Print VersionStay Informed
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
June 6, 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: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, and Frank Matejcek. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Paula Lee 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 Steve Johnson, representing the Building and Zoning Administrator (Building Inspections Office). Absent: Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 2, 2007.

John Drees asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of May 2, 2007. Robert Drees noted on page 7 of the minutes, 12th line down from the top, “west of Merrifield” should be changed to “north of Merrifield.” There were no other changes noted.

MOTION BY ROBERT DREES AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE MAY 2, 2007 MINUTES WITH THE CHANGE AS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF RALPH APPLEGREN, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF BRETON’S 2ND SUBDIVISION, BEING PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 150 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.

Gengler announced that Durrenberger was attending a conference and he and Brooks would be trading off for agenda items.



Gengler reviewed the plat stating it was located in the southwesterly fringe of the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The plat is one of three originally submitted, then held back due to the moratorium and finally allowed to be processed. There is approximately 78 acres providing for six non-farm single-family lots and one large lot of 54 acres remaining in an agriculture status. Staff recommends final approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AS WELL AS FINAL APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Remove lot dimensions of the original tract in lots 1 and 2, block 1.
3. Relocate width dimensions on Thomas and Mary Ann Avenues.
4. Show solid line along right-of-way on 12th Avenue NE and 15th Street NE.
5. Dimension lots accordingly and show proper square footages and acreage.
6. Detach page 2 from plat and forward to the city of Grand Forks and add note No. 7.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF GLEN GRANSBERG, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MERRIFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 6 AND SOUTH 55TH STREET.

John Drees asked to be recused from voting.
MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO RECUSE JOHN DREES FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Robert Drees asked to be recused from voting on Items 3-2 and 3-3.
MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY MALM TO RECUSE ROBERT DREES FROM VOTING ON ITEMS 3-2 AND 3-3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler reviewed the plat request and stated Item 3-3 (rezoning) coincides with the plat. He showed the aerial photo and indicated the access points associated with the plat in block 1. Gengler asked that technical change No. 8 be added to provide for the existing access in lot 1, block 2. That access would remain until such time that

the lot is redeveloped. Access would then be obtained from 74th Avenue South. That is to allow the existing approach for the structure currently located on the lot. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND THE ADDITON OF TECHNICAL CHANGE NO. 8 AS WELL AS FINAL APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add acreage for all lots.
3. Include elevation of site benchmark in general notes.
4. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the land development code 18-0907(3)(L)(c) relating to level 4 access control.
5. Add wordage to state that South 55th Street shall be dedicated for public use.
6. Submit a letter to address the following items concerning this site:
Site grading and damage
Water service
Wastewater systems
Roadway maintenance
7. Note that new building elevations are to be a minimum of two feet above natural ground.
8. The existing approach access for lot 1, block 2 shall remain in place until the lot is redeveloped. Access would then be obtained from 74th Avenue South.

MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, ALL OF MERRIFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK FIRST ADDITION AND ALSO TO EXCLUDE FROM THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE) DISTRICT, ALL OF MERRIFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE MERRIFIELD PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF MERRIFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK FIRST ADDITION AND ALL OF MERRIFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION, ALL LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.



Gengler reviewed the request, showing a map of the area. There are industrial style buildings on the property for agriculture related purposes. The PUD rezoning will include all of Merrifield Industrial Park First and Second Additions. All A-2 uses will be allowed with the exception of residential development. The I-2 District setbacks will be followed on the property. Gengler explained the reason for the PUD was part of negotiations on the plat and the new subdivision regulations. It was a smoother process to incorporate the entire area as a planned unit development. Staff recommends final approval of the PUD.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (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 SECTION 18-0206 A-1 (AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION) DISTRICT AND A-2 (AGRICULTURAL URBAN RESERVE) DISTRICT.

