City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

January 3, 2007

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, and Frank Matejcek. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown; Dr. Lyle Hall; Dr. Rob Kweit and Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department) and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner, Planning and Zoning Department.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 6 AND DECEMBER 13, 2006.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of December 6, 2006 or December 13, 2006. No changes or corrections were noted and Lee said the minutes would be accepted as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM KEVIN RITTERMAN, ON BEHALF OF JKV INVESTMENTS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE R-4 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT AND INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 22, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 13TH AVENUE NORTH AND DARWIN DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed the request for final approval by stating the owner of the Bobcat business requested rezoning in order to utilize the property for exterior storage. The Bobcat business is located on a lot by the same owner, just north of the subject property. The property is currently zoned R-4 with a density restriction of no more than 16 units. After approval of the rezoning request, the owner will submit a site plan for the property and staff will determine the proper amount of landscaping and fencing required to screen from residential property on 13th Avenue North. Notification of the rezoning was sent to property owners within 400 feet of the property and there have been no concerns of the rezoning received by planning staff.

Hagness questioned ingress and egress onto 13th Avenue North. Gengler said there was sufficient room for a driveway access on North 39th Street and that would line up with 13th Avenue North. When asked about a commercial use accessing into a residential area, Gengler said the code states a commercial or industrial use cannot take direct access to a R-1 or R-2 District. However, the Bobcat owner has not indicated a need for access but if needed, it would be to the west of the property onto 13th Avenue North. There is no platted access control on the existing plat.

Hagness asked about a public access if the property is sold in the future. Gengler said there was no mechanism to force it. If the property were replatted at some time in the future, an access easement would have to be provided.

Grasser asked if access restrictions could be noted based on the rezoning. Gengler said access restrictions could be noted but was not typically done. The property did have restrictions placed on it when it was rezoned many years ago. Normally an R-4 zoning would be allowed 50 units per acre and the property was limited to 16 units per acre.

Grasser said he understood the concerns about access into a residential area and did not think it was unreasonable to create some type of access barrier. Gengler said if there was a desire to implement access control, now would be the time to do it.

Drees noted that unless the lots were combined, the subject lot would be landlocked without access to 13th Avenue North. If it is a standalone lot, how could access be denied off 13th Avenue North?

Malm said the commission created the problems to save the neighborhood but he said that access could not be denied and the property would have to be given access.

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

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

Christensen stated the business would have access onto North 39th Street and Shakespeare Road. By rezoning the property to B-3, any rental units are eliminated. He suggested approving the rezoning request and ask planning staff to have them combine the lots. Gengler said he would strongly encourage the owner to combine the lots when a site plan is submitted for the property. It makes it easier for planning staff if all properties are joined and calculations can be made based on one property instead of two. The owner could not build over the lot line without combining the lots.

Grasser said if access control was restricted and the condition was made to combine the lots, the lot would have access to Gateway Drive and there would not be a problem with a land-locked lot. Since there was no neighborhood concerns on the property, it would not be unreasonable to restrict access control. He wondered what type of screening would be required.

Gengler replied the minimum screening would be a bufferyard “C” and that includes a six-foot opaque fence with 15-foot bufferyard.

AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD INCLUDE A MINIMUM BUFFERYARD ‘C.

Hutchison questioned the need for the amendment if it is required. Gengler said with the added requirement of Bufferyard “C,” no matter what they utilize the property for, it will have to have the landscaping.

MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED WITH DREES VOTING NAY.

Drees said forcing the property owner to combine the lots makes it harder to sell one large lot than two lots, especially if there is no building on the back lot. Combining the lots ties the owner’s hands if he ever wants to resell the property.

Lee noted the original motion does not include a requirement for combining the lots. Gengler said staff would encourage the option to the property owner.

