the land development code. 3-3 (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS, FOR FINAL 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. Gengler reviewed the plat, stating the developer and property owner asked that the plat name be changed to Ridgeview Estates Addition. Following preliminary approval, it was discovered a portion of the plat may have been subject to the Cole Creek Coulee Diversion project during the Merrifield Bridge Feasibility Study. Jerry Pribula, surveyor, on behalf of the county, discussed with the consultants where the diversion ditch would be located. It was assumed that the quarter of land where it was located was a perfect section of land. However, there are some areas closer to the river where the actual sections did not constitute a full mile. They reviewed the plan that was adopted to study and indications were that someday in conjunction with the Merrifield Bridge, there would also be a diversion ditch. The diversion ditch was not deemed by the Corps of Engineers to be critical to the flood protection project. It was more for alleviating issues south of the Country Club as well as the Country Club. Gengler indicated the vicinity map of the area for the proposed plat. The diversion ditch was for water runoff but also as a source of dirt for fill material for the embankment at some point in the future. He indicated the approximate location of the diversion ditch. It was the intent to have the ditch wholly located on the parcel directly north of the subject property (Ridgeview Estates Addition). The true measurements of the ditch encroached into the Ridgeview Estates Addition. The northerly tier of the plat (100’ or so) could have been impacted by the ditch and that creates two property owners involved in the eventual construction of the ditch. Gengler referred members to the letter from the Water Board that indicates their intent to have the ditch only on the northerly property and not on the plat of Ridgeview Estates Addition. He wanted members to know about the issue. The Ridgeview Estates Addition plat is located in the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction with the application being submitted mid-February. Staff’s recommendation is for final approval of the plat as submitted subject to the technical changes. Grasser said if the plat were to be approved as submitted which moves the drainage reservation onto the northern portion, he asked that it be designated in a note on the plat so that property owners would know what would be on the other side of them. Gengler said that was a good idea and would be noted as an additional technical change. The study that was conducted came up with two alternatives: 1) parallel with Merrifield Road; 2) the one closer to the northern edge of the Ridgeview plat. Robert Drees stated when the consultant saw the volume of dirt that would be moved, the alignment with County Road 6 was selected because it was the shortest route between Cole Creek River, but calculations later determined it would be cheaper to use the longer route. That was the reason for the northerly option. However, the reservation is still in place. Kurt Tingum, 1317 Chestnut Street, attorney for the owner and developer, and also representing Jerry Pribula, surveyor. He asked if language was to be added to the plat, it should be stated as a “potential” area. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND ALSO WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE ON THE PLAT INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE DIVERSION DITCH: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Plat requires 8% Park and Open Space Dedication. 3. Plat requires street and highway ordinance. 4. Add note to address minimum building elevations 5. Show dedicated storm water/drainage easements across Lots 4-7, Block 1, based on an acceptable flood study to identify 100-year flood elevations on Cole Creek. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL 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 ordinance stating it is the result of federally mandated storm water rules and regulations. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY MALM TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATING TO SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING ON SIGNS SERVING A PUBLIC PURPOSE. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY MALM TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, FOR FINAL 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. Steve Adams recused himself from voting on agenda items 3-6, 3-7, 3-15, 4-1 and 4-2. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DREES TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON THE STATED AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the existing development would be extended. The plat would create small lots and additional right-of-way for South 43rd Street and 38th Avenue South. The plat was originally considered by the commission in September, 2005. At that time, there was a discussion about the proposed use of the property and a stipulation was placed on the plat regarding the shielding exterior storage. It was decided to place the condition on the concept development plan and the detailed development plan and not on the plat. This would eliminate any confusion with land use and platting of the property. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the request. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Plat requires street and highway ordinance. 