Brooks reviewed the text ordinance that allows farmsteads to be subdivided onto a separate lot and does not count against the density requirements. He asked for clarification on whether or not to allow properties in the A-2 District to plat out the farmstead on a minimum lot size of two and one-half acres. He explained the A-1 District is the furthermost district from the city limits and they were allowed to plat out the farmstead on a minimum of five-acres. In the A-2, the farmsteads could be platted on a separate lot with a minimum of two and one-half acres. There would be a difference in lot size if platting the farmstead on a separate lot between the two districts. There would be other situations that might come up in the future that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Matejcek said he remembered from the committee (land development code revision committee) that all farmsteads would be allowed to plat on a minimum of two and one-half acre but it could be larger if needed.

Christensen said the idea was not to penalize the existing farmsteads and it should be the same in the A-1 and A-2. Kreun and Hutchison said they remembered the discussion to allow platting of farmstead onto a minimum of two and one-half acre lot. The idea was to control growth and only applied to the existing farmsteads.



Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE TEXT ORDINANCE AND TO ALLOW THE PLATTING OF A FARMSTEAD ON A MINIMUM OF TWO AND ONE-HALF ACRES IN THE A-1 AND A-2 DISTRICTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF FRANCES L. BERTHEUSON, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF FRANTASTIC ACRES ADDITION, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.

Brooks reviewed the plat request by stating it would be the first plat to utilize the text change discussed in Item 3-4. He showed the location on the map. The owner wants to plat out the original farmstead and sell it. It currently is part of a 157-acre parcel. Based on the commission’s action under Item 3-4, the owner will not need to have a restrictive covenant on the remaining property. Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the technical changes.

Drees opened the public hearing.

Fran Bertheuson, owner of the property, stated she had been trying to get permission to sell the property for the last two years. She asked if she could only sell the nine acres or could she sell off more than nine acres? Brooks said the minimum is two and one-half acres and she is over that amount so she can sell it.

Mrs. Bertheuson asked if she could sell off any more lots. Brooks said she would first have to plat the property. She would have a 140-acre lot remaining and the owner could have three lots. The rule is that each parcel has to be 40 acres in size. She would have to sell a minimum of 40 acres at a time.

Drees closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY KREUN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add note to dedicate South 69th Street to public use.
3. Submit letter to address the following items concerning this site:
Site grading and drainage
Water service
Wastewater system
Roadway maintenance

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF BOSOX, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT F, BLOCK 1 (OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS B AND C, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1) COLUMBIA PARK 10TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT 3250 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the replat request stating it was basically a simple lot split. He explained the lot split is between the Boston’s Restaurant and the Lakeview Inn and Suites. A party is interested in buying the property. There may be some issues on stormwater for the site and that is being studied by the engineering department. Staff is also looking for information on access issues between the properties. A slip ramp entrance is in place on 32nd Avenue South and a shared entrance and exit next to the Lakeview Inn and Suites. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

Dr. Hall asked about parking for each of the establishments. Brooks said that would be discussed under Item 3-13 for a joint parking facility agreement. That issue is considered under the site plan review. The size of the new restaurant is dictated by the number of parking stalls that can be placed. There is a requirement for one parking stall for each 75 square feet of restaurant space. There will be a shared parking agreement with Boston’s Restaurant. Additional parking will also occur on the open space to the north of the property.

Malm said there appears to be a problem with access. People are driving through other businesses parking lots and it is creating traffic on the mall ring road.

Brooks said staff was aware there is minimal access to the site but they have to deal with what is out there and where development occurs.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR 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 ingress/egress easement across Lot “M” for the benefit of Lot “L” or supply copy of agreement to grant access to Lot “L.”
3. Check length of line common to Lots “L” and “M” and check lot areas.

4. Stormwater issues may exist on this site. Additional stormwater review may be necessary.
5. Show existing shared access agreement with lands east thereof.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF GREG CHALMERS AND ERIC TOUTENHOOFD, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF A REPLAT OF LOTS 13, 14, AND 15, BLOCK 1, HOLE’S CENTRAL ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT 419 AND 423 WALNUT STREET.

