City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota March 3, 2010 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Robert Drees, Tom Hagness (by speakerphone), (Dr.) Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser and Curt Kreun. A quorum was present. Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building and Inspections Office). 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2010. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the February 3, 2010 planning and zoning minutes. There were no corrections noted and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES. 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MICHAEL MARCOTTE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES NINTH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE 400 BLOCK OF DESIREE DRIVE. Brooks reviewed the plat request. There is adequate frontage and planning staff has requested a 75-foot building setback for the property. City staff is aware of a restrictive covenant for a no-build easement on the property; however, this is between the two owners. Brooks wanted it noted in the record for future parties. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the plat. There were no questions for Brooks from the commission members. 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 ADAMS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Add 35’ bikepath, pedestrian walkway and snowmobile easement. 3. Add 75’ front yard building setback note. 4. Include 100-year flood plain lines, per current firm map and per existing LOMR- F’s. 5. Add note that the city of Grand Forks makes no representations as to soil stability. 6. Remove park district approval. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MICHAEL MARCOTTE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SHADYRIDGE ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 5, ALL OF SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD ADDITIONS, SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FOURTH AND FIFTH RESUBDIVISIONS, SHADY RIDGE ESTATES SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH ADDITIONS, GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, UNPLATTED PORTIONS OF SECTION 26, AND ALL THOSE LANDS TO BE PLATTED AS SHADYRIDGE ESTATES NINTH ADDITION, ALL LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF ADAMS DRIVE AND SHADYRIDGE COURT. Brooks reviewed the zoning request. The parcel is currently designated as A-2 type uses within the ShadyRidge Estates PUD (planned unit development). The planned unit development will be amended to R-1 type uses. Brooks also noted the 75-foot building setback requirement. There were no questions from the commission members. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BISHOP MICHAEL COLE, ON BEHALF OF THE GOSPEL OUTREACH CHURCH, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE GOLDEN VALLEY PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 4, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION, ALL OF AMUNDSON’S SECOND RESUBDIVISION, NODAK RESUBDIVISION, GOLDEN VALLEY FIRST AND SECOND ADDITIONS, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION AND LOT B, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, AURORA PLAZA ADDITION, LOCATED AT 2587 SOUTH 42^ND STREET. Gengler reviewed the rezoning request. The commission gave preliminary approval last month for the rezoning request and approval of the annexation for the Gospel Outreach Church. Notices were sent to the surrounding area regarding the meeting for final approval. Correspondence received indicated no problems or issues with the rezoning or annexation for the church property. The amendment to the planned unit development will change the land use from A-1 agricultural uses to B-3 general business type uses to allow for the construction of the new church. Staff recommendation is for final approval. There were no questions from commission members. Lee 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 DR. HALL FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY STAFF: Add conditions of approval as listed in March 3, 2010 Staff Report: 1. Bufferyard and setbacks from the townhomes (Lots B and C): If Lots B and C are to be rezoned to commercial uses, efforts should be made to provide an adequate buffer separation between the commercial and residential uses. The normal bufferyard requirement between commercial and residential uses is a Bufferyard E, which is 15-feet in width and requires a 6-foot site obscuring fence. Approval of the attached ordinance recognizes the ability for the Planning Department to work with the property owner in creating a bufferyard suitable to all parties concerned (added March 2010). Additional requirements may also include a minimum building and parking lot setback from the adjacent townhomes. 2. Building height limitations for Lots B and C: Standard B-3 developments regulations allow a building height of up to 50-feet or 4-stories. Consideration should be given to limiting the height of the future buildings for these lots. Unlike the height of the proposed hotel, Lots B and C are adjacent to single story structures, whereas the hotel will be adjacent to a building similar in height. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT, FOR APPROVAL OF A PETITION FOR VACATION OF A 7-1/2 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF SOUTH 12^TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOTS 13 THROUGH 21, BLOCK 30 OF HOLES CENTRAL ADDITION, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA BEING THE GRAND FORKS CURLING CLUB LOCATED AT 1124 7^TH AVENUE SOUTH. Gengler reviewed the vacation request by stating it is a housekeeping measure based on a discrepancy that was found. In the mid-70’s, South 12^th Street was vacated. At some point, the Park District deeded it back to the city. When the city decided to connect 12^th Street to DeMers Avenue, new right-of-way was established. The westerly edge of the Curling Club encroached into the right-of-way. Approval of the vacation will take the existing structure out of the street right-of-way. Staff recommendation is for approval of the vacation. There were no questions from