3. Submit utility master plan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVEN L. ADAMS ON BEHALF OF ARTHUR GREENBERG, JR., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM THE 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 concept (or zoning) development plan for the area. It continues the B-3/I-2 zoning. He discussed the issue of screening by using an opaque fencing to shield any exterior storage. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the request. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Show correct ghost lot lines for the replat of Lot 1, Block 2, Columbia Park 22. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JOE SIERRA, FOR FINAL 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 showing the location on a map. The rezoning would tie in with the existing zoning across the street. East of the property is a substation and an apartment building on one corner and a single-family rental home on another corner. The applicant wishes to remodel the building for apartments. Staff’s recommendation is for final approval. Joe Sierra, 1107 University Avenue, was asked the number of apartments in the building. He answered it would be two units with separate entrances, two bathrooms, and parking for four to six vehicles. The downstairs apartment would be a basement apartment. Lee asked what business was in the building. Durrenberger replied it was the old Vilandre building and has been vacant for a number of years. Lee opened the public hearing. Elinor Stone, 823 North 6th Street, stated she lives two houses down from the subject property. There is a rental house next to her house and she is upset with the partying that goes on. She also stated the alley is used as a drag race area. There is a concern with converting it into an apartment building and she is concerned about all the rentals. Dean Stone, 823 North 6th Street, stated the rental next to them is a constant party. They have called the police about it. The owner of the rental said he would not be renewing a lease with the people in May. Mr. Stone said he tried to keep his property in shape but behind them was like a junkyard with beer cans and bottles. He asked the commission not to approve another apartment building. Lee closed the public hearing. Kerian said she appreciated the comments from the neighbors. The city is on the path of trying to do more in enforcement of the regulations in neighbors. She suggested they speak to Bev Collings and give her the information so she can follow up on the situation. She said it would be good to bring a building into use and a dilapidated building does not add to any neighborhood. There is a need to enforce the ordinance to prevent the problems the Stones are experiencing. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DOUGLAS AMUNDSON ON BEHALF OF OTR PROPERTIES FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-SECTION 18-0907(2)(l)(3) FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 2, OSCARVILLE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 2611 NORTH 42ND STREET, CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE ACCESS ONTO A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET REQUIREMENT FROM 660 FEET TO 22 FEET. Durrenberger reviewed the request and asked members to refer to the new map of the area. There was a slight modification submitted by the applicant. The subject property is located on North 42nd Street which is classified as a minor arterial street. He reminded members of a similar request several months ago on the Bommer Tract, several lots north of the subject property, however the subject lot is much smaller than the Bommer Tract. The subdivision is quite old and the lots do not conform to the standard subdivision requirements for access onto a minor arterial. The applicant wishes to construct a garage for tractor trucks and an office. It is a corner lot and fronts on 26th Avenue North but he could not make the radius with the large vehicles without the access of North 42nd Street. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the applicant also receive a variance from the Board or Adjustment because the setback from the corner of the property does not meet the requirement of 50 feet. Durrenberger said there were problems with the lots because the roadway is so far away. He noted the driveway and said part of it is in the public right-of-way. There are many non-conforming situations in the neighborhood. Staff recommendation is for approval. The commission denied the Bommer Tract and council overturned Commission’s finding of denial by approving the request. A precedent has now been set. Lee asked to see where the 22 feet would be on the map. Malm asked how many more requests would be like this one. Durrenberger said there were a number of vacant lots in the area and many interior lots do not have access. As more of the lots are developed, there will be more and more of the lots presented to the commission. Discussion ensued on the problems along North 42nd Street. Durrenberger said the homes located in the area are non-conforming because the area is zoned industrial. Kreun said there cannot be many lots left that face North 42nd Street. In discussions with the city engineering, he asked how sanitary sewer could be put in the area before the streets are put in. Kreun said approving the subject lot would not change anything down the road. The interior lots will be the real problem. Grasser said the area was a poster child on how not to