Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
January 6, 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, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. Tom Hagness was available by speakerphone, but due to technical difficulties, he was unable to be contacted. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, (Dr.) Lyle Hall, and Curt Kreun. A quorum was present.

Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building and Inspections Office). Absent: Charles Durrenberger and Ryan Brooks, Senior Planners; and Roxanne Achman, Planner (Planning and Zoning Department).

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 2, 2009.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the December 2, 2009 planning and zoning minutes. It was noted some minor misspellings and adding Mr. Sande as present (by speakerphone) were made by staff to the minutes.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2009 AS REVISED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES.

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM PRIBULA ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF IDAHOAN FOODS, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 5 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 1 AND BLOCK 2, ALL IN GREENBERG’S INDUSTRIAL SITES TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT STATE MILL ROAD AND RED DOT PLACE.

Lee reminded commission members that the item was a fast track and would only be before them one time.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating that an area from the existing RDO site would be split and conveyed to Western Polymer. It is a very simple lot split. Staff recommended approval subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct scale to read (1” = 100’).
3. Show access control line in the legend.
4. Show access control along Mill Road.
5. Make correction to plat title as shown.
6. Add a 20-foot wide utility easement along the east side of lands abutting State Mill Road.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM RANDY BOSMA, ON BEHALF OF AL BERGSTROM, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE BOSMA RESUBDIVISION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LANDOWSKI SUBDIVISION AND AN UNPLATTED PART OF THE EAST ONE-HALF (E-1/2) OF THE EAST ONE-HALF (E-1/2) OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 152 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST, GRAND FORKS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED ON NORTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Lee reminded commission members the item was being fast-tracked and would only be before them one time.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating a portion of property owned by Bergstrom would be replatted and conveyed to the adjoining neighbor to the east. The area is in the corridor overlay district so whatever is planned will be subject to the corridor overlay district regulations. Staff approved the request subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy.

There were no questions from the commission members.

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Label U.S. Highway 81 as Level 4 access control.
3. Label Mill Road as Level 5 access control.
4. Add access control line to drawing and identify all existing approaches.
5. State that the 30’ ingress/egress easement across Lot “B” is for the benefit of Lot “A”.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM RICHARD R. ODEGARD, ON BEHALF OF KINDNESS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, PC FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 25TH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 2325 32ND AVENUE SOUTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ANIMAL CREMATORY TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH KINDNESS ANIMAL HOSPITAL.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the Kindness Animal Hospital would relocate in the former Hyundai dealership building. The main operation would be a small animal clinic for domestic household pets; no large farm animals. This type of operation is allowed in the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 without conditions throughout the city; however with the inclusion of the crematory, it changes the status. In 1990, the code was changed to reflect a crematory under a conditional use permit. In 2000, the commission approved a conditional use permit for an animal crematory located on Gateway Drive at the intersection of 62nd Street. Although originally approved as an animal crematory, it was converted in 2003 for human cremation and was re-approved by the city. Crematories are permitted only by conditional use permit in the B-1, B-3 and the U-D (University) districts. There was an incinerator device located at the medical school on the UND campus. Under a conditional use permit (CUP), the city has the ability to establish other conditions (18-0703) and can revoke the CUP if the conditions are not being followed.

Gengler noted he had checked out other like facilities in the state. All facilities, whether animal or human, are under the direction of the Department of Health. After speaking with personnel at the state Department of Health, Gengler said the two-part permit consisted of (1) a permit to actually construct or install the crematory device; and (2) once construction is completed, a permit would be issued to operate the device. Applicants with a crematory permit are held to a reasonably high standard as far as emissions. According to the state, the only thing that is emitted from the crematory unit is heat waves from the top of the building, although the emissions are very low. He asked the state representative about regulations for proximity to either residential or commercial uses. The indication was there were no boundaries or rules. It was left up to the local authorities. When asked if there had been any issues with any of the units in ND or if any had been revoked, Gengler was told no. The focus should be on the perception of the type of facility and on how it looks and operates and about the frequency of use.

Originally, the site was built for car sales. Dr. Odegard needs to get local approval before he can seek formal state approval. There will be an attached building addition to the south side or a stand-alone building for the unit.

Dr. Richard Odegard, 3566 South 69th Street, Grand Forks, ND, stated he has had a practice in Grand Forks since 1975 and does have an incinerator at his current location. There have been very few problems with his unit and he has never had complaints. However, the newer equipment is much easier to operate since it is controlled electronically. His wish to relocate is based on two reasons: 1) he needs more room; 2) in 10 to 15 years, he would be marketing the practice as well as a building. Where he is currently, the property is worth more than the practice. He operates his current unit two to four days a week and the new equipment would operate cleaner, faster and more efficiently.

