Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

February 7, 2007

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown; Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall; and Gary Malm. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner,
Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior of the Planning and Zoning Department and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 3, 2007.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of January 3, 2007. No changes or corrections were noted and Lee said the minutes would be accepted as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF RIVERSIDE PARK RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT PARK AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH 3RD STREET AND LEWIS BOULEVARD.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the property was both city and park property. The plat determines which property belongs to the city and which property belongs to the park district. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

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

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DREES TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add and dedicate alley right-of-way north of Lot 6.
3. Add ingress and egress easement across Lot 5 to serve Lots 2, 3 and 4.
4. Show distances and bearings on all line segments along the Red River.
5. Include 100-year floodplain line and note.
6. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
7. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code 18-0907(I) (L) with regards to elevation contours.
8. Show lands to be vacated in the legend and on the drawing.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE PARTS OF PARK AVENUE AND NORTH 1ST STREET LYING NORTH AND EAST OF LOTS 9 THROUGH 15, BLOCK 16, IN RIVERSIDE PARK ADDITION (LAND DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON ATTACHMENT TO MAP) TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT PARK AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH 3RD STREET AND LEWIS BOULEVARD.

Gengler reviewed the vacation request and indicated on a map the area proposed for vacation. He stated the area is no longer needed as dedicated rights-of-way. Staff recommendation was for approval of the vacation request.

MOTION BY DREES AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF CENTRAL PARK RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED AT SOUTH 3RD STREET AND ELM AVENUE.

Gengler reviewed the request that designates the property owned by the city and the park district. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KREUN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES AS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show monuments set at all lot corners.
3. Label document No. 657750 as a vacation.
4. Show distances and bearings on all line segments along the Red River.
5. Include 100-year floodplain note.
6. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code (18-0907(I)(L) with regard to elevation contours.
7. Use short version of city council approval as no new rights-of-way are to be dedicated.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD, ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF LINCOLN PARK GOLF COURSE RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED BETWEEN 1300 AND 2300 BELMONT ROAD.

Gengler reviewed the request that designates the property owned by the city and the park district. He referred members to the technical change form in the supplemental packet and noted that No. 12 had been added to the list of changes that must be made to the plat. If it is necessary to widen Belmont Road in the future, an easement is in place to do so. Staff recommendation was for final approval of the plat.

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

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND DR. KWEIT TO GRANT 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. Add utility easements to Lot 7 (city flood protection).
3. Vacate existing trail along river.
4. Show distances and bearings on all line segments along the Red River.
5. Include 100-year floodplain note.
6. Plat acceptance recognizes a variance to the Land Development Code (18-0907(I)(L) with regard to elevation contours.
7. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
8. Show pin set along Lincoln Drive.
9. Use dashed text for existing government lots.
10. Scale should read 1”=200’.
11. Add 20 foot-wide flood protection easement along the north and east lines of Lot 7.
12. Add a 10-foot wide roadway and utility easement on the Belmont Road side of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FORM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A TRAIL EASEMENT LYING EAST OF THE LINCOLN PARK GOLF COURSE BETWEEN LINCOLN DRIVE AND ELKS DRIVE TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND.

Gengler reviewed the vacation request by indicating an existing trail on the map. The trail is no longer needed and staff recommendation was for approval of the vacation request.

Christensen asked if the trail was a cement sidewalk along the river and next to the warming house. If so, he did not want to have it vacated. Gengler said the trail was buried in trees and only existed on paper. He indicated on the map where the trail was located next to the river. Christensen said that was the old black-topped trail and vacating it would be fine.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18-0206 AND REPEALING SECTION 18-0207 OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE RELATING TO A-1 AND A-2 DISTRICTS AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18-0903, 18-0906, 18-0907 AND 18-0908 OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION PLATS, PROCEDURES AND CONTENTS.

Lee announced the meeting would be turned over to Ryan Brooks who would reviewed the ordinance. The commission would be given a chance to ask Mr. Brooks questions and then it would be opened for a public hearing for those in attendance.