develop and not to plan. He said there are old residential lots that are being turned into commercial type operations. The problem is running 18-wheeler type trucks into the lots. There are not many options. He questioned the type of business in the area if several variances are necessary to make it work. He stated he voted against the Bommer Tract variance and would do the same on this one. He did not feel putting driveways within twenty-two feet of an intersection on a classified street is not the proper thing to do. Lee opened the public hearing. Leroy Baldock, 1123 Shakespeare Road, stated it was 39 feet to the corner and 22 feet to the north lot line. The property was developed many years ago but has remained vacant of a buyer and a building for 40+ years. He wants to build a truck shop/storage building on the lot to help his stepson who is in the trucking business. The lot is 98 feet by 140 feet. The lot is not usable under current city code for a commercial purpose. All the businesses along North 42nd Street are of a similar type of business. He cannot have the driveway on the 26th Avenue North side because the lot is too narrow north and south. Also 26th Avenue North is graveled and has a posted “no truck driving” sign so North 42nd Street is the only access to the lot. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Kerian said she voted against the last one also because she had heard that other people had requested a driveway access variance and were denied. Since the last one was given approval, she would vote to approve this one also. Grasser stated if they were not going to follow the code by specific motions and start using precedence, maybe the code should be changed. If the rules are not going to apply to North 42nd Street, then the code should state that. Malm said he agreed with Grasser. He further asked planning staff to research a way to handle this particular area of town. This area will be a problem for a very long time. Lee said there was not that much traffic on North 42nd Street. The reason for the 660 feet was because most streets like that have heavy traffic and she questioned if the reason for the rule existed. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED WITH GRASSER VOTING NAY. 3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BOBBI HEPPER-OLSON ON BEHALF OF JON LARSON FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-SECTION 18-0907(2)(l))(3) FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ADAMS-DOBMEIER SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 5515 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE ACCESS ONTO A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET REQUIREMENT FROM 660 FEET TO 300 FEET. Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the request was for access on North 55th Street. The property owner has a potential buyer for the southern portion of the property. After the flood, the city purchased property in order to construct South Congressional single-family residences. As a result, it placed the industrial properties in a situation that if they request access on North 55th Street they would be across the street from a residential area. Two years ago another request was received to access North 55th Street further south. The distance from the proposed driveway to the corner property line is 300 feet. Without the access, the property would be landlocked. The property owner will also be required to get a variance from the Board of Adjustments allowing an access point across from residential properties. Staff recommendation is to approve the request based on precedence. Grasser said there was a big difference in providing a variance for 300 feet versus 22 feet. Durrenberger said the variance was being sought prior to replatting the property. Further discussion ensued. Lee opened the public hearing. Bobbi-Hepper Olson, Hepper-Olson Architects, stated the buyer wishes to use the property for storage and truck traffic would be minimal. Malm said he was confused with the dimensions. Ms. Hepper-Olson explained where dimensions were located. Grasser stated the access controls should be measured from the centerline of the street to the centerline of a driveway. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-11. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND EICKHOF DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 7, SUNNY NODAK FARMS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 6800 BLOCK OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE. Gengler reviewed the replat, stating it is part of the flood protection system. Grasser said the city acquired by metes and bounds and the replat will change the property ownership and plat the property according to code. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show spot ground elevations or contours. 3. Include access control along all of the east line of North 69th Street and along University Avenue except a 40-foot wide access, 660 feet east of North 69th Street. 4. Show and dimension southwest corner of Section 1. 5. Show DeMers Avenue south of railroad lands. 6. Dimension north and south plat boundaries. 7. Label Lot “A” as flood protection drainway. 8. Add owners of Lots “A” and “B” in owners’ certificate. 9. Add 15-foot wide bikepath and utility easement along University Avenue. 10. Add 10-foot wide utility easements on east and west sides of Lot “B.” 11. Identify easement along the south line of Lot “B.” 12. Extend access control line on North 66th Street to 300 feet south of University Avenue. 