City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota October 7, 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, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, (Dr.) Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun and Gary Malm. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees, Robert Drees, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. 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 SEPTEMBER 2, 2009. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the September 2, 2009 planning and zoning minutes. There were no comments or changes noted. Lee said the minutes would stand as presented. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES. 3-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM WIDSETH, SMITH, NOLTING AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF RED RIVER VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) DISTRICT AND THE R-4 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-2 (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT ALL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 12, SWANGLER’S SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT NORTH 24^TH STREET AND 7^TH AVENUE NORTH. Brooks reviewed the zoning request by stating the rezoning was in conjunction with a replat heard last month. The proposed rezoning area is a low area where units were removed after the flood 1997. Habitat for Humanity negotiated with the city for the lots. The remaining area is R-1 District with a pocket of property that remains as R-4 zoning. The proposal is to down zone some of the area to allow Habitat for Humanity to build two single-family homes and one twinhome. Lee opened the public hearing. Larry Heuchert, 2230 7^th Avenue North, stated allowing homes to be built there and allowing two cars will create a bottleneck in the area. If several cars are parked along the street, it makes it difficult for the fire trucks to get through. Brooks noted that driveways and access would not be allowed except through the alley. This was decided based on information received from the neighborhood in February, 2009. Mr. Huechert’s concern is based on an existing condition. There is a bend in the roadway in front of the area being discussed. Gengler explained the map shows the zoning lines that go to the middle of the roadway. He said that might be the reason for the confusion on the width of the roadway. Brooks said staff could talk to the traffic engineer regarding “no parking” signs in the area where the road bends and that would eliminate some of the concerns. Lee asked if there were others in the audience to speak on the issue and no one stepped forward. The public hearing was closed. Lee returned the issue to the commission. Discussion continued on the access to the lots. Brooks showed the aerial photo of the area and reiterated that all access will be through the alley, a two-block stretch. The proposal from Habitat for Humanity is similar to the situation before the flood except staff has reduced the number of units in the area. Hutchison asked about changing the zoning. Why not leave it as R-1? Brooks answered they wanted to create a large enough area for R-2 that it would not be considered spot zoning. Also, they would be owner-occupied units; not rental units which was the request of the neighborhood. During the platting process for Lots, 5, 6 and 7, the lot line was shifted north between Lots 5 and 6 to allow for the twin home and the platting and zoning lines had to match up. Malm said he agreed with Hutchison. Habitat for Humanity homes generally include large families and there would be congestion in the area. Two units would have been fine but four units are too many for that area. Brooks replied that was one of the reasons for working with Habitat for Humanity to reduce the number of units allowed on the lots. Also, if “no parking” signs are erected, that will reduce the congestion. The plan will work for the neighborhood. Hagness asked about the lot width and was told the single family homes will be 48 feet and the twin home will be 66 feet, 33 feet for each side. Christensen asked if it could be changed to three housing units. Brooks said that could be changed to reflect that but the property would have to be replatted. Christensen asked how many units could be built on Lots 5, 6 and 7 with the existing R-4 zoning. Brooks answered there could be nine (9) units without the rezoning that downzones the area from R-4 to R-2 District and lowering the number of units to four (4). Kreun wondered why the rezoning was being discussed for change now. The questions should have been discussed at previous meetings. It would be really backward to change it now. Until it is officially rezoned to R-2, someone could build two four-plexes as well as a single home on the lots. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO ACCEPT THE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION FOR REZONING. Malm said the city owned the property and they have a chance to rectify the problems in the area. The city could have allowed only one unit in that area. There should be a better way to correct the issues. Brooks stated the city does not own the two southern lots so the bend in the roadway would still be there. Originally Habitat for Humanity wanted to build three twin homes for a total of six units. Based on discussions with the neighborhood, staff convinced Habitat for Humanity to lower the number of units and they did. Grasser said “no parking” signs along the curved area could be accommodated through the city engineer’s office. Lee asked if the replatting and rezoning had something to do with the flood protection for the lots. Brooks answered yes and said the process was delayed until flood protection was in place. MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY. 3-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GRAND FORKS WEST PROPERTIES FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 6, LOT G, REPLAT OF LOTS 17 AND 20, BLOCK B OF THE REPLAT OF BLOCK 2, VILLAGE RESUBDIVISION NO. 2, GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 4324 UNIVERSITY AVENUE. Durrenberger reviewed the request for rezoning in a planned unit development from B-3 (general business) to a combination of B-3 (general business) and R-4 (multiple-family residence, high density) uses. The change will allow the construction of eight two-bedroom townhouses. The rental units would be owned by GF West Properties and if they ever decided to sell them, the property will have to be replatted. Although primary access would be off University Avenue through the parking lot, there is another roundabout way for residents to access the townhouse property. There is adequate parking for residents. Dr. Hall asked about permanent access to the townhouses. Durrenberger said the property would have to replatted if sold and an access easement would be required over the current driveway. The city would not want the townhouses to be landlocked. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. Lee returned the meeting to the commission. Hagness asked if an easement could be required or a joint agreement for the ingress and egress to ensure a permanent access. Gengler said they could not make it mandatory at this point because another property owner is involved who is not connected to the property. Hagness said it reminded him of the Texas Roadhouse Restaurant where people access the restaurant through the Office Max parking lot. Every lot should have its own access. Gengler said today they have a legally platted access. If the commission requires an additional easement, the owner would have to get with the adjacent property owner and work out a written agreement. Hagness stated there should be a method to guarantee future access to the townhouse property. Staff noted that the petitioning owner could not sell any property unless they first replatted. Both properties are one lot. Grasser suggested, without making it mandatory, that in the future the commission will expect it to be a condition of any kind of replat. All the buildings will have to have a common agreement for utilities. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST WITH THE SUGGESTION PRESENTED BY GRASSER. Gengler said that a note would be added to the PUD document. Malm stated the area had been a mess when Market Place did not occur. The commission did not look at the area as a whole. It will be a problem from now on because of the poor access. The commission has to look forward to what might happen when a decision is made. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MEADOW RIDGE 2^ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND 48^TH AVENUE SOUTH. Brooks reviewed the request. At last month’s meeting, there was an issue discussed on corridor overlay for the west side of Washington. The developer pulled the item. He reminded commission member that the corridor overlay is set for the major corridors into the city, utilizing higher design standards on building construction, materials, etc. He discussed the corridor overlay ordinance that provides for an appeal if owners are completely screened from the corridor. Crary Development has a proposal on the south side of the Valley Dairy store along 47^th Avenue South and Washington Street for commercial storage units. They have requested to be removed from the corridor overlay district due to the screening they will have in place along Washington Street. Two options were submitted. Option one is the developer’s preference and will be the back of the units along Washington Street. They will also do landscaping. Staff decided more landscaping would be required. Option two is for a vinyl fence along Washington Street as well as landscaping (bufferyard “E”). The development would be in phases but along Washington Street on the western edge would be a total of 623 feet of completed storage units. Brooks showed an aerial photo of the proposed property and stated the aerial photo was from April, 2009. He explained where the proposed storage units would be located. Brooks pointed out where single-family and twin homes were currently located and said some of the people in that neighborhood have called the office in regard to the storage units. There is a future multi-family project by the same developer to the east of the storage units and that will be buffered with a cul-de-sac of single-family homes. Staff tries to be very careful of apartments next to a single-family area. Steve Adams asked to be excused from voting on the issue. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO EXCUSE ADAMS FROM VOTING ON THE APPEAL TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Larry Boltz, Crary Development representative, appeared for questions from the commission. Galloway asked why Option 1 is the preferred option. Mr. Boltz said it was because of the cost of constructing a vinyl fence. There is also the concern of the wind load on the 600-700 feet of fencing as well as being hit by a car or a snowplow since it will be located next to the driveway. The preference is to build the buildings along the west side as well as the landscaping to make it work. The units will be 8-foot steel sides units, although some closer to the cul-de-sac might be taller. Crary Development would be open to changing the color scheme. It was noted that with the future proposed housing development in the area, 48^th Avenue South would incur quite a lot of traffic. Brooks stated that traffic is the big concern by the residents located east of the proposed development. Dr. Hall asked what the developer was trying to exclude by not having the corridor overlay. Brooks said there were many things they would not meet but he added that storage buildings are very difficult in terms of the corridor overlay district, such as building materials. They would not be allowed to have more than 50% of the buildings in steel; 50% of the building would have to be brick on the Washington Street side. There is a large setback required for the site in general. It is basically two city blocks of storage facility units. Staff struggled with how to deal with this and yet be fair with future developments. Staff knew the corridor overlay would not fit everything and that was the reason for the appeal process that was included. The commission could decide the brick element would not need to be 50%, but would have to be bricked on the side facing Washington Street. It does not make sense for them to meet the glass requirement on storage units. Everything within 400 feet is the corridor overlay district. Questions were asked about the cul-de-sac that has been planned for South 11^th Street. One of the reasons for the cul-de-sac was that the development could not cross the southend drainway. If any changes were allowed, Grasser said he would want to fully understand what the landscaping would look like. Brooks said staff would want to work with the landscaper and make sure they landscape with materials that will do well. Grasser wanted to know how many multiple rows of landscaping would be planted. He mentioned that the trailer park across the street from the public works facility looks very nice since all the trees have matured. The screening is very good. Brooks said they might not need three rows but should consider off-setting trees every 15 feet. Grasser did not think 15 feet would be enough. Gengler suggested the commission allow staff to meet with the developer and landscaper and have the chair authorize the land use committee to decide on the final plan. There are many options for trees and partial fencing. Christensen said he would not agree to that. The land use committee spent 18 months meeting on land use and the corridor overlay district. This is a test of the corridor overlay district and the commission and council need to be sensitive to the future. There are rules in place and the first time someone comes forward to deviate from the rules, it becomes a time sensitive issue and an answer needs to be made quickly in order for them to get the project started. If it’s not built this fall, it can be built next spring but it will be built with planning, forethought and deliberation. This will be an area that people drive by coming in or leaving the city. He asked that the issue be slowed down and considered carefully. He wants to see brick on the back, fencing and trees. The people living in the area will want it to look nice also. Gengler said the appeal was not an issue that was forwarded to the council and his suggestion was to take two weeks to meet and discuss the issue and bring it back to the commission. That would allow some decisions to be made and possibly allow some of the development to take place this year. Hutchison said he had nothing against storage units, but the corridor overlay district was in place for a reason and should be followed. Malm said he agreed with Christensen and reminded commission members about a piece of property on Airport Road. The commission did not allow one unit put in unless the developer abided by every rule. Now there is a request for many changes because it is a big project. Kreun asked what variances are being request. Brooks stated the corridor overlay requires no more than 50% metal and that was one of the big changes. Another big change was that the setback amount would have to be 30-foot minimum and 40-foot maximum from the corridor; the developer wanted a variance for that requirement. Glass was another issue. Kreun asked for pictures or a rendering for the proposal before considering any changes. Brooks said staff had done some research. It is possible to use brick with the units and maybe that could be considered along Washington Street. The developer was requesting to be removed completely from the corridor overlay. He asked if members wanted to see brick for the units. Kreun said he wanted to see how many of the requirements could be met. He wanted to see pictures of options. The building referred to by Malm was a higher building. If the developer’s units are 8 or 9-feet high and the developer was willing to do 4 or 4-1/2-feet of brick, commission approval would not be necessary. With the entire length of the units, how will it broken up with design and meets the requirements? Brooks said material costs might be too high for them to consider the project, especially with the brick requirement. There have been appeals to the corridor overlay district but this one is the first large project and the