City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota February 4, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Dr. Rob Kweit, Dr. Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek, and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, and Sheryl Smith. A quorum was present. Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Brad Gengler, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2004. Malm noted the minutes indicated Sheryl Smith was both present and absent at the January 7, 2004, Planning and Zoning minutes. The minutes would be changed to reflect that she was absent and not present. Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of January 7, 2004. Malm declared the minutes approved with corrections as noted. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, MINOR CHANGES AND FINAL APPROVALS: 3-1. (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, 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. Gengler reviewed the ordinance noting several changes made since the January 7, 2004, Planning and Zoning meeting when the ordinance was granted preliminary approval. The first changes noted were under (11) Special conditions (F) 2b The specific location of the outdoor fenced area shall be approved during the conditional use permit approval process. Gengler said the facility could be a structure with a fenced-in area outside for dog bathroom breaks. Staff met and discussed how to define the outdoor fenced area and address how it would drain. He said there are many set-ups on the business and it is difficult to determine a proper distance for the fenced-in area next to adjoining structures and residential areas. He wondered if the ordinance should go through without specifying a minimum distance and handling it on a case by case basis or is an arbitrary number established? Richard Klockman, 1327 Walnut Street, Environmental Health Sanitarian of the Grand Forks Health Department, stated it was the opinion of the Health Department that the distance from a residential structure be a minimum of 300 feet from the enclosed toilet facility for the dogs. The 300 feet equals one city block. This would reduce the annoyance of barking dogs to a tolerable level. Mr. Klockman stated that dogs would be at the facility from 6:30 a.m. until possibly 9 or 10 o’clock at night. The 300 feet would be enough distance to reduce the annoyance of dog manure odor and urine odor, particularly objectionable in the summertime. Mr. Klockman said he checked out the Fargo facility and the only ordinance they have for the dog daycare facility is: “The proposed facility may not be within 300 feet of any residentially zoning property measured from the pet enclosure to the property line of the residentially zoned property.” Mr. Klockman read from the Grand Forks city code on domestic fowl. It reads: No such fowl (referring to chicken and ducks) under any circumstances be kept within an enclosure within the city at a distance less than 75 feet from any dwelling house without the written consent of the owners and tenants of said dwelling. The city council at one time established minimum distances in regards to keeping a fowl in the city. His opinion is that there should be a minimum distance from a dog toilet facility area to a residential property and the recommendation is a minimum of 300 feet. Gengler continued with changes in the ordinance. He referred members to 11 (F) 2f. He stated other city staff members and Mr. Klockman had discussed the fenced-in area to determine how it should operate. There would probably be a slab or other type of impervious surface in order to clean it and the discussion centered on where the run-off would go. The city is currently under new federal regulations for storm water runoff. The area would be required to be drained properly and it was felt the overhead roof or canopy structure might work if there was an exterior drain. But the canopy structure would probably be excluded. There are so many possibilities of locations which makes it difficult to write a specific ordinance covering the issue. He talked about the possibility of a vegetation area (landscaping area) where the runoff could go with the hard matter being picked up. Until a determination is made on a specific facility, it is difficult to set all the conditions. Dr. Hall asked how the Kindness Animal Hospital or the humane society handles animal waste. Richard Klockman stated the Kindness Animal Hospital has a dog exercise grassy area in the front and on the side of the building. Their facility is in the A-2 zone. He said the bone of contention is that the proposed owners of the dog daycare want to establish their business in the B-3 (General Business) District and not the Agricultural District. Gengler referred members to No. 6 under Special Condition. This is an attempt to put a cap on the number of dogs that would be allowed in a facility. Staff chose to establish 30 square feet of indoor area for the daycare portion of the business, so the smaller the building, the fewer the number of dogs. Gengler talked about No. 7 which introduces the concept of overnight boarding services. It was decided that a cap should be placed on the number of dogs being boarded. Gengler said someone could establish a very large facility that meets most of the criteria and instead of the facility operating primarily as a daycare, it would be operated as a kennel. The intent of the ordinance is to establish criteria for a daycare facility with an incidental use of overnight boarding. He stated the 15% was a starting point for discussion. Dr. Kweit asked if the 30 square feet per dog and the criteria of 15% on No. 7 was based on what Fargo was using. Gengler stated the 30 square feet originated from the definition of a commercial kennel that mandates 30 square feet per kennel per dog. The daycare facility is slightly different but staff determined that if 30 square feet is required for a dog in a given area for an extended time (kenneling), then that would be a minimum area to work with and apply to a general