City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

March 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, Robert Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Gary Malm and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown; Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit and Frank Matejcek. 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; Planning and Zoning Department; Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2007.

Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of February 7, 2007.
Robert Drees referred members to technical changes for the Trent Olson Second Subdivision on page 20, No. 9. He asked that the township (Brenna) also be included in the exception for responsibility of maintenance of the private roads. According to the North Dakota Century Code, the township is only responsible for maintenance on the section roads but many times people think the township should also be maintaining the private roads.

Malm said the only way to change the paragraph is to present a new motion. The minutes are a written record of what occurred at the February meeting and those minutes cannot be changed.

Christensen said a vote would have to be made to reconsider the issue and then discuss it. The paragraph refers to developers, not the township. The township is a governmental entity. The city does not exempt townships; they have their own statutory responsibilities.

Gengler noted the Trent Olson Second Subdivision was on the agenda at this meeting for final approval and that issue could be raised when the item was discussed.

Lee said the minutes of February 7, 2007, would stand approved as presented.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CHRISTIAN, ON BEHALF OF COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COUNTRYVIEW FOURTH RESUBDIVISION (BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS A, B, C AND D, BLOCK 2, COUNTRYVIEW SECOND RESUBDIVISION AND LOT 10, BLOCK 1, COUNTRYVIEW THIRD RESUBDIVISION) TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED ON CHRISTIAN DRIVE.

Brooks reviewed the plat request by first indicating the location on the map. The plat divides some of the property from one larger parcel. It also includes reducing four lots to three lots along Desiree Drive. One of the technical findings is to include a 10-foot right-of-way along Christian Drive in order to protect the city’s existing stormwater facilities. Staff recommendation is for final approval subject to the special conditions.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY MALM FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. On common line between Lots 9 and 10, show a 10-foot wide right-of-way with a 10-foot utility easement on each side for a 30-foot total.

MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGNESS VOTING NO.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SOUTHERN ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION (BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GRAND FORKS COUNTY) AND LOCATED ON SOUTH COLUMBIA ROAD AND 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Brooks reviewed the plat request, stating access control is in place along Columbia Road and 47th Avenue South. Lot three is being provided access with easements shown on the map. The easements will also include designation as utility easements. The zoning is in place for the area with commercial uses as the land use. Staff recommendation is 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 JOHN DREES FOR FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Show right-of-way along South Columbia Road at 60 feet of width with an adjacent 10-foot wide utility easement.
3. Plat does not require 8% Park Dedication as lots are for commercial purposes.
4. Change wordage on easements to read “25-foot ingress/egress/utility easement.”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 4134 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS, PLATS OR APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING IN THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF MARCH 20, 2006 TO APRIL 17, 2006 FOR ANY FULLY COMPLETED APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION PLAT, REPLAT OR CHANGE IN ZONING FILED WITH THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS.

Gengler reviewed the item, stating the ordinance amends the previous moratorium ordinance. He referred members to page two, section three, amending clause (g) that changes the effective date for submission of plats or replats from March 20, 2006 to April 17, 2006. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY DR. HALL FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DATE FROM MARCH 20, 2006 TO APRIL 17, 2006. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Hagness voiced his appreciation to Doug Christensen and Curt Kreun for their work in getting the ordinance changed at city council. He felt it was the fair thing to do.

MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBERT DREES VOTING NO.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TAREK HOWARD, ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM OLSON, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF TRENT OLSON SECOND SUBDIVISION, BEING A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 51 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GRAND FORKS COUNTY.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating this was one of three plats affected by the date change in the previous ordinance. The park dedication committee met on the plat but that issue is still under negotiations and will be finalized soon. He noted the commission could still give final approval prior to final negotiations on the park dedication issue. Gengler said this would be the time to hear Robert Drees’ comments on exempting the township, as well as the city and county, on road maintenance.