13. Add note to state that the city of Grand Forks does not have any available utilities to this site. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-12. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND DENNIS KADLEC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 1 OF EIDE AND KNOFF ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF U.S. HIGHWAY 81 NORTH. Gengler reviewed the request stating it is part of the flood project system. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show monuments placed at all lot corners. 3. Change lot numbers to “A” and “B”. 4. Include distance and bearing along the east plat boundary. 5. Show access control along the east line of Highway 81 except at existing driveway to Lot “A”. Dimension appropriately. 6. With the floodplain note, state that all lands are within Zone “B”. 7. Change scale on plat to a dimension easily interpreted. 8. Add 10-foot utility easements along the north and west sides of Lot “A.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-13. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, BROWN’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 2801 OLSON DRIVE. Gengler reviewed the request, stating it was part of the flood project system. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Include proper signers in Planning and Zoning Commission approval. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-14. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF N.S.P. AND PILLSBURY INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF MILL ROAD. Gengler reviewed the request stating it was part of the flood protection system. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Correctly identify president and secretary in the Planning and Zoning Commission approval certificate. 3. Show spot ground elevations or elevation contours. 4. Set monuments at all lot corners. 5. Show 10-foot utility easements along plat boundaries. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-15. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, JR., FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CONTAINING 21.56 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND LOCATED BETWEEN I-29 AND SOUTH 38TH STREET, NORTH OF THE DRAINWAY AND SOUTH OF LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE (AKA COLUMBIA PARK 32ND ADDITION). Durrenberger reviewed the annexation request stating the area was located south of Lowe’s. The 21-acre area is being platted and rezoning to commercial. Staff’s recommendation is for approval. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE. Malm reminded Durrenberger about providing an annexation point system with each annexation request. Malm said he knew there was a request for annexation from the developer but still wanted to see the point system with each annexation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-16. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, ARDELL L. AND INA JANE KORYNTA, TIM CRARY, PRESIDENT OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., AND GRAND FORKS COUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE ALL STREETS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHOWN ON THE REPLAT OF CAMPBELL ADDITION, LOCATED NORTH OF U.S.HIGHWAY NUMBER 2 AND WEST OF NORTH 55TH STREET. Durrenberger reviewed the vacation request, saying the request was attached to the replat under agenda item 4-4. The vacation will close off some streets as part of the city’s flood protection system. MOTION BY KERIAND AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, JR., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COLUMBIA PARK 32ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED BETWEEN I-29 AND SOUTH 38TH STREET, NORTH OF THE DRAINWAY AND SOUTH OF LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE. Durrenberger reviewed the plat request, stating it is a seven lot commercial subdivision. Access to the lots is provided by 39th Avenue South. There was some discussion on whether or not the street should be a private, but as of now, 39th Avenue South will be a publicly dedicated street. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the plat request and the street and highway ordinance. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST AND THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Plat requires annexation of lands to the city of Grand Forks. 3. Plat requires street and highway ordinance. 4. Add 10-foot wide utility easements along 39th Avenue South rights-of-way and around the perimeter of the platted lands. 5. Add cul-de-sac on west end of 39th Avenue South for vehicle turnaround. 6. Add access control along South 38th Street in legend and on drawing. 7. Remove park district approval as park dedication does not apply to commercial or business districts. 8. Correct non-matching bearings and distances on either the drawing or the owner’s certificate (west line of plat). 9. Add 15-foot wide utility and bikeway easements along South 38th Street. 