area. The 15% number was put in to generate the discussion. Lee asked about 11 (F) 2e which reads: The floor of the fenced area shall be made of concrete or other durable impervious material. She asked if that meant the fenced area would not have any grass. Gengler said yes, that was the intention. He said a grassed area could be allowed, but an impervious surface could be more readily cleaned. Hagness asked if the proposed owners were involved in the writing of the ordinance and Gengler answered yes. Hagness asked if a facility would be allowed in a residential area and Gengler replied the ordinance only allows the facility by conditional use in the B-3, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. Gengler said there are areas where the corridor is commercially zoned and immediately goes into a residential area so there is a need for the distance requirement. Kreun noted that the current city ordinance allows for a neighbor to call the police if there is a barking dog that is aggravating to others. He said a distance requirement makes sense. Gengler said the question could be: Does the city want this type of facility in a general business district if the 300 foot rule is applied? If the 300 foot rule is accepted, then generally it would exclude most areas. If owners lease instead of building, then they would be looking at only a certain number of properties. If the 300 foot rule excludes the facility in a B-3, maybe that should be removed from the ordinance. Grasser discussed the paved surface and overhead roof. He asked how Fargo or other places handled waste and run-off. Gengler stated they visited the facility in Fargo but they were ideally situated between two car dealerships and a railroad behind the facility. The outdoor facility is a chain-link fence on the side of the building; basically part of the paved parking lot. They did not get into discussions on the cleanup. Fargo drafted an ordinance to allow the facility where it is located and does not include a lot of specifics. Grasser said staff could pick up the solid waste, but then the remainder would be allowed to go in the storm sewer. Gengler said staff had been in conversations with Mike Shea and that is a concern. Grasser said it could be a problem on the out-door run. If there is an impervious surface generating run-off and the facility was expecting to tie into the sanitary sewer, there could be a problem. The city has gone to great lengths to disconnect the storm sewer from the sanitary sewer systems so an exposed concrete slab tied directly into the sanitary system is not what the city wants. That would be a cross-connect of the two systems. The overhead roof might address that issue but without it, he said he was struggling with how it could be handled. Waste material in the storm sewer would be a problem since the city is now under the new federal storm-water regulations. If a slab is exposed to the elements outside and it is tied to the sanitary sewer, then there is a problem if a 3-inch rain occurs and it is dumped into the service lead, causing hydraulic problems on the sanitary system. Malm opened the public hearing. Sue Christopherson, 1601 7th Avenue North, stated that noise and smell are two of the big issues. She noted there is a noise ordinance in place now and wondered why they wouldn’t be cited as others are now? They do not want to pay fines for barking dogs and the dogs would be supervised outside. The dogs would not be running around outside except for toilet reasons. They do not want the neighbors mad at them so it would be in their best interests to make sure dogs are not barking outside. She said noise is manageable. The odor and sanitary issues are more difficult. She stated she did not understand what could or could not go into a storm sewer or sanitary sewer. She asked if they have a concrete area with drainage into the sanitary sewer, could they use something like the RV dumps? It is a flip cover mechanism and is plugged except when opened to use it. She asked if they could discharge into the storm sewer for the liquid waste; all solid waste would be picked up. She noted that the Kindness Animal Hospital does not have an overwhelming odor problem. An area can be cleaned up and kept decent. She stated it is good business practice to do that. Ms. Christopherson said 11(F) 2d should be sufficient without all the other conditions. She said there is a need for a maximum percentage but she would prefer 25% instead of 15%. Fargo has one rule (300 foot rule next to residential areas) and she does not think the 300-foot rule is necessary plus all the other conditions being placed on the ordinance. With the 300-foot rule, they would probably be unable to meet the criteria for the B-3 District. Hagness asked Ms. Christopherson if she helped draft the ordinance. She answered yes, but also stated they compromised on several issues. Kreun asked Mr. Christopherson at what size they envision starting out? She answered approximately 3000 square feet with 1500 square feet of play area. She was figuring on 10-12 dogs. Kreun asked Matejcek about the humane society and the distance factor. Matejcek answered when two dogs are together and they don’t know each other, they will bark. Whenever a strange dog is placed in a new environment, they will bark. He stated the distance factor is necessary. Matejcek stated the conditions and criteria were not being written against the proposed facility but this is new territory for the city. If other facilities are opened, the guidelines would be in place. He said the conditional use permit (CUP) is a good arm of the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a 20-year CUP defeats the whole purpose. The CUP should be for four or five years and if there is a problem, it can be changed, not allowed, or moved to a different zone. It might as well be allowed as permanent if a 20-year CUP is considered. He said his dealings with the humane society made him aware that people do not want these types of facilities anywhere close to other businesses or residences. Sound proofing or putting in air exchange systems in the facility becomes very expensive. Kreun said there is a need for the business but it needs to be made fair for the surrounding property owners as well as the proposed owners. Gengler showed a map with an area marked that could be a potential location for the facility on Demers, between South 16th Street and South 15th Street. Although the entire area is zoned B-3, there are some non-conforming structures such as one or two family residences. Mr. Klockman asked Grasser if the RV dumps at Sta-Mart were tied to the sanitary sewer. Grasser said he did not know but it should be tied directly to the sewer system. However, he noted that RV dumps do not have run-off and the sewage is concentrated. Mr. Klockman said he did not have any question about the individuals wanting to start the business. He felt they would do a fine job. However, everyone who wants to start a similar business might not have the same intentions. In the ordinance, there is no mechanism for revoking the use. Twenty years is too long. Mr. Klockman said this was a good business opportunity but he wants it placed in the right area. Malm closed the public hearing. Hutchison said he felt the business would work in Grand Forks but said it would have to be in an area that would make it easy for people to drop their dog off. He asked if other towns had similar businesses operating and what locations were they in? Mr. Klockman said he searched the internet and found several that had web cams. In certain instances, if they had overnight boarding, it was generally located by an interstate and next to railroad tracks. When he questioned them about the facility through e-mail, the owners did not want to share the information. He noted most of the places he found were located in industrial areas. He stated there was one upscale facility located in Los Angeles. Gengler was asked if he checked other places and he answered yes. He found one in Vancouver, Washington and modeled some of the definitions after their ordinance, but they were not specific on outdoor toilet areas. There was a wide range of separation from the facility to other businesses or residential areas. Hutchison asked if a tentative place has been selected for the business and Gengler said yes. Hutchison asked if the location would work. Gengler said he was not sure. It would depend on the design. He stated the most important area is how close the fenced area would be to the next business. Dr. Kweit stated that although everyone wants to move ahead, the major concern is the drainage. Grasser said that the facility would have to be in compliance with the plumbing code and other new codes and regulations like storm water discharges. Grasser said he was somewhat uncomfortable with the 30 square feet per dog with a 1500 square foot facility. He asked if it was possible to have an indoor toilet area for the dogs? Dr. Hall applauded the efforts of the proposed owners. The community does need a place like they are suggesting. The process is a struggle for the owners and for the city to try and find a place that fits. Matejcek asked if neighbors are notified for a conditional use permit. Gengler answered that neighbors within a 400 foot area of a selected site would be notified. Matejcek noted that Grasser’s idea of an indoor toilet area would not work. Most dogs are taught to use the outside. Hagness said there was concern voiced on the 20-year CUP. With the list of regulations and criteria, would that not justify the pulling of the permit if they were found to be in violation? Potter said the short answer is yes but in addition to the violations contained in the ordinance and beyond what is in the draft ordinance there are other conditions that can be put on by the Planning Commission or City Council. Any additional conditions become part of the permit and if they are violated, the permit can be pulled and reviewed. Hagness said he did not think it would be a problem with all the regulations included in the conditional use permit. It is more than what Fargo has. As far as the drainage, the only requirement would be a storm drain. There would be no need for a sanitary drain. He asked if a screen could be placed over the storm drain and allow only liquid to flow through the storm drain. Grasser said if there is a hard surface on the facility, dogs will produce liquids and solid and then when it rains, all the liquids become part of the drain system. That will be a problem for the North Dakota State Health Department. The intent of waste material is to go into the sanitary waste system. However, when it rains, the city does not want the sanitary system taking in the storm water. Grasser said he felt something could be worked out but time is needed to work on it. Potter thanked the commission members for the discussion on the ordinance. He said with the questions that have been raised, the issue should be tabled until the March meeting. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DREES TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE UNTIL THE MARCH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGNESS VOTING NO. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL 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 replat request, stating it is part of the flood protection project. The city has acquired the residential properties and will be using the rear portion of the lots for the dike. The city will sell off the front portion of the lots. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes. Hagness asked about the landscaping on the back portion of the lots to be sold off and asked who was responsible for it. Durrenberger stated there would be grassed areas for the dike but areas adjacent to the properties being sold would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Hagness said he understood from people in Sloping Hills that there is a landscaper from Fargo who is already working with some people. Why is that being done in that area and not in other areas? Kreun said both are being taken care in the same manner. The portion on the levee system would be taken care of by the city or the park district. Some landscaping would be taken care of through the Greenway Project. Homeowners would be responsible for anything within their property lines. Grasser said the back lot lines represent what would be platted to the private owner. The dike and adjacent 20 feet would continue to be owned by the city. Grasser said there were some issues with property owners located next to the flood wall as opposed to being located next to a levee. The city is trying to find landscaping that is acceptable to the neighborhood but has minimal maintenance acceptable to the city. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. LEE AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. State basis of bearings. 3. Invert bearing and distance on south line of Lot 1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL 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 replat and said it was a result of the flood protection. The city purchased the lots and would be reselling them with the exception of the rear portion that is being retained for a flood wall or a levee. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the technical changes. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. State basis of bearings. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM BRANDEN BARTHOLOMEW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL 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 replat request, again stating that part of it would be used in the flood protection project. Hagness asked about the lot where Arden Shores’ home was located (Lot W). He wanted to know if the triangular lot would be kept for city purposes. Durrenberger said the lot did not appear to be a usable lot. It could possibly be sold to the adjacent property owner of Lot V. Hagness stated the adjacent property owner did not want to buy it but they want the city to maintain it. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. LEE AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. State basis of bearings. 3. Remove pin from front corner of Lots F & 10. 4. Use bold text for distance on Curve Nos. 7 and 8. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ROBERTON AND KOKRON, FOR FINAL 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 AND TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 9, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; SECTION 18-0907, SUBSECTION (2), RIGHT-OF-WAY, PARAGRAPH (l), AS IT RELATED TO ACCESS TO COLLECTOR STREETS. Gengler reviewed the plat request and variance. On a collector street, there is a need to maintain a 120-foot distance between a driveway and an existing street intersection. Where South 35th Street connects with 24th Avenue South, the proposed driveway shows to be 90 feet rather than 120 feet. Staff is currently reviewing the detailed development plan for the development. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the plat and variance request. Dr. Lee asked for an explanation for allowing the variance. Gengler said it was determined that varying it by another 30 feet would not create a significant impact. The difference between the 90 and 120 feet did not give staff enough cause to say no to it. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ALSO APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show complete plat title in owner’s certificate 3. Use shortened version of city council approval certificate. 4. Show the east-west quarter lines along 24th Avenue South and dimensions to adjacent rights-of-way lines. 5. Variance from 18-0907 needed to reduce driveway access offset from 120 feet to 90 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PAUL HOLJE, ON BEHALF OF MILLER AND HOLMES INC AND RANDY GRAM, FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOTS 1 AND 3, BLOCK 5, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 419 NORTH FIFTH STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBUILDING A NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE GROCERY AND AUTOMOBILE SERVICE BUSINESS. Durrenberger reviewed the conditional use permit (CUP) for the M&H owners to construct a new neighborhood convenience grocery and automobile service business. The ordinance allowing the facility was approved at the January Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The owner’s intent is to remove the existing store building and an adjacent vacant apartment building to provide additional land to expand the facility. The apartment building will be moved to another site. A new convenience store with more floor space will be constructed without any expansion of the existing vehicle service island. Durrenberger referred members to the colored map passed out showing architectural renderings along with the site plan application. Durrenberger explained where the buffering would be placed on the site. He stated there were meetings with the neighborhood last summer with come concerns voiced regarding increased traffic. Staff recommendation is for approval of the CUP subject to the approval of the site plan and also determination by planning and zoning that the building is compatible with the neighborhood. Durrenberger also noted the architect is available for questions if necessary. The site plan is currently being reviewed by city staff. Malm opened the public hearing. Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator, commented that the plan would be presented to the Board of Adjustments on Thursday, February 14, 2004 because it does not meet every requirement of the site plan. There are two variances (landscaping and impervious surface) being requested that have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. Malm closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THAT IT ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT THE VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF GREENBERG ENTERPRISES, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 10 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 6, COLUMBIA PARK 29TH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3800 BLOCK OF PEMBROOKE DRIVE. Durrenberger reviewed the request stating it was being replatted for twin homes. Staff recommendation is for final approval. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Change plat title to Columbia Park 29th Resubdivision; not addition. 3. Change Lot “F” to Lot “E”. 4. Include bearing and distance on line between Lots D & E. 5. Correct distances along rear of Lots A-D. 6. Re-label curves 35-39 as 43-47. 7. Show arch distances on fronts of Lots A-E. 8. Show revised curve numbers, delta angles and arc lengths on curve chart. 9. Use correct plat title in owner’s certificate. 10. Use shortened version of city council approval. 11. Arc length of curve C8 is 197.08 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF MARVIN AND VIOLET BIRKHOLZ, FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF BIRKHOLZ HOMESTEAD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3600 BLOCK OF 18TH AVENUE SOUTH. Gengler reviewed the request and referred Commission members to the latest plat drawing passed out earlier. The plat was given preliminary approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and continued for several meetings at the council level before being returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The opening of the cul-de-sac was originally directly in line with the residences across the street on 18th Avenue South and now the cul-de-sac has been moved over. The other change was two lots instead of three on the lower portion of the map area. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the revised plat and also subject to the special conditions. Malm opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show existing 15’ utility easement along north line of Birkholz 7th Addition. 3. Submit backyard drainage plan. 4. Centerline of 17th Avenue South should be labeled as “North line of Section 17.” 5. Show continuous 10-utility easement along frontage of Lydia Circle. 6. Show sufficient drainage easement on the west side of Lots 6 & 7 to include existing water limits. 7. Plat is subject to 8% park dedication requirement. 8. Expand storm sewer easement between lots 6 & 7 to 20 feet of width. 9. Remove 10’ utility easement along the west line of Lots 6, 7, 8 & 12. 10. Platted properties along the north side of 17th Avenue South are 50’ north of the north line of Section 17. 11. Insert correct name in notary approval for City Engineer. Dr. Lee asked about Special Condition No. 7 that reads: Plat is subject to 8% park dedication requirement. There was no report of the Park Dedication Committee in the packet. Potter stated a review was conducted on the entire Birkholz development and the park requirements had previously been satisfied. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Gengler also noted for the record that several of the surrounding neighbors expressed their acceptance of the newly configured plat as opposed to the original plat. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: 4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE NE-1/4 OF SECTION 5, TWP151N, R50W OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. Gengler reviewed the concept drawing. A rather extensive uses permitted list that was originally adopted in Amendment No. 1 stated there would be no more than 200 dwelling units in the entire PUD, otherwise known as the Bronson site. Since then changes have been made. The University and Dakota Commercial have presented preliminary concepts and one of the requests is to increase the number of dwelling units. The original cap was set at 200 and the request is to increase the maximum to 500. That is the first change to the zoning. The second change is on Area 2. A gas station is being considered for a possible permitted land use on Area 2. Originally, a gas station was excluded on the list of uses permitted. Area 1 is part of the U-District and is being considered for a bank and other commercial uses. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval of the request. Grasser stated the concept plan is undefined. He asked if the proposed construction activity would impact the bikepath already in place. Is it up to the developer to handle impacts or addressed in the concept plan? Potter stated the PUD is drawn in very broad brush strokes. The specifics would occur on the detailed development plan. Grasser asked about access controls. Potter said that would also be handled through the detailed development plan. Gengler pointed out that the access controls are noted on the concept. Dr. Kweit asked for an explanation on the increased density from 200 to 500 units. That appears to be a major change on the plan. Potter said the answer was yes, no or maybe depending on how the density is counted. They can add the units but how they put it on the property is a different matter. From the beginning, the University leaders were told they could have housing units. The determination of where it would be placed is going to be based on what the University wants and the marketplace dictates. There was a discussion on the boundary lines of the development. Malm, as chair, made a comment. He said he was concerned when the Commission spent months to figure out the original concept and in dealing with the neighborhood. The neighborhood had concerns about the development and some changes were made to accommodate them. Now it appears that someone wants changes made that affects what was originally decided. He said it concerns him a great deal. Grasser said he agreed with Malm’s statement but moving it forward will allow the neighbors to speak on the issue. MOTION FROM MATEJCEK AND SECOND FROM DR. HALL TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 5-1. MATTER OF THE BANNER REPORT. Malm directed the issue to the Sign Subcommittee for discussion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Matejcek asked about the 2003 attendance roster. Malm requested that it be included in the March packet. 7. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.