Robert Drees again referred members to page 20 of the February 7, planning and zoning commission minutes. Number 9 of the special conditions referred to gravel roadways. The third sentence states “the city of Grand Forks and Grand Forks County are not responsible for building or maintaining any roadways or utilities in this subdivision.” Mr. Drees stated the township should also be included in the language. The issue has come up time and again at the township level when subdivisions are built and years later, the people living in the subdivisions expect the township to re-gravel, blade or remove snow from the roads. The North Dakota Century Code stated the township is only required to maintain roads on the section line, not within a subdivision. Brenna Township does not want to maintain roads within the subdivisions.

Gengler stated that could be added to the approval motion if the commission agrees and that can be added as No. 9 to the technical (special) changes.

Christensen said he would agree to that as long as Mr. Drees’ opinion of the law is validated by the city attorney because it will come up in the future with the city’s dealings in the extraterritorial area.

John Drees commented that No. 9 could state that “private roads maintained by the owners but dedicated to the public.” Gengler said the language used under the special conditions at the preliminary level should be used.

Malm said the note should read that the subdivision roads be built and maintained by the owners as well as the specs the roads are to be built. They do that at the county level. In the future, it might be left off of the list and the argument will resurface.

Gengler said the No. 9 of the February minutes also contains a sentence that states “the gravel roadways shall be constructed to Grand Forks County subdivision roadway specifications and shall be maintained by all the property owners in the subdivision.” When the city grows out to the area and it is annexed, the roadways will be converted to city roadways. Gravel roadways are not allowed in the city. The plat shows the roadways to be dedicated in the future as a reservation.

Hagness asked Grasser how this is different from the roadways in other private developments, such as Landeco Lane, that is currently in the city. Grasser responded that is different. The ones currently in the city are usually condominiums or townhomes. The reason for the easements on the plat is because they do not want the designation “dedicated to the city of Grand Forks.” That would lead prospective buyers into thinking the city is responsible for the roadways. That is the reason for the language that is on the plat. The remainder of the language states “the easements will revert to standard city rights-of-way upon annexation. The gravel roads do not meet city specifications and upon annexation the temporary roads will be turned into permanent roads and the cost is assessed to the homeowners. This will also apply to stormwater drainage.

Hagness asked about the long term agreements that homeowners will have with rural water. Grasser replied that rural water systems in Fargo have started using larger size mains to supply water and fire protection; however, there is more growth in that area. In the area under discussion, the typical rural type mains can provide water but not fire protection. That will be a matter of discussion in the future as well as the legal issues of who has jurisdiction to deliver the water.

Hutchison stated that removing the third sentence from No. 9 listed in the February minutes would take care of the issue. It states who has to build and maintain the roads.

Christensen made a motion to that effect and then withdrew the motion to continue in the discussion.

Robert Drees asked about the defined waterway on Lot 13 from the south and exits on Lot 1 on the east side and another one on Lot 7 and exist on Lot 3 on the north side. He asked if there was a stormwater plan to address the water issues on those lots as well as the property owners on the south and west. If roads are built without adequate provisions, it will change the dynamics of the water flow on the quarter section. Gengler said there are requirements for the stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution. Beyond those requirements, he is not aware of other measures.

Grasser said a utility type plan is required for new subdivisions. The city would review that and also include the opinion of the Water Resource District. Some of the technical aspects are a gray area and have not totally been worked out. The city does not want to get into the details of how the rural water drainage should be managed. That is still part of the purview of the Water Resource District. He agreed with Hutchison’s suggestion to remove the third sentence but wanted the utilities addressed because the utilities are included in that sentence. The focus has been on the roadways on behalf of the township’s issues but he wanted to make sure homeowners knew that the city does not deliver the water, clean the culverts or maintaining the septic tanks. The word “utilities” needs to be included in some manner. He deferred to John Drees as a member of the Trail Rural Water District.

John Drees said the water is owned by Trail Rural Water District but the homeowners are a member of that group. There is a mechanism when the area is annexed that the remainder of the interest of the water company is purchased by the homeowner or the city.

Grasser suggested stating “privately owned and maintained roadways and utilities” and that would cover all the issues.