10. Slope and drainage easement along the drainway should be labeled as 20-foot wide permanent slope and drainage easement. Kreun asked Grasser if there was enough room on the drainway for access. Grasser said yes. Lee asked about a cul-de-sac turnaround and Durrenberger noted that was a requirement in the technical changes since city code prohibits a dead-end street. That would be changed on the final drawing at next month’s meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, JR., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM GREENBERG PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE GREENBERG PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INCLUDE COLUMBIA PARK 27TH ADDITION AND COLUMBIA PARK 32ND ADDITION AND LOCATED BETWEEN I-29 AND SOUTH 38TH STREET, NORTH OF THE DRAINWAY AND SOUTH OF LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE. Durrenberger reviewed the zoning plan for the area. It will be part of the Greenberg PUD. Current zoning for the C-3 area is B-1 and C-4 area is R-4. The new plan changes the C-3 area from B-1 to B-3 type uses and the C-3 area from R-4 to B-3 type uses. One of the prospective buyers of a home on the east side of South 34th Street was concerned about the type of business to be located in the area. Staff’s recommendation was to modify the request to rezone the east portion of the C-3 area to B-1 type uses with a net density not to exceed that of an R-3 zone and building heights not to exceed 40 feet. Kerian said council had heard from people along Ruemmele Road who were concerned about traffic throughout the area. She asked Adams about the plan. Adams stated there was nothing that would affect the homeowners along Ruemmele Road. He had no problem with keeping the C-3 area as B-1 type uses. He said he forgot about the twin homes on the east side of South 34th Street when he requested the B-3 zoning. Durrenberger stated the B-1 area allows residential as well as office-type uses, however, the density limit and building height is recommended to prevent the very large type multi-family that exists behind Menards. The limitation would be more restrictive for the area. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE STIPULATION OF THAT THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE C-3 AREA (FRONTING SOUTH 34TH STREET) BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT B-1 TYPE USES WITH A NET DENSITY NOT TO EXCEED THAT OF AN R-3 ZONE AND BUILDING HEIGHTS NOT TO EXCEED 40 FEET AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Add Greenberg PUD to approval box. 2. Update legal description to real Columbia Park 27th Addition and Columbia Park 32nd Addition. 3. Show correct platted lot lines for Perkins 7th Addition, Perkins 11th Resubdivision and Perkins 12th Resubdivision. 4. Show new location of 39th Avenue South access. 5. Limit Acea C-3 with B-3 type uses to the west half of the parcel (Lot 1, B-3 Columbia Park 27th Addition). Designate the east half of the parcel as a new area to C-5 (or rename Area C-4 to C-5 and designate east half as C-4). Show the zoning for the east half of the parcel as B-1 type uses with a maximum density equivalent to an R-3 multiple-family, medium density District and a building height of three (3) stories or forty- (40) feet (similar height restriction to R-3 District. Change data summary chart to reflect revised area designation and land uses. 6. Add to existing notes: 3. Future land and block designations shall conform to sub-area numbers when practical. 4. Final approval of a Planned Unit Development Project – as per Grand Forks Code Section 18-0223. 5. Sign regulations, parking regulations and additional requirements, exceptions and modifications shall generally conform to Article 3 of the Land Development Code. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, VERNON AND JUDY GORNOWICZ, VIOLET KORYNTA THEIS, AND SHIRLEY KORYNTA MUMM, AUDREY KORYNTA BOWERS AND VIOLET KORYNTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT A, BLOCK 4 OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 4 AND A REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 AND BLOCK 3 OF THE PLAT OF KORYNTA-LEMM SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED NORTH OF 17TH AVENUE NORTH AND EAST OF NORTH 55TH STREET. Gengler reviewed the replat, stating it was part of the city’s flood project system. It is processed as a regular track item because of minor dedications of rights-of-way. Staff’s recommendation is for preliminary approval. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add spot ground elevations. 3. Change Lot “C” to Lot “D” in Block 4. 4. Change right-of-way widths from 79.99 feet to 80.0 feet. 5. Add access control along east side of North 55th Street. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, ARDELL L. AND INA JANE KORYNTA, TIM CRARY, PRESIDENT OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., AND GRAND FORKS COUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2; LOT 1, BLOCK 3; BLOCK 4; LOTS 1AND 2, BLOCK 5; LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 6; LOT 1, BLOCK 9; AND LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 10, CAMPBELL ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED NORTH OF U.S.HIGHWAY NUMBER 2 AND WEST OF NORTH 55TH STREET. Gengler reviewed the request, stating the replat was part of the city’s flood project system with minor dedications of rights-of-way. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Label all public land corners. 3. Dimension railroad right-of-way (100’). 4. Identify north, east and south lines of Section 36. 5. Show ground contours or spot elevations. 6. Provide cul-de-sac turnaround at the north end of North 58th Street and the service road between Blocks 3 and 6. 7. Correct plat title to read “a replat of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lot 1, Block 4; all of Block 5; Lots 1 and 2, Block 6; Lot 1, Block 9; and all of Block 10. Campbell Addition, to the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota. 8. Show monument set at all lot corners. 