first one along South Washington Street. The residents that called about the project did not talk against the project but asked how to keep the traffic out of their neighborhood. Galloway suggested the units be broken up with angles or consider 20 units and then a piece of fence. They need to break up the 600+ feet of elevation. Hagness commented that 62 more units were added according to the drawing in Option 2 and that appears to be the reason for the loss of right-of-way. Instead of 30 feet, the right-of-way is down to 15 feet. It might be better for the developer as far as financial return, but aesthetics have been sacrificed. Christensen agreed but also said the traffic issues should be addressed. The commission is trying not to make the same mistakes that happened on Highway 2. Lee opened the public hearing. Marlan Shull, 3903 13^th Avenue South, stated he owned the building on Gateway Drive referred to by Malm. He was denied 80 feet of brick and 10 feet of fence, trees, etc. If the city has an overlay district, it should be uniform for everybody. The proposal is on Washington Street, across the street from a hospital and other brick buildings. He had to follow the rules and everyone else should follow them too. He lost his renter and his lot is still empty. When asked what he used for materials, Mr. Shull explained he had six feet of brick, windows, fence and 20-foot pine trees and still was denied. He was told the city did not want tin on Gateway Drive. All the other buildings around there are metal. On Washington Street, there are maybe 5% metal buildings and the rest are brick. If the city is going to be strict about the corridor overlay, it should be that way for everybody. Tim Litzinger, 933 49^th Avenue South, said his issue is the traffic. He was before the commission a year ago on the issue. He expressed concerns about traffic when buying the house and was told they would get a cul-de-sac. That did not happen. His concern now is connecting 48^th Avenue South to 49^th Avenue South and the problem of heavy traffic in the area. Keven Maddock, 963 49^th Avenue South, stated there were families with small children and he wants the traffic kept to a minimum. Fred Johnson, 932 49^th Avenue South, agreed with his neighbors. By attending the meeting, he is more educated on the corridor overlay district. He would not be opposed to the storage units if they were aesthetically pleasing. His main concern is the traffic, especially with the apartment building that is proposed in the future. Shawn Endres, 902 49^th Avenue South, agreed with his neighbors. He questioned what type of residential homes will be built to buffer the apartment building. Shellie Wright, 892 49^th Avenue South, spoke in favor of the rules for the corridor overlay. She has concerns about the thoroughfare that this could create on their street. There is a traffic signal currently being put in at 49^th Avenue South and South Washington. It is a very busy intersection. Her fear is that 48^th Avenue South will become a cut-through for people in order to avoid that traffic signal. When the area is developed, that should be considered. With the number of storage units planned, there should be a access from South Washington Street to prevent the traffic in their neighborhood. Jon Fargo, 893 49^th Avenue South, wanted to offer his support to what other neighbors had said. The main concern is the neighborhood and the families. Kreun asked Bryan Lee how much traffic is generated with storage units. Bryan Lee, 3433 Ivy Drive, said his complex is a hybrid. He has commercial properties along with the mini-storage. The commercial properties have hundreds of cars going in and out constantly. The mini-storage has approximately 30-40 cars a day. They have commercial tenant renters and some days it is more than that number. The type of storage dictates the type of traffic. Christensen asked him how many private smaller storage units Mr. Lee had. He replied 350 mini-storage units. Christensen asked staff if there could be a variance to allow access from South Washington Street. Gengler said the roadway is part of the state department of transportation and they would have to agree to it. Brooks commented that commercial storage is very low in terms of traffic generation. Any other type of B-3 use (restaurant or retail) will generate much more traffic. Hutchison left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Christensen said there should be a cul-de-sac at the end of 49^th Avenue South. Once a cul-de-sac is put in, there will be no more issues. That would be planning. Galloway said it does not matter how many people go to the storage units as long as there are not going into the neighborhood. Grasser said commission members were mixing the corridor overlay issues with platting issues. He suggested Mr. Crary submit a master plan layout showing streets and infrastructure. Lee closed the public hearing. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO DELAY THE ISSUE FOR ONE MONTH. Hagness said this was one cul-de-sac he was in favor of. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: None. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Lee asked members to call the planning office if they know they are not going to be present at a meeting. Gengler state the issue of the wellness center will be discussed when more information is available. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:55 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President