commission members. MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON FOR APPROVAL OF THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 3, RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECTION 18-0311, DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD; AND SECTION 18-0312, OUTDOOR SEATING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Gengler explained that the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB) was established by ordinance after the flood in 1997. The DDRB then adopted a set of guidelines. The only change in the guidelines to date was to change the appellate body from the planning and zoning commission to the city council. The DDRB, planning staff and downtown business owners have been reviewing the guidelines and suggested several changes. The following is a summary of the proposed changes to Sections 18-0311 – Downtown Design Review Board, and 18-0312 – Outdoor seating on the public right-of-way: 18-0311 – Downtown Design Review Board 18-0311 (2) (C) and (E): This change will remove the Office of Urban Development from the voting member positions. This position will be replaced with an additional member added to section (C), which consists of downtown business owners and operators. Total membership will remain at 7. 18-0311 (3): These changes reflect the removal of the Urban Development position. 18-0311 (7) (G): This change clarifies the requirements for sign approval applications. 18-0311 (8): Without this particular change, amendments to the adopted guidelines would not be submitted to the City Council for approval. It is unclear as to whether or not this was the original legislative intent of the ordinance. Nevertheless, I believe this is an appropriate course of action. 18-0312 – Outdoor seating on the public right-of-way The primary goal of amending this ordinance is to streamline the process of applying for and obtaining approval for encroachment permits on downtown sidewalks. The Planning Department has conferred with the City Attorney’s Office regarding these changes in general. However, the specific changes have yet to be submitted to the Attorney’s Office for review and comment. Following preliminary action on the ordinance the Planning Department will meet with Mr. Swanson to discuss the amendments. The changes below were discussed at the DDRB meeting held on February 24, where all parties concurred with the proposed changes. 18-0312 (2) (C): Staff will discuss this change in more detail at the meeting. The intent here is to differentiate the various “obstructions and improvements” on downtown sidewalks, which will have other implications on various elements of this ordinance. Section (D) will be removed due to redundancy. 18-0312 (B): As will be addressed at the meeting, the intent of defining and making distinctions among the various “obstructions” on the sidewalks is to make it easier for businesses to display things like flower pots and other amenities without being subject to the same rules as applied to bars and restaurants. 18-0312 (D): This is to clarify that businesses located on DeMers Avenue are subject to additional approvals by the NDDOT. DeMers Avenue is controlled by the state. The remaining changes found in the attached ordinance relate specifically to the application process for outdoor seating for bars and restaurants. The present process requires each business, whether it be an initial application or a renewal, to submit a $100 fee for the review and approval of their outdoor seating permit. We have determined this to excessive and redundant. The proposed changes would still require an initial application fee of $100 and the approval of the DDRB. However, for renewal applications for subsequent years, businesses will only pay a $25 administrative review fee. More importantly, provided that all conditions of the original approval remain the same, renewal applications will only be reviewed by city staff and will not be submitted to the DDRB for review and approval. Malm noted the planning and zoning commission was left completely out of the process. He wanted the planning and zoning commission to remain as part of the part of the process with the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB). Christensen questioned the need for any review by the planning and zoning commission. Malm replied that the commission reviews building design, signage, etc. for the rest of the city and questioned being left out of an area of the city. Christensen said the council approved construction of two buildings at the old Civic building site. They reviewed renditions of the buildings and there was no oversight from the planning and zoning commission. He stated there was no need to have another level of oversight. Final approval would always be with the city council. Lee noted there was a member of the commission appointed to the DDRB. Malm stated there were other groups such as the historic society that reviewed and made recommendations and planning and zoning should not be left out of the process. Christensen said he would agree to a review by the planning commission but approval would not be concurrent approval. He would agree to input by the commission. Gengler stated that any amendments under Section 18 could be reviewed by the planning commission and then given to the city council for approval. Sande asked who the DDRB reports to and Gengler replied there was not a reporting body. The board was established by enabling legislation and city council is the final appellate body. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO INSERT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT FUTURE AMENDMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Christensen asked if all buildings in the downtown were on the historic register. Gengler explained that some of the buildings were on the register but there is also a historic district and there are other buildings that are eligible for the historic register and others that are not eligible. 