Brooks reviewed the ordinance for the A-1 and A-2 Districts as well as the subdivision regulation changes for the extraterritorial zone. He noted the ordinance was originally separated into two ordinances (one for the A-1 and A-2 Districts and one for the subdivision regulations) but had been combined into one ordinance based on a review by city attorney, Howard Swanson. The ordinance is 38 pages in length so he presented the highlights.

Brooks stated the ordinance is the culmination of a year’s work by staff, starting off with the adoption of the land use plan. The city decided to use their option of extending the extraterritorial zoning (ETZ) jurisdiction from two to four miles and a moratorium was established regarding platting of property in the ETZ. With the moratorium in place, staff, various committees and city council met to determine the new rules for development in the rural areas. To determine the rules for development, the A-1 and A-2 Districts and the subdivision regulations need to be amended.

The A-1 District, previously called the limited development district, has been changed to the agricultural reserve district. This is the area further out from the city (Tier 3 on the land use map). The main intent for the district is to preserve and protect the agricultural land from urbanized development. The density for the A-1 is one housing unit per 40 acres with a minimum lot size of 40 acres. A provision was made to plat a farmstead and keep the remainder of property as farmland.

Brooks said notices were mailed to all households located in the two to four mile area and noted that if land was zoned something other than A-1 or A-2, that zoning did not change. Any property already zoned as a PUD or in one of the industrial districts remained the same.

The A-2 District was previously named the agricultural reserve district and is now the agricultural urban reserve district. This signifies land closer to the city limits that could possibly be developed by Year 2035. The intent is to preserve and protect the agricultural land, but if it is urbanized it would be annexed and included within city limits. There is no proposal to annex any areas at this time. In the A-2 District, residential housing would be one unit per 40 acres with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. A provision was included for residential clusters with one housing unit per 40 acres density. Urbanized lots could be built if it made sense.

Restrictions on the property to preserve farmland would be through a recorded notice. Based on calls received in the planning department, Brooks reiterated that no annexations were planned at this time. There are changes to the shelterbelts based on information received from the Soil Conservation District. Staff had looked at distance from the right-of-way line and the SCD recommended the centerline instead.

Brooks showed diagrams of the districts. In the A-1, the diagram showed a 40-acre parcel with the existing farmstead. That could be platted into a five-acre lot and the notice would be placed on the remaining property to restrict further development. The intent is to preserve the farmland as farmland.

The diagram for the A-2 showed a 2.5 acre lot and the remainder would have a notice placed on the remainder (37.5 acres) of the property to restrict further development.

The final diagram showed the cluster option. They could be one-half acre sized lots. The diagram showing the cluster option was on 640 acres of land. The cluster option would require city type services so that when the city moves out to the area, hook-up to the city services could be handled easily and with less cost.

The subdivision regulations follow the A-1 and A-2 Districts.

Lee opened the public hearing for public response asking them to state their name and address.

Tom Hill, 4700 North Riverside Drive, said he reviewed the information for the A-1 and A-2 Districts on the city’s website but had problems understanding the implications. He wanted to know if there would be urban development by the year 2035?

Christensen said that was not the case. The districts are designed so that when the city grows out to an area of residential housing, they can easily be added to the city. The city is trying to eliminate the pocket developments that have been appearing in the county. Annexation would only occur when the city grows out close to an existing development. There were no promises given because it is not known what would happen in the future. Mr. Hill said he was concerned about the cluster development and Mr. Christensen said 320 acres would be required to do that.

Brooks said any urbanized development should occur next to the city so the city can grow in an orderly manner. The intent is to limit the amount of development going on in the county.

Chuck Evans, 7007 16th Street SE, asked about land (zoned A-1) by the country club that his sister-in-law owns. He asked if she would still be able to build on the property. Brooks answered that if there was no house on the property presently, she would be able to build a house on it. Even if the property is less than 40 acres, as long as the property is a single parcel, she could build on the property.