Hutchison said utilities are covered under No. 10 of the technical changes in the February 7 minutes. He questioned the necessity of adding it again.

Grasser said they were adding the statements to anything outside the flood protection boundaries of Grand Forks and the statement would be valid even after the area is annexed and take over the rights-of-way. The city cannot guarantee uninterrupted service of utilities even after they annex the area because it is outside the flood protection area.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT BUT TO INCLUDE THE NO. 9 PARAGRAPH AS SHOWN IN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2007 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE THIRD SENTENCE. THE PARAGRAPH, MINUS THE THIRD SENTENCE, WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION LIST FOR FINAL APPROVAL. APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include 100-year flood line along the south side of the coulee..
3. Show monuments set at all lot corners and points of curve.
4. Note Number 5 should read: Minimum ground elevations around dwellings shall be set with consideration of the 100-year floodplain, ice conditions on the English Coulee and the possibility of overland flooding.
5. Continue easements along 15th Avenue Northeast and Trent Olson Subdivision across the north part of Lot 4, Block 1,
6. Replace the word “said” with “any” in Note Number 10.
7. Rename “Bucko Boulevard” to “Bucko Court.”
8. Rename “Abby Road” to “Abby Street Northeast.”
9. Add the following note regarding gravel roadways:
The developer shall construct gravel-surfaced roadways in all locations labeled private road easements shown hereon. These gravel roadways shall be constructed to Grand Forks County subdivision roadway specifications and shall be maintained by all the property owners in the subdivision. In the event this subdivision is annexed to the City of Grand Forks, the private roadway and utility easements shown hereon shall be automatically converted to dedicated public street rights-of-way and utility easements.

MOTION CARRIED WITH GRASSER VOTING NO.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF REQUEST FROM NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN (BILLBOARD) TO BE LOCATED AT 1440 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.

Gengler reviewed the request for reconsideration of billboard signs along South Washington Street. In February the commission reviewed four proposed billboard locations submitted by Newman Outdoor Advertising. The four locations were 820 South Washington Street, 910 South Washington, 1440 South Washington and 5101 South Washington Street. After discussion, a motion was made to deny all four locations but the main discussion by the commission was related to the 820 and 910 South Washington Street locations. The applicant had the option, by code, to appeal the decision directly to the city council. The request from Newman Outdoor Advertising was to ask for reconsideration of two (1440 and 5101 South Washington) of the four signs to the planning and zoning commission. If the commission wishes to reconsider, someone on the prevailing side must make the motion. He stated the following names were on the prevailing side and this did not include the names of those on the commission who recused themselves from voting or those who were absent at the last meeting: Adams, Grasser, Hutchison, Kweit, Lee, Matejcek and Whitcomb. One of those individuals could make a motion to reconsider. Gengler also noted the two locations had been split as separate items. In June, 2006, there was a similar request for four signs and all signs were included on one agenda item and at the commission meeting, each location was split and voted on separately.

Gengler referred members to the supplemental packet that contained the letter from Newman Outdoor Advertising requesting reconsideration. Also included were the various letters received from South Washington businesses and area in opposition of the requests from Newman Outdoor Advertising. Gengler stated he was handed a letter signed by individuals (27) in opposition to the billboard signs.

Gengler discussed the sign code that was amended in December, 2005 allowed a maximum of nine billboard signs to be located on the South Washington corridor between DeMers Avenue and the southerly extension of the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. He presented a map provided by Newman Outdoor Advertising that shows the location of five billboard signs accounted for of the maximum nine that could be allowed. One is the existing signs is located at the Homestead Grove area and a plat for that area will be presented later under preliminary hearings. A sign was approved at the Happy Joe’s location but that sign has not been built. A third sign is located between Domino’s and Southgate. The fourth sign approved and installed is located at the former Planet Pizza location and the fifth sign approved and installed is located at Erickson Auto. When the sign code was amended, a cap of 90 billboard signs was established in the city and the extraterritorial area. That cap has been reached. Newman Outdoor Advertising has supplied a list of four sign locations where signs would be removed and are non-conforming for various reasons and replaced at other corridors in town. Signs along the Gateway and Demers corridors have been approved administratively as long as the billboard company abides by the provisions and code. The South Washington corridor is the only specific corridor that requires special approval by the commission.