Brooks reviewed the replat request, stating it was a simple lot split. He explained the three lots were 25 feet wide. The owner of the vacant lot 14 will sell one-half to each lot owner on either side (lots 13 and 15) making each of their lots a little larger. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR 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. Identify 5th Avenue South between blocks 1 and 2.
3. Correctly show existing Lots A and B of block 1.
4. Re-label new lots as “C” and “D.”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ARVIN HEEMSTRA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A PRIVATE HORSE STABLE AND RIDING ARENA, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (7173 32ND AVENUE SOUTH - BRENNA TOWNSHIP).

Brooks reviewed the conditional use permit request. He showed an aerial photo of the property and indicated the general area of where the horse stable and riding arena would be located. The applicant’s property is located on 32nd Avenue South but there is a fairly heavy density of trees on the east side of the property. Private riding stables are allowed in the A-1 and A-2 Districts under a conditional use permit.

Neighbors within 400 feet were notified of the request. The applicant said neighbors also have horses. He plans on having two horses on site. Brooks stated there were not a lot of conditions but the request would go through the normal site plan review. Pictures of the building and the materials to be used have been discussed between staff and applicant but that has not yet been finalized. The plan is to have 12-foot side walls. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permit (CUP).

Malm asked if the CUP would have a time limit. Brooks said staff was not recommending revisiting a riding stable every 10 years. The conditional use permit would be in place until the site changes or additional horses are added.

Matejcek asked if it was a private riding stable; he was told yes.

Robert Drees noted there were other homeowners to the south with existing private riding stables and wondered if they were grandfathered in. Brooks answered it was a legal non-conforming use and they can continue to operate them as an existing use. The applicant had to request the CUP because of the building construction and because it is a new use to the property.

Hutchison asked why the owner would be limited to two horses. Brooks said they limited it to the number requested. If more horses were added, it would begin to impact the neighborhood somewhat.

Drees opened the public hearing.

Arvin Heemstra said they would probably have friends over who also ride horses so on occasion, another horse might be on the property. He explained he has three granddaughters and the horses are for them. He currently has two horses and might add a pony but the horses are for his immediate family’s personal and private use.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RIDING STABLE AND ARENA TO BE A NON-COMMERCIAL PRIVATE USE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM JAMES R. BRADSHAW, ON BEHALF OF STRATA CORPORATION, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE PLAT OF STRATA THIRD RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT B, OF A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, STRATA RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 1625 NORTH 36TH STREET.

Brooks reviewed the request, stating it was discovered there was already a Strata Second Resubdivision and this request would be Strata Third Resubdivision. The


property is being split in order to sell off a portion to someone else. It is a simple replat and staff’s recommendation is to approve the request.

Drees opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY ROBERT DREES AND SECOND BY GRASSER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show distances on curved line segments.
3. Remove lot line from previous plat.
4. In legend, add new lot line and plat boundary.
5. Correctly identify North 36th Street.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-10. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUNSET BLUFFS, LLC, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ONLY FOR LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B, BLOCK 1, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT. THE ENTIRE AREA SHALL RETAIN ITS UTILITY EASEMENT STATUS.

Gengler explained there were several items for the Shadyridge Estates area but they were not arranged on the agenda to follow one another. He first showed a map of the Shadyridge PUD area. He indicated the Shadyridge Estates Fifth Resubdivision area is located at the southeasterly corner of Adams Drive and Shadyridge Court. As currently platted, the northerly lot line is curved at the corner. The proposal is to vacate just enough to square off the intersection. The city would retain any utility easements on the portion being vacated. The vacation will relate to preliminary plat Item 4-2. Staff’s recommendation is for approval subject to final approval of the replat of Shadyridge Estates Fifth Resubdivision.