4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0204 AND 18-0218 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND AUCTION HOUSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN AN I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT. Brooks reviewed the ordinance stating it was written based on discussions from last month’s meeting on auction houses. A copy of the I-1 (light industrial) district was given to each commission member. The proposed ordinance places auction houses as a conditional use in the I-1 district. Staff suggested that auction houses be included in the I-2 (heavy industrial) district under conditional use as well. Brooks read the definition of an auction house that was retrieved from another city. He stated that definition could be changed if the commission wanted something else. The ordinance excludes animals. The next agenda item will be site specific for an auction house. Hagness said including the I-2 district would muddy the water and should not be included at this time. Brooks stated the ordinance is for the whole city. Gengler said if the focus is only on the I-1 district, it would probably have to be brought back later and amended again to include the I-2 district. Including the I-2 district at this time does not affect the next agenda item. MOVED BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY ROBERT DREES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN AUCTION HOUSE IN THE I-1 AND I-2 DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND TO USE THE DEFINITION FOR AN AUCTION HOUSE AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. Christensen asked if the I-1 and I-2 showed the same allowances. Gengler said it was the same under the permitted uses but not under the conditional uses allowed. Those are differentiated in the code. Mr. Leonardi said the current code in the business districts refer to an auction room. Does it affect where auction houses will be and if they outgrow their building, can they do so in a commercial zone based on the proposed ordinance? Robert Drees left the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Brooks said they would be able to do so. Mr. Leonardi asked if he wanted to buy the old Hansen car dealership building, would he be able to do so and operate an auction house there? Gengler said the difference between an auction room and an auction house is whether or not it is a stand along building. Should an auction house (proposed to be in the I-1 and I-2) be allowed in the B-3 district? The commission would have to consider that. Christensen told Mr. Leonardi if he wanted to purchase the Hansen building, he would need to return with a request to have an auction house in the B-3 district. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAVID LEONARDI FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOTS 23, 24, 25 AND 26, BLOCK 57, ALEXANDER AND IVES ADDITION, LOCATED 125 FEET PARALLEL TO MAIN TRACK CENTERLINE LESS PART 25 FEET EASTERLY OF MOST EASTERLY SPUR TRACK CENTERLINE AND THE REAR PART OF LOTS 19, 20, 21 AND 22, BLOCK 57, LOCATED 125 FEET PARALLEL TO MAIN TRACK CENTERLINE LESS PART 25 FEET EASTERLY OF MOST EASTERLY SPUR TRACK CENTERLINE TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 621 9^TH AVENUE NORTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AN AUCTION HOUSE. Brooks reviewed the conditional use permit for operating an auction house at 621 9^th Avenue North. The previous item to include an auction house in the I-1 and I-2 districts is not valid as yet. There are issues that will be a concern for the proposed site such as parking and paving. The site is confined by railroad tracks and a residential area. It is a unique property. At least once a month it is anticipated there will be high traffic as well as parking demands on the site. Brooks said the proposed site is very visible on North Washington Street. He noted the various conditions that would be required for the site: (1) Statement of Intent. The I-1 district is intended to encourage industrial development that is compatible with surrounding or abutting land uses. To accomplish this compatibility, development in the I-1 district: (A) Is limited to administrative, wholesaling and related uses that can be carried on in an unobtrusive manner. (B) Must provide open spaces, landscaping and parking areas. (C) Must establish a high standard of appearance and controls for external effects such as noise, smoke, and congestion. As a conditional use permit, the city has the ability to put conditions on the property. The following conditions are proposed by the planning staff: 1) Provide landscaping for the site 2) Pave all parking areas on the site 3) Outdoor vehicle storage is limited to operable vehicles only. The vehicles must be kept on paved surfaces (concrete or asphalt). 4) Any other outdoor storage or display will be required to be placed inside the building or be completely screened behind an opaque fence from the ROW and from the surrounding neighborhood. When asked how often auctions would be held at the proposed site, Mr. Leonardi said it would be once a month at the beginning and then twice a month on Saturdays. When asked about the number of people attending an auction, Mr. Leonardi said it could be up to 125 throughout the whole day but not necessarily at the same time. The auctions would last six or seven hours a day. The issue of parking was discussed. Mr. Leonardi said he had talked to Mr. Peterson who owns the property north of the proposed site and he has agreed to rent his property for overflow parking. Christensen stated the streets in that area are very narrow and many of the homes do not have garages so parking on the street is all that is available for some of those homes. People attending the auction will park wherever they can find a spot and many times this will disrupt the live of the residents in the area. Mr. Leonardi stated he has the property that will allow 14 parking spaces, the areas by the railroad tracks and Mr. Peterson’s property. He said he could have spots for at least 60 cars. Other businesses around their site could not be open on Saturday and their parking could be used. Gengler noted that shared parking on other properties brings about other issues. Staff asked if all areas he is proposing to use for parking would have to be paved and the answer was yes. Hagness stated he has been to many auctions on county roads and there has not been problems. All requirements set by staff will not allow the business to happen and he said Mr. Leonardi should be given at least three years before paving is required. Christensen said the property is not planned for the business. There is not adequate parking in the area. When asked if he was going to pave all the unpaved areas that he planned to use for parking, Mr. Leonardi replied he would pave only the property he would own (14 cars allowed). He said he stages his auctions and wants his displays to look nice because his business will depend on repeat business. Most of his auctions will be household items. Malm asked if Mr. Leonardi planned on doing auctions in the winter and he replied he did. Malm said the situation with parking for the residential area is bad enough in the summer but even worse in the winter. There is parking allowed on only one side of the street because it is narrow. When asked about the parcels for the proposed site, Brooks highlighted the parcels and said they are tied together but are separate parcels with an alley between the two parcels. The building itself occupies about half of one parcel. Malm noted there was no room for expansion of the building or business at the proposed site. Gengler said the auction house or any use at that site would create a lengthy list of issues to consider. When utilizing parking facilities outside of the principal use is a completely different process that must be followed. Is it considered to be temporary parking? The paving would still have to be considered for those sites also. The property is very awkward to provide sufficient area for any mass parking. Even if there were auctions only once a month, it would still create parking problems for the residents who live in the area. Christensen said Mr. Leonardi would be having auctions at least twice a month and the people living in the living never expected this type of business to exist there. It was previously a grain Quonset. Discussion continued on paving, parking and the residential area that would be adversely affected by the proposed business. MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO DENY THE REQUEST. Matejcek said that Mr. Leonardi should review all his options and was welcome to come back if he could work out the parking and paving issues. He would hurt his own business without proper parking. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: NONE. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 6-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR ASSISTANCE WITH FORMING A SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMISSION MEMBERS AND OTHERS TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WIND TURBINES). Gengler stated there is a need to come to terms with wind towers and wind turbines now and for the future. He asked that an existing committee (Land Use Subcommittee) or a new committee be established with 3-5 members to study the issue. Christensen asked if Gengler was thinking about wind towers in the city of Grand Forks. Gengler answered that was part of the research. Whether it is wind towers, wind turbines or even a wind farm, the city has no provisions in the code to cover it. The issue could be controversial but it is an issue that many other communities have had to deal with. Christensen said he could not imagine why anyone could want a wind tower in a residential neighborhood. Gengler replied he was not talking about residential areas. He was referring to the industrial level of the wind turbines. If someone were to propose a wind tower in the city’s zoning jurisdiction, the city should be prepared. There is nothing in the code for it and he’s seeking input on the issue. Christensen asked how long staff planned to study it. Gengler stated there are variables to consider such as the blades and technology. If someone asked to have one today, staff would have to tell them they could not do it because the code does not allow for it. Hutchison noted there are wind towers located in Moorhead and he felt it was important that the city have something in ordinance form to cover wind towers and turbines. Christensen said the Great River Energy in Minneapolis has a large wind tower that provides its’ own power. He agreed that the issue should be studied because there is a question of location for them. Sande asked about time commitment for committee. Gengler noted other communities have already researched the issue. He felt meeting once every two weeks for a short period of time with a total time of approximately two months would allow them sufficient time to study the issue and write an ordinance to send to the city council. Lee said the committee would be made up of herself, Adams, Sande and Malm. 6-2. MATTER OF REPORT FROM SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR OFFICERS FOR 2010-2011. CURRENT OFFICERS: PAULA LEE, PRESIDENT; JOHN DREES, VICE PRESIDENT; DR. LYLE HALL, SECRETARY. Matejcek spoke on behalf of the selection committee (Malm and Kreun) for officers for 2010-2011. He noted that the commission will be losing two members and could very well have six new members before the year was done. They have asked Ms. Lee to continue as chairperson until the end of 2010 and she has agreed to do so. John Drees has also agreed to continue as vice-chair but does not desire to be considered as chairperson. Because Dr. Hall has moved outside the school district, he can only be on the commission until another person from the school board has been appointed. Dana Sande has consented to fill the secretary spot starting in the April meeting. Matejcek said the committee also agreed that the chair would only serve for two years and requested that the November, 2010 agenda reflect a selection committee with a slate of officers for 2011 presented at the December, 2010 meeting. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ACCEPT LEE AS THE CHAIR; JOHN DREES AS THE VICE CHAIR AND DANA SANDE AS THE SECRETARY FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2010. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:12 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President