Gengler stated the sign proposed at 1440 South Washington Street is allowed to be a maximum of 50 feet in height and a maximum of 300 square feet for the sign surface area. This is the standard sign within the city limits versus the larger billboard signs located in the rural areas and allowed at 672 square feet.

Lee asked if the motion to reconsider were approved, would it then be appropriate to vote on the location site itself and Gengler said yes. The applicant has the right to appeal any decision to the city council.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST BY NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR BILLBOARD SIGNS TO BE LOCATED AT 1440 SOUTH WASHINGTON.

JOHN DREES AND DR. HALL ASKED TO BE RECUSED FROM VOTING. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO RECUSED JOHN DREES AND DR. HALL FROM VOTING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Lee asked if the public hearing, as listed, was on the reconsideration or on the merits. After discussion, the public hearing will be on the merits of the findings.

Grasser asked if the proposed location was the same as presented in February. Gengler replied it may have shifted somewhat but the primary concern was the location of the signs in the 800 and 900 blocks of South Washington at the February meeting. The signs would have been located very close to the street since the right-of-way on that end of town is very narrow. At the proposed location of 1440 South Washington, there is 250 feet of right-of-way.

Christensen called a point of order. The discussion should be after a vote is taken to reconsider.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Lee said it was now appropriate to discuss the merits of the proposed sign at 1440 South Washington Street.

Hagness asked for information on approval from the Sign Subcommittee when the code was amended. If the code was amended and approved by the commission and the city council, why is it appropriate that it now can be changed?

Gengler stated the city council approved the amended sign code revision in December 2005. Those amendments were implemented to directly address outdoor advertising. It allowed flexibility for billboard signs at certain properties that otherwise would not be allowed. They now are allowing billboard signs in PUD areas along the interstate and more flexibility on the DeMers and Gateway corridors. Billboard signs are not allowed in the PUD areas along 32nd Avenue South or Columbia Road. The code was amended to allow a maximum of nine billboard signs along South Washington Street between DeMers Avenue and the southerly extension of the zoning limits. The proposed billboards have to be presented to the commission and they determine fitting and compatible based on visual clutter, reduction of sight line at roadway and intersections and the concentration of billboard signs. That was the criteria established and the commission determines if a sign is fitting and compatible at a proposed location based on the criteria.

Christensen asked how many signs were on South Washington Street and the signs that were in bad shape. Gengler said on the east side of Washington between 40th and 47th Avenue South, there was four billboard signs at the time of adoption of the revised sign ordinance. Only one sign remains at the Homestead Grove area and that sign will be removed shortly. There was an existing sign located between Domino’s and Southgate. All other billboard signage has been approved since the adoption of the revised ordinance.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Russ Newman, Newman Outdoor Advertising, handed out photographs to the commission members. He thanked the commission for the reconsideration and also thanked planning staff for splitting out the locations as separate items. He said the sign subcommittee met at least once a month for three years before the sign code was amended and the only discussion was for off site off-premise sign ordinance. On premise signage was not discussed. The sign ordinance passed with solid majorities at the commission and the city council. Compromises were made that resulted in a cap of 90 sign locations in the city and nine signs along South Washington Street. Currently there are five signs and four more are allowed. It is the busiest road in town and only 10% of the signs allowed in the city. Having good locations for off-premise advertising is very important and local advertisers want to have advertising on busy streets. Billboard signs are not allowed on 32nd Avenue South, Columbia Road or South 42nd Street. There are 6 or 7 major roadways in town and outdoor advertising is prohibited from half of them. He stated they wanted to do a good job for the local advertisers and not only the local advertisers suffer from lack of exposure but other institutions such as the Engelstad Arena and the Alerus. They can advertise in cities such as Fargo, Moorhead and Devil’s Lake unrestricted on all streets in commercial areas, but in their hometown they cannot advertise on all commercial streets. Prior to 2005, there was prohibition on outdoor advertising signs and we could not upgrade the existing signs. He referred members to the photos and said if they cannot be upgraded, they continue to degrade. The revision of the sign code allowed us to upgrade the deteriorating signs.