9. Identify lands owned with owners’ certificate. 10. Add access control lines along all of the west line of North 55th Street and the north line of Block 9 as shown. 11. Plat requires street vacations. 12. Plat requires street and highway ordinance for new cul-de-sac rights-of-way. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TAREK HOWEARD, ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM OLSON, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF TRENT OLSON SECOND SUBDIVISION, BEING A PART OF THE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, ND. Gengler reviewed the plat request, stating this was discussed under agenda item 3-1. He said staff’s recommendation was to deny based on the fact that the land use plan is on the agenda for final approval and the proposed plat request is on the agenda for preliminary approval and does not meet the requirements of the land use plan update. He showed on the map the location of the property in Brenna Township. It is a total of 126 acres with 39 lots made up of most 2-1/2 acre lots or larger. The plat itself is in good order. Staff’s recommendation is for denial. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Provide ground contours or spot ground elevations. 3. Correctly label “Block 2.” 4. Provide future right-of-way reservation along the south and west boundary of the plat area, as they will be future collector corridors. Provide 40-foot right-of-way reservation with an additional 20-foot utility, drainage and pedestrian easement. 5. Include a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement adjacent to County Road No. 5 and along the north plat boundary. 6. Enlarge acreage of Lots 1, and 20, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 4, Block 2 to offset acreage lost to roadway and utility easements. 7. Show dedicated storm water/drainage easements along the north side of Lots 1-4, Block 1, based on an acceptable flood study to identify 100-year flood elevations on the English Coulee. 8. Label all interior rights-of-way as “80-foot private road and public drainage/utility easements.” 9. Add the following note regarding gravel roadways: The developer shall construct gravel-surfaced roadways in all locations labeled private road easements shown hereon. These gravel roadways shall be constructed to Grand Forks County subdivision roadway specifications and shall be maintained by all the property owners in the subdivision. The City of Grand Forks and Grand Forks County are not responsible for building or maintaining any roadways or utilities in this subdivision. In the event this subdivision is annexed to the City of Grand Forks, the private roadway and utility easements shown hereon shall be automatically converted to dedicated public street rights-of-way and utility easements. 10. Add the following note regarding utility services: Only the north portions of Lots 1-6, Block 1, adjacent to the English Coulee is located in the 100-year floodplain. The City of Grand Forks makes no representations or warranties regarding the construction upon said lots. The City of Grand Forks does not guarantee to serve the platted area herein with any type of utility service. In addition, the City of Grand Forks makes no representations of warranties regarding the uninterrupted supply of any utility service to the property within the platted area. 11. Include 100-year flood zone line on the south side of the English Coulee. 12. Show monument set at all lot corners. 13. Include all curve data. 14. Identify outlot “A” with a lot number in Block 1. Kerian said granting preliminary approval does not guarantee final approval. It is being sent on to the council because of the questionable deadline date for application, fee and plan submittals. Grasser said he thought the recommendation from staff was the correct one based on council action but he would vote to approve it in order for council to make a decision on the deadline date. Gengler noted that when an item is tabled at preliminary approval, it is not sent on to the council and over-riding staff’s denial will allow it to move forward for further council review. Kreun asked if the technical changes had been sent to the developer. Gengler said they had been sent to the surveyor. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 5-1. MATTER OF THE REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, REGARDING THE 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 agenda items 5-1 and 5-2 together, stating the idea was to convey to the commission members the action taken at city council on March 20, 2006. The items were to be brought back to the commission for final approval but the decision to table the items by the commission was overturned by council and approved on March 20, 2006. This was provided for information. 5-2. MATTER OF THE REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE 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. 