ORIGINAL MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUSAN CHRISTOPHERSON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-1 (LIMITED BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-2 (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT, THE WEST 13 FEET OF LOT 1 AND ALL OF LOTS 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 7, BUDGE AND ESHELMAN’S 3RD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 523 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Brooks reviewed the request, stating the original request was for a tri-plex but with the sprinkler requirement, the owner reduced the request to a duplex. Since the property was zoned B-1 and a duplex would not be allowed in that district, the request was made to change the zoning. There is R-2 zoning west of the property.

Hagness asked if the parking lot would also be R-2 zoning. Brooks said the entire site from 6th Avenue North to the centerline of the alley would be R-2 zoning.

Hagness questioned the gravel parking lot. Brooks showed a copy of the approved site plan when it was still a B-1 zoning. The parking lot will be paved since gravel is not allowed, but with the reduction from a tri-plex to a duplex, there will be more green areas.

Brooks was asked if the flat roof would remain. He replied the changes would be on the interior of the building.

Malm asked if access was off the alley and he was told the existing access was off North Washington Street. The access off 6th Avenue North would be eliminated. They would maintain the access off the alley and from North Washington Street.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST.

Malm said changing the zoning from B-1 to R-2 on North Washington Street is not the way the Commission should be going. There should be no residential off North Washington Street. There is very little residential left on Washington and it should not be allowed to be there.

Hagness said the duplex is a lesser use for the neighborhood and there is more parking provided that other duplexes.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM AND KREUN VOTING NAY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GRAND FORKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (2006 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES ELEMENT) TOGETHER WITH ALL MAPS, INFORMATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DATA CONTAINED THEREIN.

Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), stated the ordinance was necessary to update transit to include changes from Congress based on passage of SAFETEA-LU. He referred commission members to 3.7.3 Recommended Plan Operating Financial Analysis and Table 3.32. He noted there was an error on the spreadsheet that created the table and that the carryover will not be one-half million dollars; it would be less than that. The error would be corrected by the time it goes to council for final approval.

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

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF RIVERSIDE PARK RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT PARK AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH 3RD STREET AND LEWIS BOULEVARD.

Gengler reviewed the next three requests that are part of the overall flood protection system. All three plats include some parts of park district facilities and greenway facilities. Ownership, leasing, duties and responsibilities of the properties have been detailed in a document signed by the city and the park district. He showed the detailed map of the Riverside Park Resubdivision and the various five lots created. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR INCLUDED ON THE REVIEW SHEET:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Dedicate alleyway north of future Lot 5.
3. Include legal description of all existing lots within the plat boundary in the owner’s certificate.
4. Vacate parts of Park Avenue no longer needed as right-of-way.
5. Use city council approval certificate with street and highway acceptance language.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF CENTRAL PARK RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT SOUTH 3RD STREET AND ELM AVENUE.

Gengler reviewed the plat request and showed a map of the raw water intake, trailhead and parking lot and the lift station. The plat includes five lots. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to special conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY GRASSER FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Identify all lands to be replatted within the title and the owner’s certificate.
3. Vacate lands no longer needed as public rights-of-way.
4. Use longer city council approval.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF LINCOLN PARK GOLF COURSE RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED BETWEEN 1300 AND 2300 BELMONT ROAD.

Gengler reviewed the plat request by stating one of the lots is a lift station, another lot is a holding pond, a lot for the golf course and the fourth lot which is the tennis court. He noted that after a meeting today with engineering and park district superintendent, the final plan may show two more lots that separate a park district storage building and a lot for the clubhouse and parking lot. The separate lots would be for insurance purposes. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to the special conditions shown on the review copy.

MOTION BY GRASSER AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include full legal description of all included lands within the owner’s certificate.
3. Add separate lots for golf clubhouse building and maintenance buildings.
4. Plat requires street and highway ordinance for the acceptance of new rights-of-way.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 18-0206 -A-1 (LIMITED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT AND 18-0207-A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT.