Mr. Newman talked about the proposed sign at 1440 South Washington and said they decided to set the pole back an additional 15 feet. There is little or no obstruction in the area due to the height of the sign. The height was allowed to be raised in order to see and park under the signs.

John McDonald, owner of the Highlander, said every business has a sign in front or around it somewhere. He does not agree with more signs along South Washington Street. No more are needed and he stated he was strictly opposed to more signs along the corridor.

Don Barcome Jr., 2424 Olson Drive, stated that during the last eight years he has been involved in the Forks Classic Curling Events and during the World Curling Championships the Newman group had been a good corporate partner and sponsor of the events. With the tight budgets, he has been very appreciative of the Newman group for their support.

A representative of Burger King on South Washington Street presented 50 letters (includes a letter of opposition from South Side Development) from different businesses opposed to billboard type signage along South Washington Street for the reasons already noted. There is too much signage already. Whether their signs obstruct or not, that type of signage takes away from signage of business owners.

Shane Roemeling, owner of Forks Finest Auto Body at 2311 South Washington Street and Forks Finest Car Wash at 1224 24th Ave S, stated the issue should not be up for discussion. The sign companies should buy property to put up their signs. He spent over one million dollars to do business in Grand Forks and the billboard should not be allowed. The signage allowed for businesses is based on square footage and if he wanted more signage, it would not even be considered. Independent businesses should not have to compete with billboards.

Ken Towers, owner of Wendy’s at 1503 South Washington and Italian Moon at 810 South Washington, stated he had nothing against Newman signs. However, businesses are very restricted on their signage. There is nothing wrong with replacing old signs with upgraded signs but they should not be allowed to have more on South Washington Street. He stated they built a new Wendy’s on 32nd Avenue South and pays $20,000 a year in property taxes but he could not put up a sign with a readerboard. They were limited to a ground monument sign of 8 feet. He has no problem living with that but does have a problem with allowing a 50 foot sign in areas where businesses are restricted. There are plenty of signs on South Washington Street now.

Lee closed the public hearing.

Christensen said he recused himself in February because of business dealings he had in the past with people who opposed the signs. He said he would once again recuse himself but wanted to speak to the issue first. The issue was addressed in 2003 and 2004 and members of the commission (sign subcommittee) met and did a good job of representing the community. The Newman group did not get what they wanted. The standard of visual clutter is very subjective and it is unfortunate that it pits one business owner against another one. It has nothing to do with who pays the most taxes. The ordinance allows one business to strive to survive in the community and to continue to offer a service that was here long before many of the other businesses were in place. The elected body does not have the right to tell a business owner to tear down signs that are deteriorating and should be taken down. The Newman group has tried to comply with the standards set by the subcommittee. Christensen said he liked 32nd Avenue South and South Columbia Road and the fact that billboard signs would not be allowed on them. However, there has to be a balance. Where will they go with their signs if they are denied? The next step is to have a referendum that signs are outlawed on Washington and put it to a vote. The standards set and agreements made were a good compromise. If he could vote, he would vote in favor of it but he stated he could not because of offending other people.

Christensen asked to be recused from voting on the issue.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY ROBERT DREES TO RECUSE CHRISTENSEN FROM VOTING ON THE BILLBOARD ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Hutchison said he agreed with some of what Christensen said and he knew the Newman group was frustrated with the areas they could have signs. He does not know how the number nine on South Washington Street was reached. Hutchison said he used billboard signs when traveling and they have their place. The businesses along South Washington Street have a much smaller signage size and when driving along that street he does believe there is visual clutter and cannot vote to allow a billboard at the location noted.