Christensen asked what was on the property currently. Gengler said the site is developed for Cole Creek Estates. The original plan was for six structures with two units each in a condo-style development with a private internal roadway. Currently, there are only two structures built, with the remainder of the property vacant and under the same ownership. The proposal is to replat from the single-family attached units to standard single-family detached dwellings.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY MALM FOR APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE


REPLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIFTH RESUBDIVISION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-11. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND OTHERS, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN SHADYRIDGE ESTATES THIRD AND SIXTH ADDITIONS.

Gengler reviewed the request indicating on the map where Shadyridge Estates Third and Sixth Additions are located. When Desiree Drive was first platted, the roadway construction started off of Adams Drive going north and then stopped at a certain location. With subsequent replatting, the plat on file did not coincide with the existing conditions of the lots and single-family homes. Consequently, the street right-of-way is being vacated to allow for replatting and relocation of the street-of-way to provide an improved transition between the roadway and adjacent properties. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the vacation subject to final approval of Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision. The vacated property will revert back to the single-family property owners. This will extend the front yards of the adjacent lots and re-establish the right-of-way.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-12. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVAROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE ALL OF THE GERTRUDE AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTHEAST OF SOUTH 3RD STREET AND ALL OF THE DIVISION AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTHEAST OF SOUTH 3RD STREET AND ALLEYWAYS DEDICATED IN AUDITORS RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 15, 21 AND 23.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the vacation is in conjunction with the city’s flood protection project. The rights-of-way indicated on the map are no longer needed. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the vacation request.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-13. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF BOSOX, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF A JOINT PARKING FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18-0302(10) OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING, FOR THE REPLAT OF LOT F, BLOCK 1 (OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS B AND C, BLOCK 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1),


COLUMBIA PARK 10TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3250 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the request as discussed earlier in conjunction with Item No. 3-6. He showed where the lot line would occur for a Denny’s Restaurant next to Boston’s Restaurant. It was difficult to split the lot to allow for the adequate amount of parking for the two restaurants. A reciprocal agreement is being drawn up for the two restaurants for shared joint parking as well as shared access and maintenance of the

parking lots. City code requires approval of the joint parking facility by the commission because each site will not have the correct number of required parking stalls. There will be a long-term agreement between the two restaurants, transferable to any property owners and shared access and maintenance to the parking lot.

Kreun suggested that signage should be in place to make sure people know how to get around the facilities.

Discussion continued on the access points and the problems associated with the hotels and restaurant located close by as well as the internal easements.

Malm stated there are going to be three high volume businesses (Texas Roadhouse, Boston’s Restaurant and Denny’s Restaurant). He suggested there should be a traffic light at 34th and the Lakeview Inn and Suites. He was told that would be too close to the existing light at South 34th Street and 32nd Avenue South.

Brooks said there will be more congestion but staff is dealing with a situation that was put into place. Staff is trying to improve the situation as much as possible.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE JOINT PARKING FACILITY.

Kreun brought up the Town Square area and the Shadyridge area as well as the area under discussion. All of them were piece-meal projects and were not put in at the same time. Access points and development variables were not considered. Afterward, the problems are brought to the city to solve. The problems are a development problem.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH SMITH NOLTING AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF RICK AND KATHY FAYETTE, FOR



PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SHADY ACRES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED ON GRAND FORKS COUNTY ROAD NO. 17 (SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD).

Brooks reviewed the plat request by stating it is the last of the three plats accepted under the old rules. The area is on South Columbia Road with two existing homes. An additional lot is being added to the back portion, making three, two and one-half acre lots. Brooks pointed out the private cul-de-sac road that will access lot 2 and will be the only access into the site.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW, AS WELL AS APPROVAL OF THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Plat should be on a 24” x 36” sheet.
3. Plat requires street6 and highway ordinance.
4. Plat requires park district approval
5. Title plat – Shady Acres Addition and also change in owner’s consent.
6. Code requires 5/8” x 20” long rebar monument.
7. Add street and highway ordinance verbiage to city council approval.
8. Add spot ground elevations.
9. List Paula H. Lee and Lyle A. Hall as signers in the planning and zoning commission notary.
10. Include outside dimensions for plat boundary.
11. Show set monuments on the west Columbia Road right-of-way line.
12. Identify South Columbia Road.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUNSET BLUFFS, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIFTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.

Gengler reviewed the replat by stating the item had been discussed briefly when discussing the vacation request under Item No. 3-10. The replat changes the Cole Creek Condos. The plan is to change the remaining lots and create eight single-family lots. Gengler indicated the existing internal private access into the property that will serve lots T, U, V, and W. A private cul-de-sac would be constructed to access lots P, Q, R and S. The property owner wishes to rezone the remaining undeveloped areas from single-family attached dwellings to single-family detached dwellings (Item No. 4-3). Staff’s recommendation is for preliminary approval. Gengler noted there were interested parties in the audience to speak on the issue.

Christensen asked about the roads into the property. When people buy the property, they will want to know who takes care of it. Gengler said that would be taken care of through the private covenants. The existing roadway and proposed cul-de-sac are private roadways.

John Erickson, owner of the property, stated the existing internal roadway has always been a private roadway and would continue that way. The association takes care of the roadway.

Christensen said the commission wanted to make sure there was a decent road constructed so that homeowners in the future do not start complaining to the city about the road.

Mr. Erickson said the roadway would be colored concrete. Christensen asked if that should be included on the plat.

Grasser stated the code now requires private roadways that are to be serviced with refuse trucks be constructed to meet city standards and that would require a 6-inch minimum concrete roadway.

Curt Tingum, 1317 Chestnut Street, attorney representing the Lavonne Adams Trust, stated he was objecting to the replat and rezoning on behalf of the trust. The property was sold to the present owner by the trust based on the intention of constructing the condo-type structures. That protected the trust because they were selling lots for single-family dwellings. Mr. Tingum said he did not know what written agreements were in place and the matter may have to be settled in court.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show legal access to lots S, T, U, V and W with ingres-egress easements or a covenant agreement.
3. Show extents of water in the coulee east of this plat with water elevation.
4. Show ground contours and spot ground elevations.
5. Add 200-year flood line from current FEMA map.
6. Show extents of existing L.O.M.R. on affected lots.
7. Show access control along Adams Drive and Shadyridge Court. Level F access control will apply on Adams Drive, with 150-foot minimum gaps.
8. State that in the vacated portion of Lot “B,” the utility easement shall remain.
9. Add note that building elevations shall be based on best available flood elevation data.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM SUNSET BLUFFS, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADYRIDGE PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADYRIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3, ALL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FOURTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIFTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SIXTH RESUBDIVISION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES SEVENTH ADDITION, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION AND UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 151, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT.

Gengler reviewed the request as discussed earlier. The owner wishes to rezone from single-family attached dwellings and to allow both single-family attached and detached dwellings.

Gengler stated a note would be placed on the zoning document allowing for sidewalks to be constructed only on the westerly and southerly side of Desiree Drive. No sidewalks would be constructed on the easterly or northerly side of Desiree Drive. The elevations on the easterly and northerly side of Desiree Drive would be physically limiting to construct a sidewalk after it is replatted. Another discussion is the area designated as R-3 type uses on the original PUD. The original plat for the R-3 type uses provided for multiple-family lots (condos). However, that plat was never recorded and was superceded by the current plat of Shadyrigde Estates Third Addition, which provides for single-family lots. The area designated for R-3 type uses is not part of the proposed amendment.

MOVED BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY GRASSER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NOTE REGARDING THE SIDEWALKS.

Christensen said everybody else has to put in sidewalks at some time. but by placing the note on the rezoning, the people in this area get a free ride.

Hagness said some cul-de-sacs are eliminated from having sidewalks and the grade of the land makes it impossible to have sidewalks. Why make people put them in?

Christensen said it was inappropriate to remove sidewalks and exempt people in a certain group or area. His area did not have sidewalks for some time and then when it was forced on them, the people started petitions to protest them. There may be a time

in the future when sidewalks would need to be put in that area and if there is a note absolving them from having them, there will never be sidewalks put in.

Grasser said sidewalks are required by code and are supposed to be put in within a year of the home being built. When the homes are built in a rural area, it’s more difficult and given the rural nature of the roadway, sidewalks would be constructed after the area is fairly well developed. Unfortunately, at that time the neighborhood has developed and people then object to the sidewalk. He noted that, by code, there are certain streets exempted from sidewalks. He does not see them pushing the sidewalk issue in the immediate future; the focus is getting the road in so people can get to their homes. Grasser said between preliminary and final approval, the engineering department could do a drawing of the area to indicate the issues of sidewalks.

Hutchison said the park district is putting in a bikepath halfway down the drainage ditch and there must be a way to create a shelf along the edge of that area for sidewalks.

Christensen asked if the new roadway alignment would include enough room for sidewalks. Gengler said the roadway was 90 feet in width until the turn and then it becomes a standard 80-foot roadway and sidewalks could be included.

Christensen said with the note removed, some day if the city proposed sidewalks, city council could listen to the homeowners at that time to determine if sidewalks would be required or not.

Grasser said that was the way procedurally to handle the issue. That type of note has not been added to a plat in the past and it is not a good precedent to start. Gengler said the note would be removed from the zoning document; the note was not on the plat.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF LAVONNE ADAMS AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES EIGHTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT DESIREE DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed the request.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GRASSER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING


TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show monuments set at all lot corners and points of curve.
3. Include ground contours and spot ground elevations.

4. Relocate 15-feet utility easement between lots 3 and 4, block 1.
5. Add a 20-foot wide access easement along the south line of lot 1 to serve city dike lands west thereof.
6. Rename Desiree Drive.
7. Show detailed location for utility easement through lots 7-11, block 1.
8. Include existing easements between lots 6 and 7.
9. Add FEMA 100-year flood line as shown on current map.
10. Show extents of existing L.O.M.R. on affected lots.
11. Plat name should read “Shadyridge Estates Eighth Resubdivision.”
12. Plat required street and utility easement vacation.
13. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
14. Name city of Grand Forks, a municipal corporation, as owner of lot 1 and lot 8, Shadyridge Estate Third Addition.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TURNING POINT, LLC, ON BEHALF OF AEROSPACE FOUNDATION, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE DAKOTA PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN), ALL OF LOTS 2, 3, 4, B AND D, BLOCK 1, UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY PARK ADDITION, LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 29, BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND DEMERS AVENUE.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the proposal is a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) around the Technology Circle between University Avenue and DeMers Avenue railroad tracks, west of I-29. The area has been zoned I-2 for many years. Originally, a large area of this part of town was zoned heavy industrial but over time, rezoning in the area has changed the look of the area. To the west of this area is one of the Congressional housing districts developed post-flood. Gengler showed the PUD map, noting the existing buildings (USDA building and Weather Service building) and four undeveloped lots. The UND Aerospace is proposing to rezone the undeveloped lots to R-4 type uses on lots three and four with a density not to exceed 20 units per acre. The original proposal for the remaining two lots was to rezone from I-2 to B-1 (limited business) and R-4 type uses. Staff’s recommendation is to allow the R-4 residential lots that abut the interstate but with a density not to exceed

20 units per acre. The remaining two lots staff would recommend B-1 type uses which do allow multiple family buildings. If residential building were included in the designated B-1 zoning, the units could not exceed the 20 units per acre.

Dr. Hall noted with the B-1 type uses, apartments could be built above the first floor. Gengler answered yes, it would be considered mixed-use but there could only be office use on the first floor.

Christensen asked for clarification for the R-4 uses. Gengler said the multiple family apartment buildings immediately adjacent to I-29 and transitioning to the west are the two vacant lots proposed only for B-1 zoning (staff recommendation); not B-1 and R-4 zoning. Christensen asked about the acreage for the lots and Gengler replied that lot 3 is 5.19 acres and lot 4 is 6.07 and that would equate to approximately 225 units. Gengler asked members to envision the Campus Place development on 42nd Street and University Avenue and three of those building are approximately 20 units per acre. The standard conventional R-4 allows up to 50 units per acre and that density would be too high for this area.

Christensen said the neighborhood changed with the development by the Mini-Mart. There are many more people, cars and traffic in the area. Now the proposal is to do the same thing at this site. There is only one way in and one way out on the site.

Robert Drees asked if the apartments are meant for the aerospace students or open it up to anyone. The apartments next to the interstate might not be the most inviting, but if it is for students, it might not be a bad situation. He suggested zoning it all B-1. Gengler said the multi-family structures are allowed in the B-1 zoning but he recommended if the view is to make it B-1, then a density level should be specifically placed on it; otherwise it could be up to 50-units per acre. Staff was trying to find the balance between the residential development versus a standard I-2 heavy industrial development.

Malm referred to the apartments across the interstate and behind the Loaf and Jug and asked if it was 20 units per acre? Gengler stated that development has a mixture of zoning ranging from R-4 to B-1 to B-3 and the development did end up with approximately 20-units per acre. Malm said units like that would be built on the subject property and it would be rented to university students. Access is better than what it is on the subject property. With those types of apartments and the cars, the traffic would be bad in the area and there should not be that many units in the subject area.

Kreun said there is a need for more industrial areas since the industrial park is almost full. Once residential is constructed in that area, it would be difficult to put light industrial uses.



Matejcek pointed out that the cars would not be traveling through other neighbors because there is only one way in and one way out and it is stuck in the corner. That is the one positive for the plan.

Hutchison asked if another access could be requested onto University and was told it would be very difficult.

Grasser mentioned the noise aspect and said residents complain about railroads and interstates. The heavy traffic comments are valid. He felt there should be some

berming to help with the noise issues. However, he did not feel residential use was appropriate for the area.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND A REQUEST TO THE DEVELOPER FOR A BETTER IDEA OF HOW THE UNITS WOULD BE SITUATED ON THE LOTS.

Malm asked about a light industrial zoning and Gengler noted that I-1 is a light industrial zoning. Malm said the bio lab was sought at this site and the neighbors fought it.

Christensen said the plan should be sent back for more information without preliminary approval. He said there could be 362 units in the area with 1200 people and cars. The commission needs the site plan layout and density. There is a neighborhood there now and the university wants to build apartment buildings.

MOTION CARRIED WITH CHRISTENSEN, KREUN AND ROBERT DREES VOTING NAY.


5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. (REMINDER) MATTER OF JULY 4, 2007 MEETING CHANGED TO JULY 11, 2007.

Members were reminded about the date change for the July planning and zoning commission meeting.


5-2. MATTER OF PRESENTATION FROM GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) OF THE 2035 TRAFFIC FORECAST AND INITIAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.



Earl Haugen, MPO Executive Director, gave a presentation of the 2035 traffic forecast and initial alternative analysis in order to update the street and highway plan. He told members he had shortened his presentation to save time but the handout they were given was the full presentation. There is growth outside and beyond the current developed area so growth and regional trips will be occurring and the length of the trips will be longer. There will be longer trips and people will have to make more trips to get to places. The study is to confirm that what we have in place still makes
sense. The study asks if the land use plan has changed? Has the traffic forecast for 2035 changed from the plan from 2025? This is not a complete update but only confirmation that a good plan exists. There are also safety and compliance that needs to be addressed. This is under the SAFETEA-LU Highway bill passed several years ago. The list of projects are still a viable list. There is 10 years of data and growth to
2035 so the purpose is strengthened more than in 2025. The projects will continue to be studied and will move on to the next stage. However, there are some things that need to be re-evaluated.

One reevaluation is the DeMers Avenue/Washington Street intersection. In the current plan, there is a plan to add another right turn lane or three lane to the south side of the intersection that takes a person past the Washington intersection to the 4th Avenue off-ramp for the 4th Avenue/MN bridge. In 2003 and during the 2025 traffic forecast, the intersection was at the level service of C. After 10 years of growth, the level of service C is no longer maintained. Level of service C is the desired level for the intersection. On 32nd Avenue South, the current plan is for six lanes. From Washington Street to I-29, the forecast has changed for 32nd Avenue South and that will have to be re-examined. The I-29/47th Avenue interchange under the current plan is for a right-of-way reservation and it should possibly be a “build” alternative rather than a preserving right-of-way. The last one is Columbia Road widening to six lands. In the current plan, Columbia Road from DeMers and past 36th Avenue South needs to be six lanes. The new forecasts are less than before and that will be re-examined. He noted the north by-pass is disappearing. It was part of the public request that the north by-pass be considered. It may be a want but it is not shown as a need in the next 20 years. The plan shows the 32nd Avenue South and Merrifield Road bridges as still being viable; they are strengthened now and they will be moved to the next stage.

The Washington Street/DeMers Avenue intersection is a state highway intersection of two state highways and their threshold is a level C service. With the drop below a level C service, the problem becomes a state issue as well as a local issue. Other alternatives are being studied for the intersection. They are re-studying the single point urban interchange that at one time was a plan for the intersection. There would be right-of-way issues and the fire station is one of the impediments to many of the alternatives for the intersection. In the past plans, the underpass for Washington Street was not addressed but it will probably be rebuilt during the life of the current plan. The re-building of the underpass can be utilized in determining the alternatives for the intersection.

There are plans to beef up alternative corridors. One of those is to look at one-way pairs on the north side of the railroad on 2nd Avenue and University Avenue as a way to divert traffic away from DeMers to Washington and to bring the traffic from Washington to DeMers from the north. One of the real issues at Washington/DeMers
are the left turns east bound to south bound and conflicting with other movements. If the left turns can be shifted from the intersection, it could create another alternative.

Haugen talked about the 32nd Avenue South congestion. In addition to the six lanes, some of the congestion issues can be resolved by focusing on the intersection improvements at 38th, 34th , etc. Having an overpass and interchange at 17th Avenue
South, thereby shifting traffic to 17th Avenue South from 32nd Avenue South to get to the west side of the interstate will help in that regard.

There is less traffic forecasted for the South Columbia Road than with the 2025 traffic volumes so more focused intersection improvements are being studied.

The downtown DeMers Avenue congestion has an alternative to widen it to five lanes.

South Columbia Road and 24th Avenue South are being re-constructed this year, but the area of 29th Street and 24th Avenue South is one of the highest critical crash rate areas. There are documented problems at 34th Street and 24th Avenue South. Haugen discussed the term “round-about.” The round-abouts might be a viable solution for 24th Avenue South/South 29th Street and 24th Avenue South/South 34th Street. On the Minnesota side, justification has to be made on why round-abouts would not work before justifying traffic signals.

DeMers Avenue and 48th Street on and off ramps of I-29 were discussed. The on and off ramps are being constructed by the NDDOT this year.

Haugen reported they would continue to look at the analysis. They have to update the financial plan and the revenues coming into the system. Since the last plan, the change has been significant. There have also been substantial changes in the cost estimates since the last plan.


Matejcek asked if there is still an option for a business to “pay” for parking stalls if they did not have enough stalls to meet the requirement of the code. Gengler said the provision was still in the code but it has not been used for years. It’s more of an archaic requirement.


6. OTHER BUSINESS:

None.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President