Gengler reviewed the request. The ordinance is one of the documents from the Land Development Code Revision Committee and is the beginning of the work following the extension of the extraterritorial zoning (ETZ) district and the moratorium for developing in the ETZ. He noted the moratorium was extended and was due to expire by March 20th. The intent is to achieve final approval of the A-1 and A-2 ordinance as well as the subdivision regulations and rezoning amendment before the end of February.

He referred members to the ordinance and noted the most significant changes made. Currently the A-1 District has been known as the limited development district and the A-2 as the agricultural preservation district. They have been changed to reflect the A-1 District as the agricultural preservation district and the A-2 is the agricultural urban reserve district. The two districts are being combined in one section of the code and have been changed to a tabular format. The final mechanics of the ordinance are being reviewed by the city attorney.

Other changes noted:

· The uses permitted are being categorized as well as the definition and identification of specification type of uses.
· Page 3 shows the use category, the major land uses anticipated (agricultural, residential, parks and open space, utilities, etc.) Gengler said the primary changes are to the allowable residential development.
· Page 9 shows what is and is not allowed. In the A-1 District, there will be a maximum density of one unit per 40 acres. The provision has been added to allow splitting off five acres of an existing farmstead on property that is at least 40 acres. The owner can then sell or lease the five acre lot.

In the A-2 District, a one unit per 40 acre density is allowed with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This is for the person that desires to plat a residence in the A-2. The 2.5 acres would be carved out of the 40 acres. On the remaining land that was not platted, a deed restriction would be in place to restrict any future residential development until the city would grow out to the area. The city attorney is reviewing whether the restriction is achieved through a pure deed restriction or a note on the plat or a combination of the two. That will be determined before final approval. All of the instruments achieve the same goal but the city attorney is trying to find the most accurate way for long-term use so that all parties in the future are aware of the density restriction.

Within the A-2 zoning district, a cluster option is being allowed. A minimum of 320 acres would be necessary for residential development and based on a one unit per 40 acre density and .5 acre per lot. The development would have to be clustered in such a way that the septic and water systems can be easily adapted to city services once the city reaches the area. This would be different from the existing 2.5 acre lots with individual septic systems and rural water systems.

Gengler also discussed the 640 acre parcel with a maximum of 16 units designed in a cluster style.

Gengler referred members to Page 4 regarding major public utilities and that references landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, etc. Instead of using the term “landfill” it will be changed to “municipal solid waste disposal facility.”

Hagness discussed the Bill and Trent Olson rural development proposal located in the A-1 District. They have invested $40,000 in water and sewage and missed the deadline date by one day and now they would be unable to have any development. Gengler answered yes.

Malm mentioned there were already many subdivision developments within the ETZ district. He asked if a natural disaster occurred that destroyed many of the structures, would those people be able to re-build?

Gengler answered they would be able to re-build as long as they had a legal lot of record; however, they would have to re-build to the current zoning code. There is a

difference between a lot of record versus a non-conforming use of land. If the property is considered to be non-conforming, that use cannot be rebuilt.

Lee asked about the pieces of property that are destroyed but they were not quite 2.5 acres of land. Gengler replied if it was a legal lot of record, they could rebuild.

Malm asked about a legal lot based on metes and bounds but it was not recorded. Gengler said if it were a legally recorded deed by metes and bounds, he thought it could be reconstructed but he would have to review that further.

Malm asked about someone who owns 40 acres or more in the county and wants to give the property to their children or grandchildren to build a residence on it. If it is deeded by metes and bounds, what happens then?

Gengler said there was no way to write an ordinance that will cover every scenario. There is a variance process built in the subdivision process for hardship cases. There will be situations in the future that will have to be determined as they surface.

Christensen said a discussion was held in the committee regarding platting of property and whether or not they would have to rezone. The committee did not want that and wanted some flexibility for homeowners. Gengler said that was under the subdivision regulations.

Matejcek said he would vote against the ordinance for several reasons. He stated he was part of the code revision committee and some changes he wanted were made; however, he felt other changes should be made. He felt the uses should be permitted in the A-1 and A-2 without conditions as shown and he could not support the municipal solid waste facility as a permitted use in the A-1 and A-2 Districts.

