City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota August 5, 2009 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, John Drees, Robert Drees, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm, and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Curt Kreun and Frank Matejcek. A quorum was present. Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks and Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planners; Roxanne Achman, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings (Building and Zoning Administrator). Absent: None. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 2009. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the July 1, 2009 planning and zoning minutes. After hearing no comments, 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 ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC AND JOHNSON FARMS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT GARDEN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF 42^ND STREET. Brooks reviewed the request, explaining the first three items are related and he would discuss them all together. The area being platted (1.7 acres) will be used for garages and additional green space next to the proposed third apartment building. Approval of the request is the recommendation of the staff. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOW ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Remove 100-year flood line from the legend. 3. Use line-type in legend to match easement line on drawing. 4. Revise floodplain note as shown to state that no lands on this plat lie within the 100-year floodplain. 5. Include document number for the vacation of McEnroe Court. 6. Spot ground elevations can be rounded to the nearest .10 foot. 7. Use correct street and highway ordinance number and date in the city council approval certificate. 8. Add right-of-way widths to Garden View Drive and Ivy Drive 9. Include 10-foot utility easements along the west lines of Lots D and E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-2. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM TURNING POINT, LLC, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE PART OF A 10-FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MCENROE FIRST ADDITION. Brooks reviewed the vacation request for a 10-foot wide utility easement. There are no existing utilities and none are planned for the future. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT LLC AND JOHNSON FARMS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE MCENROE FIRST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND GARDEN VIEW ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AREA 3-1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE MCENROE FIRST PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL OF THE MCENROE FIRST ADDITION AND MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON GARDEN VIEW DRIVE, EAST OF SOUTH 42^ND STREET. Brooks reviewed the zoning request which will bring the 1.7 acres into the same planned unit development (PUD) boundary. The 67-unit complex still maintains the 18 units per acre density originally platted. The addition of the acreage reduces the zoning density to less than 16 units per acre. Last month commission members requested a neighborhood meeting be held to answer any questions or concerns. It did take place at the Alerus and was fairly well attended. The majority of the discussion centered around the developer’s future plans south of Garden View Drive. The developer wants 18 units per acre on that property. Other discussion issues by neighborhood residents included adequate buffers next to the existing homes to the east and concerns regarding adequate stormwater collection. Also, some property owners voiced their frustration that when they bought their single family home, they were told the land to the west would also be single-family homes. Another suggestion was that the land use east of the Magellan easement be reserved for one or two-unit homes to provide additional buffers from the apartments. The remainder of the vacant land to the east of the site allows for 6.5 units per acre density and that is not being proposed to change. Staff recommends approval of the zoning change. 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 MALM TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF B AND B PARTNERSHIP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACT) OF THE PLAT OF BERGSTROM’S FIRST RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT NORTH 32^ND STREET AND 26^TH AVENUE NORTH. Achman reviewed the request, stating the plat would combine Service 5th Subdivision and McConnell Subdivision and create Bergstrom’s First Resubdivision. Moving the property line 25 feet to the west would allow for an addition to an existing building and a 20’setback. She noted that both Service 5^th Subdivision and McConnell Subdivision are owned by the same property owner. Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the request. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY ADAMS AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add 10-foot utility easements along the south and east lines of Lot 2. 3. Add 100-year flood line and note with current panel numbers. 4. Include existing access control line along the east line of the service road. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-5. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM B AND B PARTNERSHIP FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A 20-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT LYING WITHIN LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SERVICE 5^TH SUBDIVISION AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MCCONNELL SUBDIVISION, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELOCATING PROPERTY LINE AND CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING ADDITION. Achman reviewed the vacation petition that accompanied the plat request. The utility easement has no public or private utilities within the easement. The new utility easement will be along the east and south lines of Lot 2. Staff recommendation is for approval. MOTION BY ADAMS AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM RESIDUAL MATERIALS, INC. FOR A REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECYCLING PROCESSING CENTER IN AN I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LOCKWOOD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 2550 27^TH AVENUE NORTH. Durrenberger reviewed the renewal of conditional use permit request (CUP). The original CUP was approved and issued in 2000 after complaints were received about the site. The issue was revisited in 2002 to evaluate the progress on the noted unsightly area. The original discussion was to require a wooden fence but it was decided that a metal fence would have more longevity. A metal fence was directed to be installed as a buffer along Mill Road and a portion of 27^th Avenue North. Vegetative screenings were requested along the southern and western perimeter of the site. The owner worked with the city forester to determine appropriate shrubbery (lilacs) to be planted along Mill Road and poplars to be planted along 27^th Avenue North. The growth has been sporadic. Some of the plantings have filled in and the fence obscures most of the operation. Staff recommends that the CUP be continued and lengthened for 10 years. Staff further suggests that annual inspections and a report be made to the commission by the planning or inspections staff. Durrenberger further noted that no complaints have been received by the planning or inspection offices. Lee 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 HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AND TO CHANGE THE TIME PERIOD TO 10 YEARS. Malm said 10 years was too long to allow for a CUP for the recycling use. Gengler said there was a revocation clause included in each and every CUP. If the business is ever in violation of the conditions, the issue is returned to the commission for review. By lengthening the time period to 10 years, it reduces staff and commission time. Christensen asked about a copy of the CUP that staff wishes to get approved. Gengler answered that the CUP is not yet drafted. Christensen asked to see the CUP before it is presented to the city council. He wanted to see the conditions that were to be attached to the CUP. Gengler said the CUP would be completed prior to the council of the whole meeting. He also reiterated that the owner had completed all the necessary conditions on the CUP. Hagness questioned the planting of lilacs and the fact that some have died. He suggested Russian Olives be planted instead. Gengler said they would suggest that the owner work with the city forester to determine a better species to plant. Malm said the CUP was originally approved in 2000 and the outcome is not what the commission wanted. A ten-year time limit is too long. He asked if a CUP had ever been revoked? Durrenberger said no. He also noted that there is very little traffic in the area now because the bridge on 27^th Avenue North has been closed. Sande asked who would be providing the report to the commission on an annual basis? Durrenberger said the planning staff would probably be checking on the facility. Christensen asked what would the report show. He has never seen a report on a conditional use permit. One can still see the debris through the fence. He reminded members of the recycling center on the way to Minneapolis that had been screened quite well from the highway. If the idea is to screen the site, then maybe something else could be tried. He suggested staff was not giving members anything on why the permit should be renewed. Gengler stated the property owner did exactly what he was told to do by the planning staff and the city council. All the conditions have been met and until there is a violation of what was originally established in the conditions, they should be okay. Lee asked if the conditions that have been set would continue to be followed and the owner would try to plant or replant vegetation to further screen the site? Gengler said no new conditions were apparent to add and they would have to wait to see if there were complaints or violations to address. Sande said he appreciated the work by the staff. MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM AND CHRISTENSEN VOTING NO. 3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF VALLEY MARKETS INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE MIK-LAN PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (COLUMBIA LIQUORS), LOT B OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, MIKKELSON-LANDECO 3^RD RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 1950 32^ND AVENUE SOUTH. Gengler reviewed the appeal and said staff was recommending denial of the request. Columbia Liquors is located between the CVS pharmacy and the Hugo’s grocery store on 32^nd Avenue South. The building which houses the CVS and the Columbia Liquors sites was originally built as The Country General Store in 1994. It has changed hands over the years and the overall lot layout today was used for a different business at that time. When it was approved in 1994, council approved everything by ordinance. The plan called for a maximum of 75% lot coverage. The impervious surface issue is one of the problems that staff had to address. Although the plan showed a maximum of 75% impervious surface area, it was approved at 78%. None of the records are clear on why it changed by 3%. In 1997 when Osco Drug took over a portion of the facility, the plan was amended and whatever discretionary issues with the 3%, it was reduced to show a maximum of 75% impervious surface. From that time until now, the site plan has always shown a maximum of 75% impervious surface. Planning staff was approached with a plan that showed 10 diagonal parking stalls into the main entry area. The entry area is a canopied area with a cement slab. The original intent for the cement slab area was for an outside display area for the Country General Store. That area was never intended to be a parking lot or driveway. People now drive up on the slab, make their purchase and back out and drive away. The existing impervious surface is now at 87.6%. Something has changed over time from the approved plan. With the addition of the required paving and the removal of some landscaping and trees, the overall impervious surface area would increase to 90.8%. Now there are concerns on the new stormwater regulations and the increasing demands on the city. Staff now has to account for every square foot of impervious surface area. Gengler said there are large developments in the city that may appear very high in impervious surface area, such as Walmart, Super Target and Columbia Mall, but each of those sites has a full capacity storm retention pond to help alleviate and mitigate some of the issues. Another issue for staff’s denial was the safety concerns of ingress and egress of the proposed parking lot located very close to the building. The stalls do not meet the minimums required by code. The vehicles would be backing out into the fire lane. The proposed addition will exit into a one-way portion of the parking lot, which will require the vehicles to turn back to the south. Handicapped accessible stalls would have to be installed. He noted there were other code violations that would have to be rectified. Dr. Hall said he uses the Hugo’s store and had never seen the parking lot across from the facility full. Doug Driscoll, Director of Operations for Hugo’s and stationed at Hugo’s 32^nd Avenue Store. Craig Tweten, Community Contractors, also appeared with Mr. Driscoll and said he had colored copies of pictures to pass out to commission members. Mr. Driscoll said they see a safety concern for the customers shopping at Columbia Liquors. One issue is the delivery vehicles that use the cement slab for deliveries and then back out into the fire lane area. The concern is that someone will be hit or vehicles damaged. They designed it to be directional and that customers could drive in, back up but then drive out turn south and get back to the main entrance/exit area of the site. Dr. Hall asked what could be done to encourage customers to use the available parking lot. Mr. Driscoll stated there was diagonal parking there but customers want to park as close as they can to the door. People are already using the driveway to park, make purchases and then backing out. If this is approved, part of the plan is to move the receiving to the back of the building. That would require construction to accomplish that. Robert Drees asked if the parking lot to the east of Columbia Liquors was utilized by the employees of Hugo’s? Could part of the parking lot be taken out to the north end and turned into grass to eliminate the impervious surface concerns? Mr. Driscoll said the area to the east is the designated associate parking. There is also some abuse from the people living in the apartments behind the building. They tend to use the parking lot and the parking lot becomes full. He further stated he did not know how to address 1997. Their plans were lost in the flood for the site. They have asked the city for plans of the site but they have not received those. Gengler said the copies of the plans were given to ICON Architects. Hagness said he sat out at the area by CVS and watched as deliveries were being made on dollies. It was a hazard for customers to walk across the area where trucks were parked making deliveries. Making the changes would alleviate a safety problem. Gengler stated people would continue to use the existing diagonal parking and would then be walking across where vehicles would be parking and moving instead of an occasional delivery truck. The area was never designed or contemplated as a parking area. There are traffic concerns on how it is being used today. The proposal still does not address all the concerns. Sande said he liked to park up close to a liquor store also but because of the impervious problem in the area, it would make more sense to tear up the concrete and put in grass, move the loading to the back to alleviate safety concerns and get the site more in line with what it was supposed to be in the first place. If the owners were supposed to maintain 75% impervious surface area and now it is at 87% and they want to go up to 90%, turning anything back into green space would get it closer to the 75% maximum they were allowed in the first place. Hagness said he disagreed and the proposal would be an ideal answer to the situation instead of taking away accessibility of parking to go into Columbia Liquors. He did not think a couple of percentages would make that much difference. Mr. Tweten stated that if 2% of impervious surface area is important, they might be able to add that in another area in the front. Sande suggested if the concern is about the trucks and cars backing in and out, then eliminating the trucks and cars going in and out of there would be the answer. Hagness said the best time to have added green space was when it was designed. He also pointed out that the dumpsters lined up on the Hugo’s parking lot is used 90% for recycling compared to other places in the city. The Hugo’s store owners have been good enough to allow the recycling bins in their parking lot. Mr. Driscoll noted the bins take up 13 parking spaces. Gengler said the point is the impervious surface area was supposed to be at 75% and for whatever reason, it is now 88%. It is not technically 2% difference; it is more like 15% difference. Lee asked how many trees, as well as the grass area, would have to be removed on the eastern side for diagonal parking spaces? Mr. Driscoll said five trees would have to be removed. Mr. Tweten said they had no idea how the impervious surface area got to be 87%. He always got permits for any project and his company has been the one to do most of the projects in the area since 1997. The only one they did not do was the Osco project. That was hired out to another contractor. Gengler had the plan zoomed on the computer to the northwest corner. In 1994 it shows to be hard-surfaced asphalt parking stalls. The amendment of 1997 required that the area be turned into another landscaped grass island. There are other examples on the backside of the buildings. There was a large landscaped area approved in 1994 and did not change so it was shown on the 1997 plan. Now that area has all been cemented over. It is clear on the plans how things change. They were not corrected on the plans for 1997; it was just left as is. Hutchison said there appeared to be plenty of parking spaces in front of the drug store and asked if the reason was to just make it easier for customers to get closer to the front door. Mr. Tweten said safety issues is the big priority and then the customers are not walking across the street (fire lane). Hutchison said there appears to be a bigger safety issue to the east and more traffic going into and out of the grocery store area than the Columbia Liquors or CVS. Moving the delivery trucks to the rear of the building makes sense no matter what. He agreed the proposed area should be green space and move the trucking to the back. Mr. Driscoll said that was the issue. They have to change a lot of things and invest a lot of money to do that. Hutchison asked Gengler if the proposal becomes acceptable, how many parking spots can be utilized in the proposed area? Gengler stated that at a minimum the two entry stalls would have to be removed, there would have to be a handicapped accessible space and an additional stall needs to be designated as an access aisle. There are also exit width issues. It is shown as 12 feet and code requires 14 feet. There is supposed to be a minimum of five feet between the structure and the parking lot and the proposal shows a difference of only two or three feet. Hutchison said if three or four stalls could be allowed in the space as well as moving the trucking to the back, it might be a better answer than it is currently. Mr. Tweten said removing the first two stalls would not be a problem. Gengler also talked about the proximity of the various driveways and how this causes unnecessary or undue strain on the circular traffic movement with cross traffic in the fire lane. Sande said if safety is the main concern, Hugo’s is making the investment already with all the concrete and the investment to move trucking to the back area. What difference does it make to put grass in the proposed parking area? Grass is cheaper than concrete. That reduces the impervious surface area, eliminates the safety concerns of trucks and cars in the front driveway as well as moving the trucking to the back of the building. Mr. Driscoll said then the idea is to make the customer walk further? Sande said the customer should walk as far into Columbia Liquors as they do into the Hugo’s grocery store. Mr. Driscoll said the distance would be greater than to the grocery store. Sande asked if the difference from the south side parking lot into Columbia Liquors is greater than the south side parking lot into Hugo’s store? Mr. Driscoll said the distance is greater from the parking lot to the east. Sande said he believed more people would then park to the south. Mr. Driscoll stated business today is about 70% through the Columbia Liquors door. They would hurt their business by doing that. Sande said he did not agree with that and people having to walk an extra 15 feet would not make them go to a different liquor store. Lee said there had already been a public hearing but she officially opened the public hearing. Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated she was working for the city when the building was constructed for the Country General Store. Originally, there was a screened in outside area with a fence so it was a secure site. It was one use and now it is three uses. She agreed with Sande and does not know why it was left the way it was when it was redeveloped. Mr. Tweten did come to the city for building permits. But there was no site plan approval for a permit when it was changed to a liquor store. They did not do any additions. That is probably where some of the issues were missed. Collings stated she had problems with the issues. She frequents both sites and has no problem with walking across the street. It is a hazard the way it is set now. The problem is the delivery trucks and people parking in spots that are not designated parking spots. There is a problem with impervious surface area and she is in agreement with the denial. The detailed development plan is only one process. The owners will also have to obtain a variance for the impervious surface area coverage. Approving the appeal will send a bad message to other property owners. It’s a good business but losing all the green space will not be a good thing. Christensen stated he had listened to everyone speak and asked that everyone not forget what the owners are trying to accomplish. Mr. Tweten has offered to take out the first two stalls. People park there now and they want to park as close to the door as possible. Mr. Sande does not agree with that and said customers could park in the parking lot to the south. That is true but the commission could make it easier for the people that are using the facility to facilitate the customs they have grown up with. 70% of the people walk through the door because they do not have to cross the fire lane. He reminded members of a national pharmacy that wanted to have a building on the Walmart site and the commission denied it because they wanted a drive-up window. The issue was worked out and the pharmacy now exists with a drive-up window. The commission facilitated business. He asked that members look at the space that Hugo’s store gives up for the city with the recycling bins. Instead of denying it, he would prefer to send the issue back to the planning staff to see if some of Mr. Sande’s ideas and Mr. Tweten’s ideas can be worked out for everyone concerned. He wants to work with the business and use the parking that exists there rather than take it away. It seems heavy-handed to deny something when they are trying to work with their customers and work within the rules. Or they could just ignore it and allow the customers to continue to park there and ignore the safety aspect. He would prefer that they continue to work with city staff and hopefully meet everyone’s goals. Gengler stated for clarification that if the issue were denied at the commission level, the owners could appeal it to the city council. Mr. Driscoll said the entire site is 418,000 square feet. When discussing 1.2%, it’s approximately 500 to 600 to 700 square feet which is a very small amount. Mr. Tweten said they would be willing to work with planning staff and they will change the stalls in the proposal. If 1% or 2% of green area further out in the parking lot is necessary, they can take care of that. They want to move along with the proposal. Lee said she was very concerned about taking out trees and grass for an area that is already challenged with impervious surface area. When asked if he would considering postponing the appeal and working out the issues with planning staff, Mr. Tweten said they wanted to get it approved tonight so they could get it ready for fall. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO TAKE THE PROPOSAL AND WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF TO MAKE IT AS ACCOMMODATING AS POSSIBLE WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE GREEN AREA AND THE TREES AND TO MAKE IT THE PROPER WIDTH AND APPROVE IT FOR SAFETY REASONS. MOTION CARRIED WITH SANDE, LEE AND ROBERT DREES VOTING NO. Mr. John Drees stated the run-in traffic for a bottle store could be accommodated if the left hand side of the parking lot were used and kept the right hand side in grass and leave the exit as proposed with the proper specifications. They are adding more parking there than is needed for run-in traffic. The plan should be returned to planning for further work. It could be worked out without bothering the green space. He was not agreeable to losing the trees. Gengler said he appreciated the discussion. However, if the desire is to design something and not have to bring it back, the commission has to recognize the increase from 75% to 90.8%. That is a critical point. If that is not rectified, then it still leaves the existing non-conformity of the 75% impervious surface area. HAGNESS SAID HE WANTED IT MADE A PART OF HIS MOTION TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA BEING ALLOWED FROM 75% TO 91%. IT IS REALLY GOING UP ONLY 2% BUT MR. GENGLER WANTS IT CORRECTED FROM 1997 WHEN IT WAS AT 75%. MR. CHRISTENSEN AGREED TO THE CHANGE AS THE SECOND ON THE MOTION. It was noted that the correct amount is 90.8%; not 91%. Hutchison said he agreed with Mr. Sande but felt if some of the parking stalls were removed, it would be safer and he agreed with the motion. Lee related the motion again: MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE PLAN WORKING WITH THE PLANNING STAFF, RECOGNIZING THE CHANGE IN THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM THE PREVIOUS PLAN. PLANNING STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE BUSINESS TO ELIMINATE THE TWO FRONT STALLS AND TO WORK WITH THE BUSINESS TO LOSE AS FEW TREES AS POSSIBLE AND TO APPROVE IT FOR SAFETY REASONS. Mr. Sande said he still had a problem with the whole concept. There have been discussions from recent commission meetings regarding impervious surface areas. Now the commission is saying it is okay not to abide by the impervious surface area of 75%, but now they can increase the impervious surface area to 90.8%. This is a slippery slope and will send a message to other businesses that they can do the same. He commended Hugo’s and Mr. Driscoll on their continued work on behalf of the community. MOTION CARRIED WITH SANDE, LEE AND ROBERT DREES VOTING NO. 3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING IN LOT 43, BLOCK 3, SOUTHBROOK FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 5000 CURRAN COURT. Brooks announced the request had been pulled at the request of the developer. However, notices were mailed to property owners before the item was pulled and they are present to talk on the issue. Adams asked to be excused from voting. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE EXCUSING ADAMS FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Brooks showed the area on the computer. The property originally requested by the developer was zoned R-4 type uses since 2003 with a limiting of 20 units per acre. Notices were sent to residents of the Southbrook development. There is a mixture of townhomes, four-plexes with mostly single-family homes adjacent to the area. He indicated the area on South Washington Street for the apartments. It falls within the corridor overlay district and the developer appealed the corridor overlay district in terms of setback requirements. Most of the people in the audience are against the plan for apartments in the area. Christensen said that once again there is a failure to require developers to put up signs. The people are concerned and the developer knows that; he is a very responsible person. However, it could have been so simple to put up signs. When they are buying homes, they know what is going on in the area. People should know when they buy a home what will be built in the area. There will be a problem going forward if apartments are constructed. There may not be a problem with commercial but the issue will be buffering. These people will be back. There should be handouts from realtors when they are selling in areas. Mark Dusenbury, 1405 49^th Avenue South, stated they did received notices about the appeal and probably would not have known apartments were going in if the developer had not appealed the corridor overlay. In the last 10 days, he stated he had learned a lot about zoning. There are approximately 100 units in the neighborhood and he has a petition to turn in that includes 90 signatures that oppose apartment. The only reason it is not 100% is because he only had a week to collect signatures. Some people were on vacation and some of the units are still Crary owned and he would probably not sign the petition. He discussed the appeal and the zoning issues with city staff and also talked to staff at Crary Development. When asked if apartments were to be built, he was told yes. He was later told by someone at Crary Development that the item had been pulled, but it still does not solve the problem that ultimately the plan is to build apartments. Mr. Crary said they would inform people of changes as they moved in but that was in 2003. Some of the houses are on their second or third owners. The over-riding issue is property value. Regardless of how nice they will be, over time they will show wear and will end up becoming the focal point of the neighborhood. There will be 100-150 vehicles added to a court that has narrow streets. There are only two access points, one on 47^th to 48^th or Curran Court. With apartments, there will be parking on the streets. That will become a safety issue with the number of children in the neighborhood. He presented the petition to Mr. Gengler. David Hartz, 4920 Curran Court, called the realtor from Crary that sold them their home. He did not know anything about apartments in the area. He bought his home 3-1/2 years ago and was not told anything about apartments. They like the neighborhood because it is nice and quiet, but if they had known apartments were planned close to the area, they definitely would not have purchased a home there. He agreed that realtors need to inform people of plans for the neighborhoods. He asked that the zoning be changed to something other than apartments. Dr. Hall asked about the zoning for PUDs. Gengler explained there a PUD requirement is 20 acres and within the 20 acres is the plan for single-family, two family, commercial, etc. The developer makes the decision on what he proposes versus what is shown on the land use plan. When the PUD was approved, there were designations for single-family, two family, twin homes, commercial, etc. Dr. Hall said he agreed that the various areas should be signed in some way so that people will know what is planned when they purchase a home. The single-family homes are built first and the apartments are built much later. If the apartments had been built first, the homeowners present probably would not have purchased a home in the area. Christensen said it is not hard to regulate. An ordinance can be passed on how we sell real estate. Agents have to pass out a proposed plat map or a zoning map and it has to be explained where they can understand it. Staff should determine how to notify people who buy homes in the future and it should be consistent throughout the city. Gengler said the only thing he could recommend is to stage a development sign but outside of that, city staff has no control over that and especially when a home has been sold several times. Christensen said each real estate agent should pass out information when a home is sold. He said he would propose an ordinance so planning staff would have to work on it. Malm spoke of Jefferson County, Colorado, home of the Columbine School. They have a website and it tells you everything you need to know. The technology is in place. The city should do that. Brooks said the information is available on the city’s website. Many people are not aware of the website or what is available. Malm said the problem is the information is not easy to understand. The information needs to be as simple as possible for most people to understand it. Hutchison, Sande and Hagness spoke in agreement with the ordinance and the fact that people need to know what might happen around their area. Robert Drees said the building did not meet the specifications of the new corridor overlay district. Would any apartment building meet the corridor overlay district? The commission should make sure that no variance is allowed in the corridor overlay district. Gengler stated the footprint was the problem on the plan; not the aesthetics. Gengler was asked what would happen in the Crary area. Gengler said he could only go on what the developer submits to the planning office. There is a process for someone other than the property owner to ask for rezoning. Discussion continued among commission members and Gengler. Mr. Dusenbury said he understood that Crary Development is still planning on building apartments. Christensen suggested he and his neighbors talk to their council representative about the issue. Dr. Hall said the homeowners could buy the property from Mr. Crary if they wanted to circumvent apartments being in the area. Others have done that. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FRKS ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS; GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN (MAP AMENDMENT NO. 3 - CHANGE OF OFFICE PARK DESIGNATION). Gengler reviewed the request by showing a map of the 2035 land use map approved in 2006. He indicated the areas noted as 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 and previously designated as Office Park use. Staff is now recommending the change to industrial since South 48^th Street is to be extended as part of the Industrial Park. As an example, if Cirrus or LM Glasfiber had been in the office park designation, it would be only by conditional use permit. Many of the uses would not have been allowed under that designation. Staff’s recommendation is to change 3-1 and 3-3 from office park uses to industrial uses. Further, that 3-2 be changed from office park uses to commercial uses. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE FROM THE OFFICE PARK DESIGNATION TO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES AS SHOWN ON THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN MAP (AMENDMENT NO. 3). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: None. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President