City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota April 7, 2010 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Tom Hagness, (Dr.) Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees, Al Grasser, Curt Kreun and Malm. A quorum was present. Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building and Inspections Office). 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 3, 2010. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the March 3, 2010 planning and zoning minutes. There were no corrections noted and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES. 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 3, RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECTION 18-0311, DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD; AND SECTION 18-0312, OUTDOOR SEATING ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Gengler reviewed the ordinance. There were some who questioned the ordinance to include the entire central business district. The city received a historic district designation in 2005 with a total of 15 buildings on the historic register and others eligible to be added to the historic register. When the original ordinance was adopted, the city did not have historic district boundaries. There are a few areas that should not be subject to the guidelines such as St. Paul’s Church and the new civic auditorium project. Those areas are subject to the rules and it does not make sense to apply historic provisions to something that is outside the core of the historic district. Gengler showed a map with the historic district boundaries shown and also the B-4 (central business) District. He proposed to make an amendment to the ordinance to apply only to the historic district. That would exclude the civic auditorium, US Bank, Town House hotel, all the city-owned intake structures, Alerus Bank, YMCA, some apartment buildings and a few single-family homes. That would apply the historic rules to only the historic district. When asked what the detriment would be, Gengler stated the Memorandum of Understanding signed after the flood of 1997, dealt with the reconstruction of the corporate centers. As an additional requirement, the agreement states that the city needed to start a process, within 12 months of the agreement being signed, of developing the downtown design guidelines for properties that are not only eligible but properties designated in the national historic district. He stated they are keeping with the original true intent of the original idea of the historic buildings. Now the idea is to make sure that the rules apply to the correct area. He noted that the 15 or more historic buildings are all located within the historic district. There is no real negative impact. Gengler summarized the text amendment changes for the guidelines and for the outdoor seating. Gengler reported he met with the Service-Safety Committee to determine the appropriate closing time for the downtown outdoor seating. The current ordinance states the owner needs to inform the city as to the hours of operation. The Service-Safety Committee will present a propose closing time of 1 a.m. to the Committee of the Whole and the City Council. The tables and chairs should be removed by 1 a.m. Having a set time for removal of tables and chairs is helpful to law enforcement. Pending action by the planning and zoning commission, the ordinance will be changed to reflect anything within the approved historic district. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE MAP SHOWING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO REFLECT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. FURTHER, TO INCLUDE THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE OUTDOOR SEATING UNDER (6) (H) ON PAGE 23. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0218 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND AUCTION HOUSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN AN I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT AND I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT. Brooks reviewed the ordinance. The change made at the March meeting allows auction houses to be in the I-2 district as well as I-1 district under a conditional use permit. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY BROOKS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM RUEDEBUSCH DEVELOPMENT, ON BEHALF OF M & R NORTH DAKOTA II, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION TO THE FED EX GROUND PACKAGE FACILITY ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, VERN’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS ND, LOCATED AT 1475 NORTH 73RD STREET CIRCLE. Brooks reviewed the request for an appeal to the corridor overlay district. He reminded members that the corridor overlay applies to 400 feet off the right-of-way or property line along some of the major corridors leading into the city. The subject project is along Gateway Drive. He showed photos of the property and indicated the property line. The building from the property line is 330 feet so it is less than the 400 feet. Some properties would be exempt from the rule of 400 feet if they were visibly blocked. The subject property is not visibly blocked. The plan is to construct a 50-foot building addition. Exemptions were provided for expansions to building up to 25% and the Fed Ex addition accounts for 29%. Brooks showed the elevation drawings of the building and expansion area. Two bay doors are being added and match the rest of the bay doors already in place. He said the original metal building was constructed prior to the corridor overlay district being in place. The owners proposed to provide some screening with trees. As future development takes place, the trees would have to be removed. Staff expressed some concern on what would grow on the property based on the soils in that area. Hutchison asked when the future development would occur. Brooks said he did not know but the owners bought the vacant land to the south. There is some parking there now. Any future development to the south would have to comply with the corridor overlay district requirements. Hutchison asked if fencing could be put in place instead of the trees. Brooks agreed there could be fencing instead of the trees. Sande asked if Brooks had discussed optional ideas with the owners in the event that trees planted do not grow. Brooks said there was no other options presented by the owners but if the commission wanted to see other options explored in the events the trees did not live, they could require it. Sande asked how far the building was from the road. Brooks replied approximately 380 feet from the property line. Dr. Hall asked about current fencing on the property. Brooks replied there was some fencing around the employee parking. Lee opened up the public hearing. David Hull, project manager of Ruedebusch Development, Madison Wisconsin, stated the addition would accommodate cube trucks. Sande asked Mr. Hull if Fed Ex had given any indication they would leave Grand Forks or seek other property if the expansion did not take place. Mr. Hull said he was unaware of anything like that. The lease is a long-term lease. Due to the volume in the facility, they initiated the expansion. Gengler said because of the minor overall expansion, he would support the appeal of the corridor overlay district requirements. He also suggested not requiring them to provide additional landscaping due to the future intent of further expansions. There is some landscaping in place on the southerly part of the lot so he was unsure what a row of trees would accomplish. Staff would support the expansion without any requirement of screening. Galloway asked if there was a precedent for variances in the area of the proposed expansion. Gengler answered no. Each situation is different. Sande remarked that the appeal to the corridor overlay district had come up before and situations might be equal to everyone. The idea for the corridor overlay district was to adhere to the rules and regulations for areas coming into the city. Now people are continually using the appeal process. While there is a need for the appeal process, the commission needs to treat everyone fairly. Gengler said staff makes that distinction based on the magnitude of the project. Others using the appeal process wanted to be totally exempt from following the corridor overlay rules or a change that varied the intent of the ordinance rather than a smaller level. During the corridor overlay district ordinance process, the number of 25% was selected. Staff knew there would be times when the rules were not practical and the appeal would be justified. The percentage of 29% versus 25% is a small change. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. Dr. Hall said his motion leaves the screening up to staff. When asked who owned the property to the north, Brooks said it was J. R. Investments. He noted a notification of the appeal was sent to businesses within 1,000 feet of the proposed expansion. There were only eight property owners in the area and there was no feedback from any of them. Christensen said he supports the appeal request but any future expansions will require something to be done to the front. Hutchison said 25% is arbitrary and allowing more for this case is fair. Hopefully, future expansions will result in having a building that will meet the corridor overlay district requirements and cover the rest of the area. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: None. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Brooks reported that planning staff is beginning the land use plan update. There will some information presented in the near future. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: None. 7. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Dana Sande, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President