City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota August 1, 2007 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by John Drees, Vice President, at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Doug Christensen, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Steve Adams, Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Paula Lee. A quorum was present. Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior, Planning and Zoning Department; and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building Inspections Office). Absent: None. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 11, 2007. Drees asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of July 11, 2007. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Gengler announced there would be an added item under Other Business at the end of the formal agenda items to discuss an entrance and message sign for the University of North Dakota. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES: 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MEREDITH RICHARDS, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 2 THROUGH 8 AND THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 1, WALCHESTER PLACE ADDITION, CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1500 BLOCK OF WALNUT STREET. Gengler explained the area is one of several that would eventually be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP) for city owned lots. There were seven lots in the area remaining after the flood. After review by staff, the seven lots were combined into six lots. After further review, planning and engineering staff discovered the back of the lots were very high off the alley and could create some severe drainage problems. A drainage plan has been submitted by CPS and staff would like to thoroughly review the plan before allowing the property to be released for an RFP. Gengler stated he discussed the issue with Urban Development staff and was told it was not immediately slated for an RFP. Staff wants to be assured that any drainage problems are resolved before allowing the property to be sold to other parties. Staff recommendation is to table the issue pending further review of the drainage plan. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR ONE MONTH. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-0206 A-1 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND A-2 AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE DISTRICTS OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CREATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE REGULATION OF THE APPLICATION OF AGRICULTURAL WASTE BY-PRODUCT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TEST SITES. Durrenberger reminded commission members that a presentation was held in April regarding the application of sugar beet pulp and tailings on farm property. A request was received from a contractor of American Crystal Sugar Company to spread the agricultural by-products on property in the extraterritorial zoning area. The city’s assistant attorney determined that was not permitted under current regulations. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance to allow the process by conditional use permit (CUP). He referred members to the draft preliminary ordinance in their packets that would allow the land application of sugar beet by-products in the A-1 and A-2 districts on a trial basis. The CUP request would have to be renewed each year thereafter. Durrenberger discussed the various goals attached to the ordinance and included the need to adhere to the North Dakota regulations in order to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. He talked about the local concerns that had been voiced on smell and possible damage to township roads. After analyses of potential areas for the process, the contractor will notify planning staff and notices of the CUP request will be mailed to surrounding property owners. The use of “by-products” is already being done in Minnesota and the ordinance provisions follow those guidelines. Matejcek was concerned about the terminology use of agricultural waste/by-product and does not want other by-product use limited. He wanted to make sure that any reference in the ordinance to “by-product” only pertains to sugar beet pulp and tailings. He does not want to get a permit every time he cleans his barn. Christensen suggested the terminology “land application of sugar beet pulp and tailings by-product.” The words “agricultural waste” should be removed. Matejcek asked to be excused from voting. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY KREUN TO EXCUSE MATEJCEK FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Hagness said Matejcek’s opinion and input as a county representative and farming operator is important and did not want him to end his input because he excused himself from voting. Christensen said a member could not abstain unless there was a direct conflict and if they abstained from voting, they could still participate in the discussion. Durrenberger was asked about distances or setback from other residences before spreading the by-products. He noted he had received guidelines from the state on property that had been “incorporated or injected” versus “surface applied” and the amount of setback needed from the right-of-way, private driveway, occupied dwellings and wetlands or drainways. If the commission felt the setbacks were not high enough, they could determine other setbacks. MOTION BY HALL AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE, CHANGING ANY WORDING OF “AGRICULTURAL WASTE/BY-PRODUCT” OR “AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE/BY-PRODUCT” TO “SUGAR BEET PULP AND TAILINGS.” Durrenberger was asked about adherence to weight loads on township roads. Vicky Johnson said they follow township ordinances. They do not travel on minimum maintenance roads. They do not want to damage any roads because they have to repair any damage made by the trucks. They try to make it as easy as possible for everyone concerned. They like to use the bigger township roads if the fields are there to use. Robert Drees asked if the setbacks for housing had been adequate in Minnesota. Ms. Johnson replied it was 200 feet in Minnesota but they are incorporating the sugar beet pulp and tailings in the spring and fall. In the wintertime, the application rate is reduced based on the landowner’s wishes. She addressed questions on smell and flies. There have been no issues with the Minnesota applications. They assess a field and dwellings and determine the setbacks required. They have used 40 and 80-acre fields but they do not use smaller fields because of the difficulty in moving equipment around. Some of the area might be limited for this use because of the various setbacks that have to be applied. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Durrenberger asked members to call or e-mail him with any further comments. 4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM BROWN, ON BEHALF OF AGRI PARK II, LLC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF BROWN CORPORATION SECOND ADDITION, LOCATED ON MERRIFIELD ROAD AND SOUTH 42^ND STREET. Gengler reviewed the plat stating the area is adjacent to Merrifield Road, west of I-29. Planning and engineering staff met with Tim Brown to discuss the plat. There is an area on the northerly tier of the subdivision that is identified as a future use for the I-29/Merrifield Road Interchange. The area is labeled for the future interchange use on the original plat and on this replat. Gengler noted the hashed line on the replat drawing and said that currently the future interchange area is part of three lots on the replat. To insure all parties’ better interests, staff thought it might be better to identify the area as a separate lot rather than an area identified on paper. All parties agreed and showed on the original plat that the area is a “no-build” zone. By creating the lot, staff does not feel it will jeopardize any future gifting or donations of the land for interchange purposes. The owner said he would discuss it with his organization. By final approval time in September, staff will determine whether or not to definitely create a separate lot. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval of the plat subject to the technical changes. Christensen questioned the plat with the hash line going through it. He felt it should be made clear on the plat that the land is reserved for the future interchange. This is still part of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO) plan for the future and money is still being sought for that to happen. He does not want to create problems for the future or create an inverse condemnation that will end up costing more money. Gengler clarified that the lot would not be created as right-of-way dedication today. That would jeopardize the city’s ability to apply the cost of the land to matching funds. Grasser said that in their meeting with the owner, they suggested dedicating the property, but discovered that once the property is dedicated as city right-of-way, it can no longer count as a match. Part of the premise of the project is to count the value of the land that property owners donate towards the local match; it becomes an in-kind donation. He further stated everyone, including the property owner, is in agreement on the interchange. They discussed delaying the plat but the owner wishes to construct storage buildings this fall and delaying approval of the plat would impact that plan. Grasser said delaying the plat or creating problems for the owner could change his plans on donation of the land in the future. He suggested preliminary approval contingent on creation of a separate lot as discussed earlier, would be appropriate. The final reading for the plat next month would show the separate lot. Malm asked if the area could be kept out of the plat. He was concerned about the land changing ownership and with that change, it might change the whole interchange plans. Christensen said he agreed with Malm to change the hashed line to a property line and leave the remainder of the property off the plat. Gengler continued to explain what had been discussed with the owner and the possibility of creating a separate lot that had been designated as a future donation for an interchange but it would not be labeled as such. If the owner were to sell lot 1, there is still the notation on the original plat and the current replat that the area is a “no-build” zone. John Drees noted that if the property changed hands, it might not be as necessary for the new owner to have the interchange as it does for the Brown Corporation. Christensen asked why the property needed to be platted in order to build storage buildings. Gengler said they discussed that with the owner and it may not be necessary to create other lots if the intent is a large scale development. John Drees said it might be necessary for financing purposes. Christensen said he wanted the hashed line to be the most northerly portion of the plat and did not want the remainder to show at all on the plat. He proceeded to draw the dark continuous line where the hashed line currently divided the property. Gengler replied the area outside the hashed line was already part of the original plat and could not be left off. Grasser said what Christensen offered was what was discussed with the owner. That would create another separate lot but the owner would still retain ownership. The lot cannot be cut off and not be designated. If the parcel was unplatted, then they could do that, however, it is already in a platted area and it has to be identified. They are waiting to hear back from the owner to see if he agrees. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE REPLAT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Remove temporary turnaround lines and curve data. 3. Include square footage on each lot. 4. Plat requires street and highway ordinance. 5. As per the extraterritorial requirements, add the following: Street right-of-way, drainage and grading plan Wastewater treatment plan Water plan Roadway maintenance plan 6. Change the hashed line to a solid line for the area identified for the future I-29/Merrifield Road interchange, which will create a single lot for the interchange area. Grasser asked if the motion was to approve the plat as submitted or to approve the plat with a separate parcel in the area noted as a “no build” zone? Hagness said he wanted the plat to move forward and preserve the area that has been promised for the future interchange. Grasser said he did not want to support the plat without the separate parcel because there might be too many complications in the future. He wants a stronger delineation in order not to have multiple property owners. HAGNESS AND HUTCHISON AGREED THAT THE MOTION INCLUDED THE CHANGE OF A SEPARATE PARCEL FOR THE INTENDED FUTURE USE OF AN INTERCHANGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Malm asked for clarification of the motion. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Gengler stated information was received this date from Jay Kleven, EAPC, on behalf of the University of North Dakota for another entrance sign. The information was received too late for the agenda but is being presented as an add-on item for information purposes. It will be presented at the September meeting. Gengler said the request is for the second of four entrance signs approved by the commission and city council in 1994. The first entrance sign approved is located at the intersection of University and North 25^th Street across from University Park. The University of North Dakota is constructing a parking ramp west of Columbia Road and 2^nd Avenue North. The basic sign dimensions approved were up to 17-1/2 feet tall, up to 18.8 feet wide with a vertical width of 7-1/2 feet. What is being proposed is a less intrusive sign. He requested Jay Kleven to join him and aid in the review of the sign for commission members. Gengler reviewed the drawing stating the sign will be a V-shaped sign of two monument style signs connected on a single base. The signs themselves will not touch. The parameters of the sign are approximately 8.7 feet tall, overall width is 10.5 inches and the overall reader board is 38 square feet (9.5 feet wide by 4 feet). The sign is planned to set just outside the southeast corner of the parking ramp. He pointed out the area on the map and explained where it was in conjunction with the Hyslop Center and the football field. The main entrance to the parking ramp is on the south side on 2^nd Avenue North. Jay Kleven explained the purpose of the sign is two-fold. It is to serve as an entrance sign to the university district as well as an internal advertisement for events either at the university or by the university at another location. It will also serve as a status message board for the parking ramp such as open, closed, full, spots available, etc. It will not be a video graphic type sign. It will be a monochromatic red LED message lights on a black flat matrix background. The sign will be similar to the message sign at the Chester Fritz Auditorium, also owned by the university. Mr. Kleven explained the construction of the base which will be 42 inches above the sidewalk grade. He met with the traffic engineer this date to discuss line of sight for traffic. The sign is situated such that it will not create problems for traffic. Mr. Kleven respectfully requested an informal consideration to proceed with the sign and give contractors notice of where it will be situated. It would formally be requested at the next meeting. Hutchison said he did not have a problem with the sign but a crosswalk being constructed across Columbia Road would provide a more visible sign than the location noted. Malm agreed. Mr. Kleven said the sign is a two-fold sign and would act as an information sign as well as a status sign for the parking ramp. Commission members could not vote formally on the request but gave general consent to the project. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 7. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.