Committee Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
January 7, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT
The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Dr. Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek, and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, and Sheryl Smith. A quorum was present.
Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior.
2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 3, 2003.
Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of December 3, 2003.
Dorette Kerian said her name appeared in the minutes as present and she was not at the meeting. Potter stated the minutes would be corrected to reflect the change.
Malm declared the minutes, with correction, accepted.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS:
3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED; CHAPTER XVIII, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; ARTICLE 2, ZONING;
SECTION 18-0211 R-4 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 3 – CONDITIONAL USES (ALLOWING EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE GROCERY AND AUTOMOBILE SERVICE BUSINESSES); AND ARTICLE 4 NON CONFORMING USES, SECTION 18-0401 STATEMENT OF INTENT, SUBSECTION 1 AND SUBSECTION 18-0406 NON CONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURES OR OF STRUCTURES AND PREMISES IN COMBINATION.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating there was a revised ordinance from the city attorney. The issue was first reviewed in October, 2003. Staff recommendation is for final approval.
Potter stated he had discussed the issue with the city attorney and referred members to page 2, No. 2. The discussion was regarding the maximum length of time for the initial conditional use permit. Potter said after discussions, city attorney Howard Swanson suggested ten years might be too short a time period for a major investment and long term financing capability. It was suggested that a 20-year period might allow more flexibility.
Kerian asked if the ordinance in the packet presented at the meeting was to replace the ordinance mailed as part of members’ packets. Potter answered yes. Kerian noted the time period of ten years was not changed to 20 years in the newest ordinance. Potter replied that was true but he was requesting that commission members make the change to 20 years in the ordinance to allow more flexibility. The owners would also prefer to have the 20 years.
Malm opened the public hearing.
Tim Kennedy, 403 North 5th Street, said he was opposed to the project because it appears to be opening the door for other businesses.
Durrenberger explained the ordinance was written to address the one business. Other businesses would be unable to meet the requirements set out in the ordinance.
Malm explained a convenience store would have had to be in existence prior to 1987. The request before the Planning and Zoning Commission allows the business to expand where they are currently located and operate under a conditional use permit.
There was no one else to speak and Malm closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE INITIAL APPROVAL PERIOD BEING CHANGED TO 20 YEARS INSTEAD OF TEN YEARS.
Kerian asked what chapter is being referred to in No. 5 of the ordinance. Durrenberger replied it was the chapter regarding the R-4 District.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
PLAT OF AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 36
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT AREAS EAST OF ALMONTE AVENUE FROM 8TH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH TO LINCOLN DRIVE.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat was generated as a result of the city’s flood protection project. The plat has been changed somewhat from preliminary approval and includes some additional right-of-way based on a recommendation from the city attorney. Staff recommendation is to grant final approval of the plat and the street and highway ordinance.
Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST AND THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Add missing lot dimension on Lot 4, Block 1.
2. Show rights-of-way dimensions on Lincoln Drive and Lanark Avenue.
3. Dimension front lot line of Lot 3, Block 1.
4. Note source of ground contours.
5. Approval recognizes a variance in the rear yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1 (lift station lot).
Lee asked about the inclusion of the nursing home property on the west side. Durrenberger stated the city had acquired the property and included it in the plat.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE
TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED AMENDING ARTICLE 2, SECTION 18-0204, RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SUBSECTION (2), AND ARTICLE 3, RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECTION 18-0301,
SIGNS
, SUBSECTION (5)
RELATING TO PERMITTED SIGNS IN THE B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER) DISTRICT
.
Potter reviewed the request stating the ordinance allows the establishment of monument signs tailored to the B-2 (Shopping Center) zoning district on South Washington Street. He noted the issue was discussed and approved by the Sign Subcommittee. Staff recommendation was to grant final approval to the text ordinance change.
Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Kweit stated the ordinance was a move forward in terms of aesthetics.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM FRANK AND LUCILLE MATEJCEK, ETAL, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT, LOTS 3 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 2; LOTS 4 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 3; AND ALL OF BLOCK 5,
WALSH’S INDUSTRIAL SITE NO. 1
, LOCATED BETWEEN 27TH AVENUE NORTH AND 33RD AVENUE NORTH AND BETWEEN NORTH 32ND STREET AND US HIGHWAY 81 NORTH.
Matejcek asked to be excused from voting and being allowed to go to the audience.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO EXCUSE MATEJCEK FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Potter reviewed the request stating that the zoning request was straight-forward. The property owner stated there is no immediate need for development on the property and wants to revert the zoning from industrial to agricultural. Staff recommendation was for final approval of the request.
Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:
4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 ARTICLE 2, ZONING,
SECTION 18-0204, RULES AND DEFINITIONS, SUBSECTION (2); SECTION 18-0216 B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, SUBSECTIONS (3) CONDITIONAL USES AND (11) SPECIAL CONDITIONS; SECTION 18-0218 I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES; AND SECTION 18-0219 I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (3) CONDITIONAL USES, ALL RELATING TO DOG DAYCARE AND BOARDING FACILITIES.
Potter reviewed the request stating the ordinance is based on a new concept of animal health care.
Although it is for animal daycare, the focus for the proposed business is basically for dogs. It provides a place to take animals for short-term, generally a daycare situation. He noted there is an established dog daycare operation in Fargo. Staff wanted to have it included under a conditional use permit so that all specifics could be addressed on an individual basis through the various city departments and specifically through the city health department. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval. Potter also issued an invitation for any members that might want to go and see the Fargo operation prior to the February 4th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Sue Christopherson, 1601 7th Avenue North, said that many people are at work all day and would like to have a place to leave their dog every day or even for just a fun day. This is probably more for the pampered pet. She explained that although doggie daycare is new for this area, it is available throughout the country. The proposed business is a step up from the kennel care. The building would be a large indoor play area. Ms. Christopherson stated it is not for every dog. It is mainly for socialized dogs and there would rules and regulations for the dogs. Each dog has to be neutered and vaccinated and the dogs are screened for aggressiveness.
Whitcomb asked where they would be located. Ms. Christopherson stated that would depend on where they could get zoning. She stated they have looked at several options but one place that is an option is the former Muscle and Fitness building on DeMers Avenue. The business needs to be centrally located. People would not drive outside the city to drop off their dog for the day.
Potter stated the ordinance allows the business in a B-3 (general business) District but staff is also looking at the option of allowing the business in a B-2 (shopping center) District. By the February 4th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff would make a decision on whether or not to consider allowing the business in a B-2 zoning area.
Dr. Lee noted the staff report refers to B-3, I-1 and I-2 but the ordinance refers only to B-3. Potter said removing the I-1 and I-2 Districts was a last minute change and leaving it on the staff report was an oversight. He noted the owners of the proposed business do not want to be relegated to the outskirts of town and the type of business they envision would make sense in a B-3 area. He said that after reviewing the operation in Fargo, being in a commercial area does work for the business.
Hutchison said docmentation makes referral to overnight boarding and asked if that would be allowed.
Ms. Christopherson said they would like overnight boarding permission as opposed to kenneling. She said they do not want the business considered a commercial kennel. It’s more involved and nicer than kenneling.
Kerian asked the reason for not having an outside exercise area. Ms. Christopherson said there would be an outside area for bathroom breaks for the dogs, but most of the time for the dogs would be spent indoors. She explained that due to the noise aspect, the dogs probably needed to be indoors.
Kerian asked about the division of space in the large open area. Ms. Christopherson stated there would be movable fencing and depending on the number and size of dogs, the fencing would be put up to accommodate them. Big dogs and small dogs are separated.
Kerian asked Potter if the ordinance was a model ordinance from somewhere else. Potter stated Brad Gengler, Planner, found information on the internet, used the Fargo ordinance and others he found and melded the information needed in an ordinance.
Kerian asked if there were other animal facilities at the present time that are occupied at night. What would be the staffing and attention at night? Ms. Christopherson stated there are not really any rules in place for pet shops or for dog groomers. There are rules for commercial kennels but no guidelines for small animal clinics.
Richard Klockman, City Health Department, reminded members that with the addition of overnight boarding, the operation would become a kennel and there are existing regulations in the code that govern commercial kennels. The current regulations should be followed if overnight boarding is allowed. He noted that the Humane Society was looking for a place to build a new facility several years ago and there was substantial discussion at that time about where such an operation could or should be located.
Jeno asked Mr. Klockman if the proposed ordinance was in violation of the existing ordinance. Mr. Klockman replied the existing ordinance (referring to Section 18-0207(11)(A)) requires a minimum lot area of two acres (for kennels) with a fenced yard. Residents within 1,320 feet have to give written approval for the business.
Potter stated that staff would be reviewing all aspects of the ordinance and the discussions generated on the request. He said the request is for preliminary approval with final approval set for the February 4, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. If the proposed business is allowed overnight boarding and it does go into the kennel regulations, then it becomes an issue for the prospective owners on whether or not they want to do that. The Conditional Use Permit could reflect that they would have to adhere to the existing regulations if overnight boarding is requested. If the overnight boarding is not desired, then the draft ordinance presented would work. He suggested the staff be given the opportunity to work on the issue between preliminary and final approval.
Mr. Klockman said in many cases for the business to be viable, overnight boarding would be desirable.
Matejcek stated that the Humane Society sought five different sites before building where they are currently located. He noted it is very difficult to find a site close to any residential area that would allow it. He asked who would decide the various operations. Potter replied that it would be circulated among the various city departments and the city health department would have to be included on this type of operation. Matejcek asked how many people would be involved in caring for the dogs. Ms Christopherson answered they would have as many people as needed based on the number of dogs. She said the pet shops board animals with no rules and they run fine. Matejcek said the proposed business is a good idea, but he wanted the petitioners to be aware of what might be asked and possibly allowed.
Dr. Lee asked the purpose of adding No. 10 that states “The owner of the facility shall maintain a current dog kennel permit.” Potter said that was probably because of the desire to have overnight boarding.
Ms. Christopherson said a commercial kennel is a facility that raises, sells, or boards dogs. It’s a blanket type statement. Pet shops sell dogs and they are not labeled a commercial kennel. She stated their proposed business is a separate category just as a pet shop is. They do not want the designation of commercial kennel.
Mr. Klockman stated that if the proposed business does not have overnight boarding, they are fine and are not labeled a kennel. He said the City of Grand Forks does not have any specific ordinances regarding operation of pet stores. They are regulated through the Board of Animal Health at the North Dakota State Health Department. He stated there have been very few problems with the pet stores in North Dakota and, through education and communication, the city has developed a good working relationship with the businesses. He further stated the city would also develop a good working relationship with the proposed business. He noted that regulations for pet stores were addressed and considered several years ago, but it was felt there was no need to impose more regulations on a small business. Most animals in pet stores are below the age of 6 months. He further said the health department is willing to work with the owners of the proposed business.
Dr. Lee asked where the facility was located in Fargo. Potter said it was located on Main Street and one block east of the main I-29 interchange (commercial area). Dr. Lee asked if the problem with the kenneling was based on Grand Forks law. Potter stated it is more the Grand Forks law than anything else. Dr. Lee noted that the I-1 and I-2 designation shows up under Section III of the proposed ordinance. Potter apologized and said that would be changed.
Kreun questioned No. 7 and 8 which allows 25 dogs on 30 square feet of area. He questioned if that was enough area. Ms. Christopherson stated that was established by kennel rules. Kreun asked about licensing of dogs by the city.
Matejcek asked about the possibility of allowing the business in the B-2 area as well as the B-3. He said there would be trouble in getting approval from residents. Potter said that was a topic under discussion for the staff. Any zoning area allowed for the business would be under a conditional use permit.
Jeno made a general comment. He noted the health department had a good working relationship with the pet stores even without an ordinance on how to run a pet store and through education and communication it has been a success. He said he hoped that was kept in mind for this business and the city would not dictate how many square feet per dog would be required. If the business owners are not responsible, then the business would fail and it is not up to the city to determine how it functions.
Kerian stated the ordinance should probably reflect that dogs must be licensed. She said the business was a great idea and wished the owners success with it.
Hutchison asked if someone from outside the city (rural area) would be required to license their dog through the city if they used the proposed business. He did not think they should have to license their dog through the city if they lived outside the city.
Kerian suggested some type of certificate showing inoculations should be required if that was the case.
MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DR. LEE TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
REPLAT OF LOTS 13-17, BLOCK F, SUNBEAM ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 51, 55, 59, 63, AND 67 SLOPING HILLS COVE.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat was submitted by the Engineering Department for the purpose of moving lot lines on property acquired for the flood project. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to the special conditions.
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show ground contours or spot elevations.
3. Include 100-year flood line.
4. Remove dike footprint on final plat.
5. Show all missing line bearings and distances.
6. Include necessary curve data.
7. Label park lands as Lot 37, Block F.
8. Include lot areas.
9. Note to identify “basis of bearing.”
10. Include legal land description with owner’s consent.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
REPLAT OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, AND 16, BLOCK 16, SUNBEAM ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED ON GENTLE HILLS CIRCLE AND ROLLING HILLS CIRCLE.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the plat is another flood related item. There was no right-of-way involved. Staff recommendation was for preliminary approval subject to special conditions.
MOTION BY DR. LEE AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show ground contours or spot elevations.
3. Include 100-year flood line.
4. Remove levee footprint.
5. Show all line bearings.
6. Label all distances as “platted or measured.”
7. Include necessary curve data.
8. Include lot areas.
9. Identify basis of bearings.
10. Add land description to owner’s consent.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-4. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
REPLAT OF LOTS A-F, 8, AND 10-13, BLOCK H, SUNBEAM ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED ON NORTHRIDGE HILLS COURT.
Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was another flood related plat. There was no right-of-way involved. Staff recommendation was to grant preliminary approval subject to special condition.
MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DR. LEE TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show ground contours or spot elevations.
3. Include 100-year flood line.
4. Remove levee footprint and floodwall before filing.
5. Show all missing line distances as “platted or measured.”
6. Show all missing bearings and note basis of bearings.
7. Include appropriate curve data.
8. Include all lot areas.
9. Add land description to owner’s consent.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ROBERTON AND KOKRON, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
PLAT OF ROBERTON’S FIRST ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF 24TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 36TH STREET.
Potter reviewed the request stating that originally staff was going to ask for the request to be tabled while additional discussions were held. However, he has had discussions with the developers and asked for preliminary approval for the plat. Further issues would be discussed and presented at the February 4, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show monument set at all lot corners.
3. Include distances on north and east plat boundaries.
4. Correct plat title as shown and include in owner’s consent and dedication.
5. Label 24th Avenue South as a collector.
6. Show access control along the south line of lots 3, 4, and 11, except at common drive location. (Note: The access control may be subject to change pending further review of the plat and detailed development plan).
6. Include access control in the legend.
7. Existing utility easement along south edge of plat is 10’ wide.
8. Show utility easements along common line between lots 4 through 11 for installation of utilities or submit copy of covenants to address common utility issues.
Kerian asked about the issues.
Potter stated the question was regarding the access point of the townhome project. He said it was probably inside the standard requirement where a curb cut should occur.
Kerian said it should not align with the driveway to the south. Potter said that was correct and that was the issue to be discussed. However, if the developers decided to build large lot single homes, then the city might be boxed in and have to give a variance for curb cuts. If a variance is required on final approval, that would be part of the recommendation.
Kerian asked what the hurry was on processing the request.
Potter said there have been nice springs the last few years and if the item was held for another 30 days, then the developers could not start the project until April. If it could be processed for preliminary approval and the questionable issues worked out within the next 30 days, then they are not behind on the project. He noted the city was trying to be business friendly. If the issues cannot be resolved, then the plat request would be held until all issues could be worked out.
Grasser made a comment to note that the detailed development plan for the plat under discussion was being processed. When the utilities were laid out for the site, there were no sanitary sewer leads provided in the location of the three single family lots and there would be an expense for it. There was a suggestion on the site review plan that developers punch through the sanitary sewer leads when sewer work for the subdivsion is done. That cannot be required but it was suggested. He wanted it in the record so that property owners were not unduly surprised when they have a substantial bill on punching the sanitary sewer across the lot.
Malm reminded members that the area was a problem before. The neighbors wanted single family across the street, even though it was zoned for multiple family. They got what they wanted but it would be an issue again. There are very large specials for the property.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
None.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7.55 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.