5-3. MATTER OF PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL TO THE COMMISSION BY ROBERT DREES. Robert Drees, Brenna Township, passed out two documents. Since the city made the determination to extend the zoning jurisdiction out to four miles, they now control 66% of Brenna Township. He was presenting the documents in the spirit of cooperation to see what needed to be done as they move forward. Mr. Drees referred commission members to Subdivision No. 15 dealing with the storage of junk, litter, waste and other materials and Subdivision No. 16, Abatement of dangerous buildings or structures. Both ordinances were passed by the county within the last 18 months to help identify problems that are then passed on to the enforcement officer. He asked what they now do with the buildings and junk located in the county if the city does not have a like ordinance. He knows the city is in the process of updating the code, but wants the city to know about the problems they have had in the past and strongly encouraged the city to pass a similar ordinance to get rid of the junk autos and storage of junk. He said there was a problem of stored junk and old automobiles at the corner of DeMers Avenue and North 69th Street and is a new problem. He asked what action could be taken by the city on that issue. The second document, Grand Forks County Rural Living Agreement, was developed by the Grand Forks County Planning and Zoning, in conjunction with the Grand Forks Farm Bureau. The document includes overland flooding, digging of sugar beets at all hours of the night, etc. Anyone purchasing a building permit in the county receives one of the documents and are required to sign it to indicate they read it. This is to let people know in the county that they will be living in an agricultural type setting and not be surprised by the agricultural work going on. He suggested the people who purchase a building permit from the city to build in the county should still be required to receive one of the forms and sign it indicating they are aware of the agricultural living. He spoke on the overland flood issue and stated the development across from the Trent Olson Subdivision on the east side of County Road No. 5 and the south side of 32nd Avenue South had problems with overland flooding and water in their basements. That is the beginning of Legal Drain No. 9 and was diked on both sides at one time, but homeowners decided they had free dirt so the dirt was removed and placed around their homes. He felt the city needed to be aware of some of the circumstances that occurred. He offered the forms in the spirit of cooperation and make the city aware of some of the issues the county faces. There may be 200 lots in the two to four mile jurisdiction and 100 of the lots are located in Brenna Township. There will be people coming in for building permits for housing developments or single-family homes and they need to be aware of those types of situations. Grasser said he thought the document for rural county living agreement was important and the city can address things on the new plats. He noted there was an extensive list of conditions for the Trent Olson Subdivision and some of them dealt with drainage. There are a number of lots the city will inherit and some of the provisions will not be on the plat because they have already been approved. He felt the information was very good. Lee asked if the documents would be forwarded to the city attorney. Gengler asked that the commission direct planning staff to incorporate the documents in the process of revising the code. After the code has been revised, the city attorney will review all sections of it and will see the documents as part of the revision. MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO DIRECT PLANNING STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. DREES WITH THE REVISION OF THE CODE. Kerian stated the living agreement would work well for the first homeowner. What efforts have been made to continue that with subsequent homeowners? The city has had problems in this regard with developers who build their own streets and later the city is requested to take over the street. Mr. Drees said the original living agreement is signed on the original deed but he did not know how to carry it through to subsequent homeowners. He suggested a possible addendum to the plat. When a development is started in the county, the developers have the option of giving the roadways to the township and then it becomes the township’s responsibility for maintenance. The township usually does not accept them. Unless it is a section line road, the township is not required to maintain it. Developers can sign a separate maintenance agreement with the county. The township recognizes that some of the developments add tax base to the township and they will negotiate with them to provide gravel for a certain period of time. When a plan is started in the county, the developer immediately sets up a homeowner’s association (while he has 100% of the votes) and then the homeowner’s association is responsible for maintaining the road. Then each person that buys a lot is automatically a member of the homeowners association. Malm stated the living agreement was mailed to all realtors and township officers as well as passing them out when a building permit is purchased. Kreun noted that most of the enforcement issues will still be done at the county because they have the law enforcement for it. Malm requested that all future presentations should either be at a special meeting or they should be placed at the end of the meeting so other people are not held up. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Gengler offered his thanks to Robert Drees for his advice and input of the material submitted. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 7. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ___________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ___________________________ Paula H. Lee, President