Christensen stated he respected Matejcek’s position and suggested he make a motion to remove what he did not like. That way he is on record as to his feelings on the subject and it would determine if others felt the same way.

Hagness said he did not believe Bill Olson was treated fairly when he was denied his rural development that was already started, but Bill Knipe was given approval to go ahead with his rural development. Mr. Olson was only one day late. However, he does agree with what is being proposed for the ETZ area. He does not like the subdivisions that are occurring throughout the county.

Kreun stated that Mr. Olson did not get his application and information in before the deadline and Mr. Knipe applied two years ago and agreed not to proceed with his development until the ETZ process was completed. A deadline was set and if the information was not in, they were denied. The process being reviewed is for the four-mile jurisdiction and should not be voted down because of personal feelings. This is the right thing to do for the whole process.

Hutchison said he also felt the Olsons were not treated fairly. The process is not to deal with that one instance but to discuss what could be done for the future. As a member of the committee, he was happy with the discussion and give and take of the committee members. There are issues that will not make everyone happy but the plan is a good one for the long-term future of the city.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE BY CHANGING IT TO SHOW THAT ALL AGRICULTURAL CATEGORIES IN THE A-1 AND A-2 SHOULD BE PERMITTED WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND THAT THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY (LANDFILL) SHOULD BE REMOVED AS A PERMITTED USE.

Matejcek stated the goal is to preserve agricultural land and protect it from land use conflicts associated with non-farm development. There are tools built in to discourage residential development but farmers should be allowed to do what they need to do in rural areas.

Hutchison wanted to clarify that businesses in operation in the rural areas are allowed to stay, but within two miles it is not appropriate that anymore be allowed. He agreed that the agricultural zones should reflect permitted uses with no conditions.

Christensen asked Gengler to explain why the conditions were attached to the permitted uses. Gengler gave an example of the animal operations. The conditions referred to livestock or animal operations as being permitted but the condition was that they could not operate within one-half mile of any platted lots or subdivisions. Whatever exists today will still exist but the plan is for new operations.

Grasser asked if it would help that all uses in the A-2 areas were kept as permitted with conditions instead of just permitted. The idea is to keep some of the new operations away from residential properties.

Christensen talked about the solid waste disposal facility and stated it has to remain as a permitted use. The city has to have the ability to locate a solid waste disposal facility within the four-mile jurisdiction. The council is in favor of that and they have to have that flexibility.

MOTION BY GRASSER TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS UP TO 40 AND ANIMAL WINTERING OPERATIONS UP TO 250 AS PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS IN THE A-2 DISTRICT.

After further discussion, Grasser withdrew his motion.

Matejcek called the question.

Lee reviewed the motion on the table by Matejcek. The motion is to change the “-” under A-2 (animal feeding operations and animal wintering operations) to “P” and remove the “/C.” All six columns would show “P” (permitted uses) without (/C) conditions. Further, to remove the solid waste disposal facility as a permitted use.

VOTING YES ON THE MOTION: MATEJCEK, DREES AND MALM. VOTING NO ON THE MOTION: ADAMS, JENO, HUTCHISON, GRASSER, CHRISTENSEN, KREUN, HAGNESS AND LEE.

MOTION FAILED.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH DREES, MATEJCEK AND MALM VOTING NO.

4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 9. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.

Brooks reviewed the ordinance for the subdivision regulations. There were new requirements added for the ETZ area. He referred members to page 12 that listed the street and right-of-way, drainage, grading plan, wastewater treatment, water plan, roadway maintenance plan, covenant for infrastructure, waiver of right to protest as allowed by state code presently, title opinion and recordable deed restrictions. Some of the issues are still being finalized as far as language but the intent is still valid. This covers the areas the city did not have as application requirements in the ETZ area. Additionally, right-of-way and access control is being reviewed as well as updating the subdivision regulations to the current practices and terms. Brooks stated a last addition was a note to allow the transfer of property used for farm operations. If someone is purchasing additional land to add to the farming operation they will not have to go through the platting process. The bulk of changes occurred in the zoning process discussed under the previous request. The subdivision regulations carry on what transpired under the zoning process in the A-1 and A-2 Districts.

Lee asked if the transfer of land for farm operations was included in the packet. Brooks said that was being reviewed by the city attorney to add the proper language but was intended as part of the ordinance.

Christensen noted a misspelling on the bottom of page 12.

Matejcek asked if there were two dwellings on an existing farmstead and one was divided out, would it have to be a minimum of five acres or could it be 2.5 acres? If a parcel of land is less than 40 acres, is platting of the entire piece required?

Brooks said some of the mechanics were still being reviewed and how it relates back to the A-1 and A-2. In the A-1 District, the minimum size is 40 acres.

Matejcek said he was referring to properties and dwellings that already exist; not new structures. He was wondering about a farmstead of 40 acres or less with two dwellings located on it. If one person wants to sell one of the homes, does the entire parcel have to be platted?

Brooks said they were still reviewing that because of the deed restriction. The idea is not to allow additional housing on the property and this relates back to the A-1 and A-2 districts. They are reviewing ways to allow for multiple existing dwellings on a single property.

Further discussion continued on deed restriction or some other mechanism to disallow further residential on the property.

Christensen stated the committee needed to further study the questions Matejcek brought up. Gengler stated the variance process would probably settle most of the questions.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH DREES VOTING NO.

4-6. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS AS IT RELATES TO THE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION.

Gengler reviewed the request by showing an amendment map that covers the entire ETZ area. The map does not cover anything in the corporate limits. The area shown in dark green would be zoned A-2 and the area shown in light green would be zoned A-1. Other conventional zoning areas such as PUD and industrial areas would remain as shown as well as the airport. The city attorney is reviewing a way to present the map in ordinance form. The map will be adopted by planning and zoning and by the city council as an official zoning map amendment. Changes will occur thereafter but the map is the starting point and will show what was in effect when adopted.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE MAP AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.

Malm said the map opens up a huge area that could be used for anything such as a solid waste disposal facility. He stated conditions should be attached to it. A landfill could be constructed very close to a residential area.

Gengler said there were already conditions required by the state health and construction requirements for any type of solid waste disposal facility and it was felt additional conditions would be unnecessary.

Christensen stated the city is doing what should have been done 10-15 years ago by going out to the four-mile area when it was legal to do so. There would not be all the problems with various subdivisions in the county if the city would have extended the jurisdiction years ago. Bismarck and Fargo extended to the four-mile area years ago. Now the city is aggressively addressing the issue to limit growth in the county. Another major issue addressed by the city is infrastructure. It is not cheap to run the city. The map is a tool for better planning for the city. If a landfill is decided on within the four-mile area, the city will be very mindful of where growth is occurring.

Lee said one of the major reasons for not extending to the four-mile area was because of the flood and the distractions it caused.

Kreun discussed the conditions that would have to be reviewed before siting a landfill. There are very few places in the four-mile area to place one. FAA has regulations that would restrict where a landfill could go. Not only the FAA, but the federal government, state government, health department, game and fish department (wetlands) get involved with their conditions before a landfill can be considered.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK VOTING NO.

Lee suggested Grand Forks and Fargo should get together and build a state-of-the-art facility halfway between the two cities. Christensen said that was being contemplated but the townships between present a zoning barrier.

Kreun noted that Mr. Feland was going to the meetings in North and South Dakota and Minnesota regarding regional landfills. A landfill is necessary but all options have to be explored.

Malm said he understood there were other restrictions but felt wording should be added that “all state and federal restrictions and regulations must be fulfilled.”

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF ATTENDANCE BY PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS DURING 2006. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

Gengler said the attendance by planning and zoning members for the year 2006 was included for information only.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:42 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary

____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President