Hagness said he was absent last month and missed the discussion. He was kept off the sign subcommittee because he was very liberal about signage. He was frustrated about the reduction in signs. He wanted the portable signs and they are gone and it looks much better without them. He spoke on the number of letters received to clean up areas in Grand Forks and the reason to be on the commission is to listen to the people. He has always supported the Newman group but based on the number of letters received from business owner, he cannot vote for a sign at the 1440 location. He cannot discount all the business owners that do not want the signs.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO DENY THE BILLBOARD SIGN AT 1440 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Gengler noted the applicant does have the right to appeal the finding to the city council.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF REQUEST FROM NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN (BILLBOARD) TO BE LOCATED AT 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.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO RECONSIDER THE BILLBOARD SIGN AT 5101 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY.

Gengler showed on the map where the sign would be located. He noted that Zavoral’s development is on the west and the sign would be situated on the All Seasons Garden Center property to the east. There were three property owners that were notified about the location of the proposed sign and there was no opposition received for the sign.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Russ Newman said he has attending meetings here for years and was once told by a commission member not to bombard him with letters. He noted they have 150 advertisers that could send letters in support of the billboards but that is not their style. They feel they are good corporate citizens. Now they need direction on where they can put the signs they have been allowed to have under the code amendment. Nine signs along five miles allows enough separation. Visual clutter is very subjective and is not definable in his opinion.

Shane Roemeling voiced his opinion against the sign and the visual clutter. The item should not even be considered. He stated the town is moving to the south and the billboard signs should not be allowed there.

John McDonald, owner of Highlander, stated he bought his sign from Newmans in 1963 and it has been a good sign. There are enough signs on South Washington Street.

Russ Newman said he wanted to make it clear that when they get a permit for a sign, they have landowner approval and signed agreements.

Lee asked what the proposed sign size would be and Newman replied it would be 14 x 48 with 672 square feet as permitted by code.

Lee closed the public hearing.

Hutchison stated visual clutter is subjective and is usually based on individual opinion. He does not agree that visual clutter is the case for the proposed sign at 5101 South Washington Street because there are no other signs. If a sign is not allowed at this location, they can’t put one anywhere.

Malm said he thought the agreement was not to allow anymore signs north of 17th Avenue South but the location at All Season Garden Center is appropriate for a billboard sign. It is outside the city limits. If they’re not allowed here, then all signs should be removed and only ground monument signs approved. Anyone who builds out there knows a billboard is there.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO RECUSE JOHN DREES AND DR. HALL FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE THE BILLBOARD SIGN AT 5101 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Hagness spoke in favor of the sign location.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MARLAN SHULL FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR LOT B, BLOCK 2, AIRPORT 5TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED ON GATEWAY DRIVE NEAR NORTH 47TH STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING TO BE USED AS A CONTRACTOR’S SHOP FOR STORING TOOLS, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FOR GENERAL PURPOSE USE, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18-0216, SUBSECTION (3) OF THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

Brooks reviewed the request for a conditional use permit for a contractor’s shop. The zoning is B-3 and a contractor’s shop is allowed under a conditional use permit. The property owners to the west and to the south (Gateway Terrace Mobile Home Park, Settle Inn and Perkins Restaurant) were notified. The site plan is being reviewed by staff.

Lee asked if there would be a time limit set for the conditional use permit and Brooks said staff recommendation is that it would run with the property unless the use changes.

Malm asked for elevation drawings and how the building will look. The commission has reviewed contractor’s shops before and this is an area the city is trying to fix up.

Brooks said there would no outdoor storage and parking would only be allowed in front of the building.

Collings said there have been problems in the past with contractor’s shops. However, on the subject site, no outdoor storage is allowed. The problems in the past were with older properties that were not developed with site plans with specific green space requirements. The subject site is rather tight and as long as vehicles are in the parking lot, staff cannot address it.

Malm said contractor’s shops tend to become dumping areas. There is a fortune being considered to be spent to build a monument in that area and there are problems there now. More problems should not be allowed. Collings said although his concerns are valid, the newer properties can be controlled better. When the owner was asked to clean up minor problems, he did so immediately. He was very responsive in cleaning up areas when requested to do so.

