City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota March 4, 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, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Jim Galloway, Curt Kreun and Frank Matejcek. A quorum was present. Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department) and Bev Collings (Building and Zoning Administrator). Absent: Charles Durrenberger and Ryan Brooks, Senior Planners and Roxanne Achman, Planner (Planning and Zoning Department). 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2009 AND FEBRUARY 4, 2009. There were no corrections or changes noted to the January 7 and February 4, 2009 planning and zoning commission minutes. Lee said the minutes would stand as presented. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES. Lee announced there were no public hearings, final approvals, petition or minor changes. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. 4-1. MATTER OF THE UPDATE ON THE 2009 APA CONFERENCE. Gengler announced the American Planning Association (APA) conference would take place on April 25^th through the 29^th, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Commission members attending were Galloway, Malm and Sande. Staff attending would be Brooks and Achman. Gengler suggested that those attending the conference put together a presentation of the various sessions and information gathered for the May or June meeting. 4-2. MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN STUDY UPDATE BY THE GF-EGF MPO. Gengler noted that the date was incorrect on the supplemental staff report. The ordinance and resolution is for preliminary approval with the public hearing date on April 20^th. Nancy Ellis, Senior Planner, representing the GF-EGF MPO, gave an overview of the downtown plan that has been studied for the last year. The study covered both the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks’ downtown areas rather than as two separate entities. There were two sections of the plan to be discussed: the recommendations and the implementation. Some of the recommendations include utilizing the empty space in the downtowns areas, promoting the downtown areas, identifying the businesses that could fill the empty spaces and lots available and be a good fit for the areas, and also identify the key locations for future development. The recommendation section gives some high priority and long-range projects. Ellis talked about the following projects for consideration: (1) pedestrian bridge that is needed for the two downtown areas; (2) redevelopment of the civic auditorium area; (3) a boutique hotel for the downtown similar to the Hotel Donaldson in downtown Fargo; (4) mixed use in the East Grand Forks area of 4^th street by the VFW and chamber building. The suggestion was to have commercial use on the lower levels with residential use on upper levels. (5) converting the one-way streets of 3^rd and 4^th to two-way traffic. This was based on input from neighbors in the area in order to reduce speeding. (6) constructing a bike lane on University Avenue in order to bring more UND traffic to the downtown area The long-range projects are: (1) to improve bike and pedestrian travel on the Kennedy Bridge; (2) changing the use of parking lots currently utilized by the Central High School students to a mixed use; some of the parking lots are not the best use of the property; (3) locating a downtown campus similar to NDSU in Fargo. Implementation of the recommendations requires public and private sectors to be involved. One of the main ways is to establish a downtown organization to provide technical assistance, provide financial assistance and provide incentives. It would be a collaborative group of both cities made of the chamber of commerce, EDHA, UND and the central business district. There would be one person hired to be the coordinator of the group and also be responsible of the marketing of the downtown areas. Hagness asked if there was stimulus money available for any of the recommendations or implementation. Ellis said the only stimulus money she was aware of would be through the Economic Development director. Until the plan is adopted and an organization or coordinator established, the plans would be through the economic development director. Ellis stated this would not be a quick process and would require money. It would be necessary to find someone to fill the role of coordinator to find the necessary financial resources. Hutchison asked about parking for students at Central High School and was told the idea was to have them park along 3^rd Street. Hutchison said if a UND downtown campus was a goal, additional parking would become necessary. Grasser asked if a separate pedestrian bridge would be necessary when the Sorlie Bridge is to be reconstructed and a pedestrian bridge could be added to that. Ellis stated that was discussed and according to the Minnesota Strategic Highway Plan, the Sorlie/Kennedy Bridge reconstruction may be different than was reported, so the plan should retain the pedestrian/bike bridge as a priority project. Grasser said he had concerns on the pedestrian bridge based on the elevation. The height of the pedestrian bridge makes it difficult to meet the ADA standards. He was also concerned that the ordinance might require the city to implement the details as stated in the plan. Grasser said he has always objected to the bike lane on University Drive. Ellis said the plan is still in draft form and all concerns will be passed on to Mr. Haugen and the consultants. More parking and traffic analysis would be necessary before a bike lane was actually constructed. Dr. Hall asked if the projects could be labeled as “potential projects.” Ellis stated the word “potential” was used throughout the document in reference to the projects. Gengler noted that changes can be made to the plan if necessary at a later date. The plan is to provide direction to the community and is a public input process. Malm discussed what is known as a ‘pontoon bridge.’ He also stated in China, bicycles are just part of the traffic and it works. Hagness asked why an ordinance was necessary. Gengler explained the process of updating the comprehensive plan that includes the transportation plan, the land use plan, the bicycle plan, etc. is a matter of procedure. The resolution updates the land development code in the comprehensive section to add the document being discussed. Grasser stated he wanted the public discussion so that the ordinance and resolution doesn’t make the plan a law. Gengler said there were other plans that had been adopted and they have the effect of law by virtue of the ordinance but it is not binding if changes are made. Lee said there are already several existing organizations in the downtown and this would be an additional one? Ellis said that was discussed but the similar organization for the downtown works only with events. They are not focused with filling up the empty spaces. The chamber of commerce and the convention and visitors bureau did not want to focus only on the downtown; they prefer to promote the whole community. Ellis said the plan does contain projects that people do not think would be feasible but there are open spaces and in marketing a downtown, there must be ideas and plans available to promote it. There were other comments on parking. Gengler said there are available parking spaces in the downtown parking ramps. People will have to become more accepting of the parking ramps. Sande noted that since the flood the downtown has come a long way. He lived in Fargo and said Grand Forks’ downtown rivals or exceeds the Fargo downtown. Ellis said the plan is up for preliminary approval and is only a draft. There is a technical steering committee meeting on March 24^th , a steering committee meeting on March 25^th and a general public meeting on the evening of March 24^th. Further advertising of the time and meeting places will be forthcoming. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN (RIVER FORKS PLAN 1994) TOGETHER WITH ALL MAPS, INFORMATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DATA CONTAINED THEREIN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-3. MATTER OF THE UPDATE ON THE EXTRATERRITORIAL (ET) ZONING BILLS IN THE 2009 ND LEGISLATIVE SESSION. Gengler gave an update on House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 2027. The issue of extraterritorial zoning has been debated for quite some time. There will be additional public meetings at the city and state level on the issue. House Bill 1554 passed by 52-40 split on the vote. If there is no grandfather section, the bill would roll back the two to four miles zoning jurisdiction to just two miles of zoning jurisdiction for the city. The city would have to follow a process, as noted in the bill, for obtaining jurisdiction outside the statutory limitations. Senate Bill 2027 passed the senate unanimously 46-0. The bill contained ideas from the League of Cities and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs. The city of Grand Forks would still have four miles, except that the outer two miles would be part of a joint zoning jurisdiction (example: city and the county or city and the township or a combination thereof). Gengler said he had reservations about the bill on mechanics and implementation. The city planning staff and the county planner have been working together on implementation of a joint jurisdiction and how that might work. A framework of the zoning agreement has been established and a joint city and county planning commission meeting has been held discussing the issues. There are six townships surrounding the city of Grand Forks, a number of which are actively pursuing their own zoning jurisdiction. Falconer Township did adopt a township zoning ordinance, but at this time, their zoning ordinance only covers the portion outside the four-mile jurisdiction. Falconer Township is also currently drafting a comprehensive plan. Robert Drees said Brenna Township is pursuing a zoning ordinance and they have had two of the three required public meetings. They have since decided to wait on further developments of the joint zoning agreement as well as what the legislature decides. Malm stated he just returned from Bismarck and the state legislature does not understand the extraterritorial zoning issue. The bills will probably be re-written. Christensen spoke on the zoning issue and the city’s need to expand the jurisdictional area in order to site a landfill and also the need to protect the major corridors. He noted that the townships that are adopting a zoning ordinance would have to understand that it would cost money. It will be necessary to have staff to review plans. It seems to make sense that any issues in the two to four-mile area would be dealt with by the county. The townships will make it harder by creating their own zoning ordinances. Everyone will need to work together on the two to four-mile jurisdictional area. Robert Drees said the county planner called all the townships together that were affected by the two to four-mile extraterritorial area. They agreed to the document of two miles for the corridors. This was a compromise between the townships, county and the city. The townships do not have staff to review zonings or plattings. However, if the corridors were preserved for future growth by the city, that would accomplish many of the goals the city needed. Christensen said he would support a bill that would allow the county to be responsible for the two to four-mile area. 4-4. MATTER OF ESTABLISHING A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PARKING REGULATIONS. Gengler said there have been discussions recently on the appropriate parking ratios for apartments or multi-family housing. Staff has reviewed the issue and it is now time to have a subcommittee meet and discuss it further. Gengler said he would like to meet with the subcommittee sometime during the week of March 16. The subcommittee will have the following members: Galloway, Sande, Adams and Robert Drees. 4-5. MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE GREEN 3 COMMITTEE. Gengler said Mayor Brown established a Green 3 Committee with subcommittees to deal with various ideas and ways to be green. One of the subcommittees is the land use committee that is looking at various ways to utilizing open space, green space, landscaping, etc. Gengler said he wanted to meet with the Park and Open Space Committee members as well as city engineering, public works or any staff dealing with the new stormwater regulations, to determine how the 8% park dedication can be melded with the federal stormwater retentions regulations. In the past, it was determined that the city planner would be a voting member of the Park and Open Space Committee as a representative of the planning and zoning commission. Gengler said he did not agree with city staff being a voting member. Planning staff would still staff the meetings but he wanted the commission to change that and have another commission member as the third voting member. This will be considered at a future meeting. 4-6. MATTER OF SCHEDULING A PARK DEDICATION COMMITTEE MEETING. This was discussed under Item 4-5. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: None. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: None. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY SANDE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6.42 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President