Christensen asked if the crematory would be used exclusively by his practice or would others be allowed to utilize it. Dr. Odegard said he would offer it to others since the newer equipment would probably make it more cost effective than shipping animal remains to Fargo. Some practices in town store the animal remains and then they are buried at the landfill. His current operating unit takes two to four hours to operate, depending on the number of animals being cremated.

Dr. Odegard said there was a facility that operates a crematory in Bismarck and most people do not know it is there. He is planning on spending a great deal of money to relocate his practice and he wants it to be nice and unobtrusive.

Christensen voiced concern on having the facility in the center of town in a prime commercial location. Dr. Odegard answered it was due to the accessibility and ease to operate.

Matejcek noted this was an important service for Grand Forks. He thought it was against the law to bury a pet in the backyard and therefore, a problem with disposal of pet remains. The demand seems to be higher than ever for cremation of pets. Dr. Odegard agreed. He had his current incinerator rebuilt several years ago and raised the prices to eliminate the number of cycles being run. It didn’t seem to matter. To have a new unit built in the current location was very costly.

Gengler asked about aesthetics of any building addition or a separate building. Dr. Odegard said that was still very preliminary. Part of the purchase agreement was to get approval to locate the practice and operate a crematory at that site. There is not enough room in the building for a hospital and an incinerator, so there would be a need to add on to the building or build a separate building. It is not an incinerator for large animals. Presently his practice is generally all small animals. His practice does very little for horses or cattle, other than drawing blood and vaccinations. They only do that for the convenience of clients, but it is a very small amount of the business.

Hutchison asked about the facility in Bismarck. Gengler said it was a funeral home with a crematory. The funeral home itself is located in a single-family residence area and there have been no problems with it.

Sande asked about expanding his current property. Dr. Odegard stated the building sits in the middle of the prime six or seven acres and that property was substantially more valuable. Since his current property is the last property open on interstate intersections, it is more valuable than the practice itself. His practice is growing and needs more room.

Grasser asked how often the unit is recertified or checked for emissions. Dr. Odegard said he did not know. The state has been to his current facility twice to check the unit.

When asked about notification of surrounding property owners, Gengler said they included everyone within 500 feet of the proposed property. The total number of property owners noticed was 12. Christensen asked to see the list.

Malm asked Collings how many complaints had been received for the incinerator at UND. She answered there have been no complaints but any complaints may have gone to the health department. Malm noted the unit at UND was located close to a residential area.

Christensen read the reason for granting a CUP from the codebook. He asked that if the item was approved, another notice should be mailed to the same property owners again.

Robert Drees asked about a chimney or smoke stack on the additional building. Dr. Odegard said there would be a smoke stack of approximately eight feet. Gengler said the max building height on the backside of the building is 24 feet. Before any construction begins, the site plan would be reviewed by the city staff.

Grasser stated the road on the south side of the building is a private road and there is some sort of cooperative agreement for maintenance of the road. He wanted to make sure that something is included somewhere about Dr. Odegard being part of the cooperative agreement regarding the street maintenance. He asked Dr. Odegard if he was aware of that. Dr. Odegard answered no. Gengler told Dr. Odegard it was up to all the property owners to join together in an agreement on street maintenance.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP).

Gengler noted the CUP document in commissioners’ packets was only a draft and might change somewhat depending on review by the Committee of the Whole and the City Council.

There was a discussion on the length of time the CUP would be in effect. Gengler said the facility would be under the purview of the state and if there were violations, it would have to be reviewed by the city council and the state health department.

Christensen wanted it made clear that if the building is sold and no longer used as a veterinary practice, the CUP is null and void.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS: None.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF COMMISSIONERS’ ATTENDANCE IN 2009.

This was offered for information only.

5-2. MATTER OF 2010 MEETING DATES.

This was offered for information only.

5-3. MATTER OF NORTH DAKOTA PLANNING ASSOCIATION (NDPA) STATE CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN GRAND FORKS, ND, OCTOBER 6-8, 2010.

This was offered for information. The conference would be at the Alerus.

5-4. MATTER OF NATIONAL AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (APA) CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN NEW ORLEANS, APRIL 10-13, 2010.

Gengler said there would be two commission members and one staff member allowed to go to the APA conference. If anyone wanted to be considered, please let him know.

6. OTHER BUSINESS: None.

7. ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President