Robert Drees, 5674 South 83rd Street, questioned the cluster development starting at 320 acres. At the public meetings, the suggestion was to reduce that to 160 acres. Brooks said the option was to build a cluster development on 320 acres to 640 acres. There was a request to look at 160 acres utilizing the cluster development but that was not adopted because it defeated the city’s intent to preserve the agricultural land.

Lee said there could be eight lots on 320 acres or 16 lots on 640 acres and Brooks agreed stating it still maintains the one housing unit per 40 acres.

John Drees asked how it could be friendly to farmers when one house is allowed per 40 acres. It forces someone to buy 40 acres and four housing units could be built on 160 acres. It forces a house being built on every quarter quarter and that is not farmer friendly and does not save land. The plan only stifles growth.

Brooks said if someone wants to separate out a parcel of their property, he was explaining how it could be done in the A-1 District. The city would prefer that there be no new housing in the A-1. Drees said that was not planning; it was stifling. Brooks stated it was very good planning. They are not encouraging new development in the future.

Drees said he should talk to some of the residents that live in the country. They prefer to live there versus in town. Brooks said he got mixed reviews from phone calls since the letter was mailed out. There were many that said they were happy with the idea of less traffic. Some said the roads are not always maintained and the more people out there, the harder it would be to maintain the roads. Some of the farmers that called said they have a hard time living with the rural developments because some of the people who move out there are used to city services and expect roads to be plowed quickly and that’s not necessarily what they get. Some of the calls were from people happy that the rural developments were being stopped. There were not a lot that said the new rules were preventing them from doing any development. Brooks stated that with the new subdivisions that have been started, the rural areas might be over-platted now. Any developments that had already been approved are not affected by the new ordinance.

Beau Bateman, 6500 32nd Avenue South, asked Brooks if cluster development could be considered on 160 acres and Brook answered it said no. Mr. Bateman stated there are very few sections of land in Grand Forks County that are solely owned by one person. Many farmers own 160 acres or 80 acres. He noted if someone chose to develop, it is not farmer friendly to say they have to spread it in four quadrants. It makes more sense to place them altogether on a county road. He asked that staff review that part of the zoning.

Doug Christensen asked if farmers could have four houses in one area at five acres each on 160 acres. Brooks said the intent for the A-1 is to have a 40-acre parcel. He drew out what could be done but stated it depended on how the property is laid out. Brooks also noted the cluster option would not be available to everybody.

Mr. Bateman said four houses placed closely together is more farmer friendly. He asked if new manufactured homes are forbidden. Brooks answered there maybe existing ones there now and they are grandfathered in but the only new ones allowed would be for the farmer. Mr. Bateman asked about exceeding the limit 2400 square feet for a storage shed. Gengler said there was a difference between an accessory building versus a farm operation and all accessory buildings would be counted in the total.

Robert Drees, 5674 South 83rd Street, stated he had submitted the Rural Living Agreement to staff six months ago. The agreement has been used by the county planning and zoning and he asked that it be incorporated as part of the building permit process for the people living in the A-1 and A-2 districts. Mr. Drees also commented on the county’s waste and junk ordinance (junk cars; old boats, etc). The city’s ordinance in this regard is not as restrictive as the county’s and he asked that since they now fall under the city’s jurisdiction, the city’s level be made the same as the county’s. He requested that not only the laws but also the enforcement procedures be in place to deal with the issues.

Lee asked if the Rural Living Agreement was signed by people that live in the county. Mr. Drees answered that it is signed when they receive their building permit. The agreement refers to harvest time and traffic outside their home 24 hours a day, sprayers up and down the fields, the fact that they might not get their driveway plowed by 7:30 in the morning, etc. Township officials get calls from people about these issues. Sometime people moving to the rural areas expect the city services but they don’t want the taxes and decide to move outside of town.


Christensen asked that the agreement be added to the permitting process as well as the junk ordinance. He told Mr. Drees the city does not have the power of enforcement past the city’s limits. The county is still responsible for policing the townships.

Gengler suggested a joint powers agreement between the city and the county to handle some of the issues.

Matejcek noted that under the use category a municipal solid waste disposal facility was listed as a permitted use. Why a permitted use instead of a conditional use permit?

Gengler said that had been questioned. The landfill siting is subject to a long list of elements and considerations by federal and state laws and that was the logic used for keeping it as a permitted use. If it was listed as a conditional use, the city would be approving its own conditional use permit.

Matejcek asked if having a landfill within four miles of Grand Forks would be acceptable. Gengler said the attempts to site a landfill has pushed the city to the point where they are running out of alternatives and time. Grand Forks as a regional site has to look to their needs as well as other communities’ needs and they should keep that as an option to site the landfill. In a perfect world, no one wants it close to the city.

Beau Bateman again spoke about the 160 acre issue. An existing farmstead has 160 acres with two houses on the site. A retired farmer could sell their farmstead with a deed restriction. They could retain ownership and sell the other lot provided deed restriction was included for the 40 acres. He was told that would work. Mr. Bateman stated a new home built in the A-1 or A-2 districts would have to meet city code for wiring and plumbing for wastewater. Brooks said that would apply on with the cluster option. Mr. Bateman said the legislature is currently considering House Bill 1321 which would reduce the four-mile ETZ one or two miles. He asked how that would affect Grand Forks in the two to four-mile area if the legislature agrees to reducing cities’ jurisdiction to one or two miles instead of four miles?

Christensen said he did not think that would happen. Constitutional law would not be retroactive. It would affect Fargo, Bismarck and Grand Forks. It would have a very bad affect to the major cities of the state.

Kreun explained that the ordinance is a planning tool. Following the city guidelines allows people to hook up to city services without the additional cost when the city does grow out to meet existing developments in the county. The new developments in the rural areas are not compatible with the city and when the city does move out and meet the development, the entire infrastructure has to be rebuilt. The costs are very high and that is the reason for planning these issues. The annexation process will take place under normal conditions when a development is close to the city. Roads and streets are also planned so they do not have to be reconfigured and become more costly. All existing plats and homes that exist will be grandfathered in. The ordinance is for any new development. The idea is for people to build closer to the city so that infrastructure costs are much less. The county will have jurisdiction for law enforcement, taxing, etc just as they have now. The city has no control other than the zoning for planning purposes. Everyone that lives in the city of Grand Forks is part of the county and pays county taxes.

Mr. Bateman stated there is a need for planning but what is reasonable or unreasonable?
Grand Forks will not grow to the west and north for 60 or 70 years and it holds the landowners hostage by not allowing them to develop their property.

Kreun said planning ahead is cheaper for the people in the county. They are the ones that pay the special assessments when new sewers or streets have to be built because they are not compatible with the city’s infrastructure.

Christensen stated that many years ago the legislature authorized cities to extend the jurisdiction from two to four miles. City officials hear time and again about the mistakes that were made in the past and the need for proper planning on infrastructure. The city has to find more money to rectify the mistakes made in the past. The only risk for a landowner is annexation and annexation only occurs if the criteria is met and people lose the appeal to prevent annexation. After annexation, residents would have to pay some special assessments for the dike. City officials noticed that people were moving out into the rural areas and the city was losing the taxes. The city was allowed the right to go out four miles and that’s what happened. There are not many options left if the city is going to have a regional landfill. The city took the power provided by the state to move out four miles in order to find an area, if possible, for a landfill for the whole community and region.

John Drees agreed with Mr. Bateman on the cluster development on 160 acres in order to provide four two and one-half or five-acre lots in one area so the remaining 140 acres could be farmed as a unit. That appears to be a very good idea and makes sense for the farmers.

Pat Grinde, 123 Park Avenue, asked what would happen if she decided to move to the old farmstead. The idea is not to develop it and she wants to preserve farmland but she heard city staff state that modular homes could not be utilized in the rural areas.

Gengler read the existing rules dealing with modular homes. The rule has been on the books for many years and that has not changed. As long as it is a farm operation, one could have a manufactured home.

Brooks said a modular home and a mobile home are two different things. If it is built on a permanent chassis, it is not allowed. The modular homes assembled on-site are treated differently.

Bev Collings, Superintendent of the Building Inspections Office, stated a modular home is a stick built home off-site. That meets the international residential code and is allowed in all jurisdictions where single-family homes are allowed. However, a manufactured home, or mobile home, is built on a chassis and is constructed differently. It meets federal HUD rules but not international residential code rules. Both can be put on a foundation. In the ETZ today, a manufactured home is only allowed on a farmstead.

Tom Hill stated his understanding of the rules was much better after listening to all the exchanges, but wanted more information on the landfill. It appeared the driving issue for extending out to four miles was not for planning purposes but to find a place for a landfill.

Gengler said he was not aware of a particular location or an isolated location for siting a landfill. There will be an involved process in searching and siting a landfill. A landfill cannot be sited within one-half mile of a residential development and a landfill cannot be sited within five or six miles of the airport. There are minimal choices for siting a landfill in the four-mile area.

Grasser stated the zoning does not allow the city to put a landfill just anywhere. There are many state and federal regulations that have to be followed before a landfill can be sited.

Hutchison said he agreed to the cluster development on 160 acres.

Christensen said staff should review that and if it is not added tonight, it could be added when city council reviews it for final approval.

Gengler said it could be added in the motion or addressed at city council. He suggested three things needed to be identified 1) the rural living agreement; 2) a beefed-up junk ordinance; and 3) 160 acre cluster development.

Lee noted comments were becoming repetitious and closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE AND TO ADD THE RURAL LIVING AGREEMENT, A JUNK ORDINANCE AND THE 160 ACRE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT.

Jeno asked about the difference between a permitted use and a conditional use. Gengler answered that a permitted use was a use by right. The conditional use permit requires a notification to households within 400 feet of the facility. He noted the 400 feet is for a city mailing and that could be adjusted to a wide range for rural notification.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK AND DREES VOTING NO.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION AND TO REZONE AND INCLUDE WITHIN THE A-1 AND A-2 DISTRICTS PROPERTY AS DEPICTED ON THE MAP ENTITLED GRAND FORKS EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING MAP DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2007, WHICH MAP IS ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN.

Brooks reviewed the zoning map for the ETZ area. The A-2 District would be closer to the city and the A-1 District would be the areas located farther out in the county.

Matejcek wanted to clarify that A-1 and A-2 Districts had been changed from the existing terminology.

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

Gengler offered to make available a color copy of the map to anyone that desired one. Residents can pick one up at the planning office or go to the website or they can call for one to be mailed.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE ZONING MAP PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED WITH MATEJCEK VOTING NO.

3-8. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CCS PROPERTIES, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HOMESTEAD GROVE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Lee noted the replat is a fast track item and will appear before the commission only one time.

Gengler reviewed the request for development on Washington Street between 40th Avenue South and 47 Avenue South. He indicated an office building is currently under construction. The replat will allow three buildings for Lot A, one building for Lot B and two buildings for Lot C. Internal access and crossover agreements would be in place similar to the Super Target site. Staff recommended approval of the request.

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

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show Homestead Grove Second Addition as dashed lines.
3. Use short version of city council approval as no street dedications apply.
4. Show west line of Lot “C” as 383.68 feet.
5. Show correct footage along the west line of Block 2 (580.0 feet).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR PROPOSED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) TO BE LOCATED AT 820, 910, 1440 AND 5101 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18-0301 SIGNS: SUBSECTION (CC), RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR, SOUTH OF DEMERS AVENUE.

Drees asked to be excused from voting.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND KREUN TO EXCUSE DREES FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler reviewed the item by stating the sign code was reviewed and amended in 2005 to allow flexibility on outdoor advertising signs. In June, 2006, Newman Outdoor Advertising submitted four requests to locate signs on South Washington Street. The code amendment allowed a maximum of nine signs to be located on the South Washington Street corridor between DeMers and the southerly extension of the ETZ. Any proposed location has to be presented to the planning commission for a determination of ‘fitting and compatible’ in the areas selected. There are three criteria to be used in judging the ‘fitting and compatible.’ According to the ordinance, there is a cap of 90 signs total throughout the city and the ETZ area. At the current time, there are 90 signs. Newman Outdoor Advertising has submitted a proposal to locate four additional signs. The first location is 820 South Washington (Plain and Fancy Antiques) on the west side of South Washington Street; 910 South Washington (Jay Holms Valley Auto site); 1440 South Washington (First Rate Pawn Shop); and 5101 South Washington Street (All Seasons Garden Center) across from the Zavoral’s Addition. A notification of the applications for the billboard signs were mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of each location.

A letter from Atlas Food Group (La Campana Restaurant) opposing the signs at 820 and 910 South Washington Street was received. A letter was received from the Burger King management opposing the sign at 1440 South Washington Street. Any property owner within the 200-foot radius, as well as the sign company, has the right to appeal the commission’s decision to the city council. Gengler noted the ordinance does not specify a time limit as to the submittal of an appeal. Another flaw in the ordinance is the spacing of notification to surrounding property owners. The code stated that property owners within 200 feet of the proposed sign should be notified. There are certain sections of South Washington Street where the width of the right-of-way is 250 feet. A business or property owner across the street did not always receive notification. There were phone calls from people who were upset because they were not notified. The ordinance states 200 feet and that should probably be reviewed.

Gengler showed super-imposed photos of the proposed signs as submitted by Newman Outdoor Advertising at the sites. It was noted the applicant would have to maintain 500 foot spacing and the spacing from between the signs at 820 and 910 South Washington is 518 feet. The applicant is aware of the spacing rule.

Grasser asked if the construction of the sign would be considered site development for the purposes of annexation agreements? Gengler said that would have to be investigated.

Lee opened the public hearing.

A representative of John Marshall, owner of the Burger King restaurants, read a letter from Mr. Marshall that was submitted to planning staff. In the letter, Mr. Marshall wrote that he was vehemently opposed to the billboards proposed at various locations along South Washington Street. He owns the Burger King Restaurant and an office building on the corridor.

Brad Westrum, owner of Gerrell’s Sports Center, said they would be located directly south of the billboard proposed for 910 South Washington Street. He recently invested a sizable sum of money for his own business sign. In 2000, Payless Shoe business moved out and Gerrell’s took over the entire building. They wanted to put up a pylon sign in the same location that the Payless Shoe sign had been located. The city required him to sign an encroachment agreement because they wanted to keep the visual clutter off South Washington Street. Now there is a proposal for billboards along the corridor. The Newman sign will overpower their sign and he would have no control over the content on the proposed billboard. He stated he was very concerned about that as a business owner as well as allowing them along the South Washington Street corridor. He questioned any positives from the billboard signage.

Ken Towers, 810 South Washington (Italian Moon) and 1503 South Washington (Wendy’s), passed out photos to the commission members. He stated his son runs the Italian Moon Restaurant and they are partners in the ownership. He spoke on the issue of the removal of portable signs some years ago and stated there was a fine of $250.00 for every day the sign was up. Mr. Towers said he drove along 32nd Avenue South (Wendy’s) where signage is restricted to an 8-foot high sign and no billboards are allowed. He also drove down Columbia Road and DeMers Avenue. After driving down the South Washington Street corridor several times and noting all the signage, he stated he could not imagine the insanity that had taken place. The billboards will overpower their business signs. He reported the taxes for their three businesses are $38,000 and they employ 150 people. The signs being proposed are not business signs; they are billboard signs. There are two billboard signs on the southend of the corridor, but they are set back 75 to 100 feet, however, the proposal for the billboard is within 20 feet of their business and located on the street. They tried to put up a bigger sign on their businesses in the past and were told they could not do it because it would exceed their signage amount. They are required to have a certain setback for their small signs and yet billboards are being proposed on the street. The billboards are required to have 500 feet between signs but between 820 and 910 South Washington there is less than one block and he thought a block was approximately 300 feet. There are already too many signs along the corridor and the proposal is for more billboards. The proposed billboard at All Seasons does not block any businesses but the other proposed billboards will interfere with their business signs. They have been in business for 34 years and followed the city guidelines for signage but now billboards are being allowed on the corridor.

Steve Johnson, 119 Grassy Hills Lane, stated he was a member of the First Presbyterian Church and the proposed billboard could be seen from the church parking lot. He asked that the billboard be denied for that area. He asked that planning staff find out who owns the property immediately north of 55th Avenue South. At one time, another church owned the parcel and he wondered if they were aware of the proposed billboard. He felt they would object to the billboard also.

Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO DENY THE REQUESTS BY NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.

Lee apologized and said the Newman representatives had not spoken and asked if they wished to speak on the issue.

Laverne Berglof, Newman Outdoor Advertising representative, stated the company had done several things for the city. Their billboards on the interstate promote the Alerus and the Englestad Arena. The proposed signs would not block Gerrell’s Sports Center sign. He stated a 48-foot sign was built several years ago in Bismarck and the business owner was concerned that the size of the sign would overpower his business sign. He later visited with the business owner and was told his business had increased after the billboard was put up. Mr. Berglof said the Newman Sign Company does not advertise adjoining businesses and they have tried to be a good neighbor in Grand Forks. They have tried to find other spots along South Washington to replace the signs that had to be removed because of development. They keep losing structures because of development. The intent is not to add more signs but they want to keep the ones they have.

Christensen asked to be excused from voting.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO EXCUSE CHRISTENSEN FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Hutchison said Newman Sign Company had done a good job but based on the comments made by the business owners, he felt the billboards would affect their businesses. The newest streets in town, 32nd Avenue South and Columbia Road, are not allowed to have billboards. It was done for a reason but now more are being proposed for the South Washington corridor. The bigger billboard signs will grab the attention of people driving by and it would have a negative effect on businesses. The South Washington Street has too many signs now.

Grasser said the testimony heard had been consistent and the concerns from business owners on the aesthetics of the corridor have to be considered.

Kreun said there would not be more signs. Signs will have to be taken down or have already been taken down in order not to exceed the cap of 90 signs. He explained why the ordinance was changed. The signs were deteriorating and according to the ordinance in place, they could not get a building permit to repair them. It became a compromise to replace some of the deteriorating signs that were also bad for other businesses. The company has to take down signs in order to put up other signs. Billboards are not allowed on 32nd Avenue. He asked if it should be a requirement for everyone to take down their signage on South Washington Street? Newman Signs is in business and concessions have to be made. Kreun asked if anyone in the audience knew where the last three billboard signs were placed? There were complaints on those signs also.

Brad Westrum stated he could not give addresses but knew that one was located near Domino’s and one was located near Red Ray Lanes. Both of the billboards were located on the east side of Washington Street. However, the north/south lanes separate and the signs are set back off the frontage road. The proposed billboard signs are situated only a few feet from the street.

Kreun said the signs were not highway billboard signs. The proposed billboards are smaller and he said the proper terminology should be used in order not to make it worse than it is. Mr. Westrum wanted to know the proper terminology. Kreun said they were 24-foot extended single-pole signs. Mr. Westrum apologized for not knowing the proper terminology. Kreun answered he was trying to be fair to the other side. Mr. Westrum noted that if the sign were set back as far as they were further south on the corridor, he probably would not be objecting to them. The signs are only a few feet from the traffic. Kreun said the pole would be closer but the signage would be off the street.

Christensen asked Bill Kvasager of Newman Signs if the pole could be placed on the other side. Mr. Kvasager stated they could move it to the other side and flag it the other way but it would not affect Mr. Westrum’s sign.