Christensen spoke against conditional use permits because of the hesitancy to revoke them. He asked for pictures of how the building would look when completed. He also requested that conditions be imposed for the property. The city does not want more visual clutter. Since it will be facing the highway, it should have a good appearance

Marlan Shull, owner, said he was willing to do what he needed to do but questioned the expense to get approval. He said he was putting up a steel building 18 feet high and the color would be the same as the other building to blend in. He was planning to order the building next week because steel is going up in price. He said he had two buildings going up and one is an allowed use.

There was a discussion on the road and Brooks said the owner would work with engineering on getting the road constructed up to the driveway.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Lana Kroll, general manager of the Settle Inn and representative for the owners, stated the owners wanted to be assured there would be no drainage runoff onto the Settle Inn property. Mr. Shull said the water from the Settle Inn runs onto the back of his property and he planned to landscape around the property with mounding and trees. Brooks said a drainage plan would be part of the site plan review.

Grasser said the owner would have to show the forcemain on the site plan and assurances would be needed for separation from the forcemain.

Discussion continued on the design and looks of the completed building. It was noted that time is of the essence for Mr. Shull to order the building.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO GIVE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON CONDITIONS OF 1) NO OUTDOOR STORAGE IS ALLOWED, 2) THE IMMEDIATE EXPIRATION OF CUP IF THE USE OF THE BUILDING CHANGES FROM A CONTRACTOR’S SHOP, 3) RESUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED FOR RECONSIDERATION IF EXPANSION OCCURS, 4) REQUIRES SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON THE SITE, AND 5) DESIGN REVIEW OF THE BUILDING FACADES BY THE PLANNING & ZONING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 40 (BEING A REPLAT OF ALL OF LONGMIRE AND VOISS ADDITION, HOLT’S RESUBDIVISION, AUDITOR’S RESUBDIVISION NO. 19 AND ALL UNPLATTED PARTS OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN) TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND AND LOCATED ALONG BELMONT ROAD AND BELMONT COURT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating this was one of several flood plats for the city. He showed the location on the map and stated the plat will replat portions of the city owned lot and previously unplatted lots into three platted lots. It will also provide 4200 square feet that the city intends to swap with the adjacent property owners for the right-of-way that will be vacated. The plat also provides additional right-of-way dedicated through another instrument and it will be labeled on the plat for ease of research. During preliminary and final, the access for the three lots will be addressed because Belmont is a minor arterial roadway. No. 11 on the special conditions was added in order to include other property to the plat. Durrenberger showed the air photo of the area.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct plat title as shown in title block and in owner’s certificate.
3. List proper signers for the planning and zoning commission.
4. Plat requires street and highway ordinance.
5. Show elevation contours or spot ground elevations.
6. Include 100-year floodplain line.
7. Include document number for all vacated lands.
8. Shade all lands to be vacated.
9. Add bearings and distances for all plat boundary lines.
10. Add 10-foot wide utility easement along east right-of-way line of Belmont Road.
11. Include all of Longmire and Voiss Addition within the plat boundary.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA TO VACATE VARIOUS LANDS EAST OF BELMONT ROAD AT THE 3800 BLOCK UNDER VARIOUS ADDITION AND RESUBDIVISION NAMES AS SHOWN ON THE MAP, CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA.

Durrenberger reviewed the vacation parcel for the previous subdivision consists of
unnecessary rights-of-way. Staff recommendation is for approval.

MOTION BY JOHN DREES AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE
VACATION REQUEST.

Grasser said the vacation should not be concurrent with the filing of the plat. A note
should be added that the vacation not be recorded until after the plat is recorded.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 9, 10 AND 11, BLOCK 3 OFANDERSON’S SUBDIVISION, EXTENSION OF BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 49TH AVENUE SOUTH AND RIVERS EDGE DRIVE.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat stating the city is replatting to make two lots in order to sell them. They are adjacent to the flood project. Access would be off 49th Avenue South.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: