Print VersionStay Informed
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
October 5, 2005

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Gary Malm with the following members present: John Drees, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Paula Lee, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and Sheryl Smith. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Dennis Potter, City Planning Director; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Brad Gengler, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior. Absent: None.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2005.

Malm asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of
September 7, 2005. There were no corrections or additions noted and Malm
declared the minutes approved 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 DEACON’S DEVELOPMENT, LLP, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE KANNOWSKI’S PUD AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE KANNOWSKI’S PUD, AMENDMENT NO. 2 ALL OF KANNOWSKI’S FIRST ADDITION, ULLAND PARK FIRST ADDITION, DEACON’S GARDENS ADDITION, FOUNTAIN VISTA PARK RESUBDIVISION AND ZAVORAL’S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 151 NORTH, RANGE 50 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.

Gengler reviewed the request, showing a map of the entire PUD area. He indicated the area of the most substantive change within the PUD. Originally the area was zoned as R-3, with an additional five acres of land for commercial uses. The ordinance to rezone will amend the PUD by allowing 22 acres for floating commercial uses to be located in the southeast corner with an additional 5.5 acres for commercial uses located south of 55th Avenue South and west of South Washington Street. The remaining area in the PUD of approximately 97.9 acres would be utilized for R-3 type (multiple-family residence, medium density district) type uses. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

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

MOTION BY WHITCOMB AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Vicinity Map: Identify the complete PUD boundary and label the area subject to Amendment No. 2.
2. Provide Amendment No. 2 approval information.
3. Because the 30-foot bikeway easement is now being dedicated to the public on the plat of Zavoral’s 1st Addition, identify the area as being: dedicated to the public for sidewalk, bikepath and utility purposes.
4. Make minor corrections to the text within notes #1, #3, and #5.
5. The drainway is planned to extend to 62nd Avenue South. Eliminate reference to South 22nd Street as a future connection to 62nd Avenue South.
6. Show proposed future internal public roadway network.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF 47TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request, showing an aerial photo of the subject area. He stated the plat area was approximately 3.3 acres for commercial land and 2 acres of dedicated public streets. Staff recommendation was for final approval.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY DREES TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Along 47th Ave S. and South Washington Street, the first 5-feet of utility easement is for water, sewer and pedestrian/bikeway usage. The next 10-feet is for utility usage, to total 15-feet.
3. Plat approval recognizes a variance to section 18-0907 (2) (L) relating to right-of-way access, requiring 660 feet from an intersection.
4. Utility easements outside of the plat boundary will require submission of a separate document.
5. Show scale as 1” = 60’.
6. Submit a utility master plan including roadway network for all undeveloped lands east of Washington Street and north of the drainway.
7. Add access control along 47th Avenue South and 120 feet south on South 11th Street. Also along South Washington Street and 120-feet east on 48th Avenue South.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3 (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE A-2 (AGRICULTURAL RESERVE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE MEADOW RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE UNPLATTED LANDS LYING BETWEEN 47TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 51ST AVENUE SOUTH AND BETWEEN SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET AND THE WESTERLY PLATTED BOUNDARIES OF NORTH PINES RESUBDIVISION AND SOUTH PINES ADDITION.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the PUD (Planned Unit Development) was for the plat discussed under Item 3-2. Since there were no immediate plans or ideas for the remainder of the property, it was decided to allow it to remain in the A-2 District. The anticipation is for a residential/commercial mix. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request.

Lee asked why the whole concept was not required for the property. Gengler explained that ideally that is the case and one of the technical changes addresses the need to show the potential roadway network within the entire development. Requiring the land uses on the concept has slipped somewhat from the past and he noted the commission could require a complete concept be presented. He further stated that the same depth would probably be applied for further commercial uses along South Washington Street down to the drainway with multi-family directly behind the commercial properties and then one and two family residences. There was no further discussion.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Data Summary Chart: Change the Sub-Area Number column toParcel Number. Change C1 to 1, and change A1 to 2. This is similar to what we are doing with Kannowski’s PUD.
2. Change Southbrook First Addition to North Pines Resubdivision on the east side of the proposed PUD, and label it as R-1 and R-2 type uses.
3. Label South Pines Addition as R-2 type uses.
4. Because all the right-of-way is being shown on the plat of Meadow Ridge First Addition, move the PUD sub-area line to the actual right-of-way lines.
5. Add access control along 47th Avenue South and 120 feet south on South 11th Street. Also along South Washington Street and 120-feet east on 48th Avenue South.
6. Show proposed future internal public roadway network within the PUD.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4 (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM STEVE ADAMS, ON BEHALF OF ART GREENBERG, FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, COLUMBIA PARK 22ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED IN THE 3500 BLOCK OF SOUTH 42ND STREET.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the area encompasses part of the recently vacated 42nd Street right-of-way located west of I-29. Due to additional right-of-way required by the engineering department after preliminary approval in September, Durrenberger asked for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the street and highway plan. The ordinance would be submitted for final approval at the November meeting. Staff recommendation was for final approval of the replat and preliminary approval of the street and highway ordinance.

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

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY AND ALSO TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE STREET AND HIGHWAY ORDINANCE:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Add 10-foot utility easement along west side of Lot A.
3. Show pins set on all corners.
4. Include access control along South 42nd Street except at proposed driveway location and on 36th Avenue South as from South 42nd Street to 120 feet west.
5. Locate existing truck stop sign on plat and supply copy of agreement with owner.
6. Remove Lot B and state square footage of land to be dedicated as right-of-way along South 42nd Street.
7. Plat requires street and highway ordinance for new right-of-way.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF ROAD RUNNER TWO, LLC, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 9, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED AT 1734 12TH AVENUE NORTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the request to relocate a lot line. In May, the lots were rezoned from commercial to R-2. The owner decided he did not need all of the property for R-2 uses and wishes to move the lot line to allow Lot B to have 50 feet of frontage and Lot A to have 40 feet of frontage. The owners plans to move a home onto Lot B. Staff recommendation was to approve the request to move the lot line five feet to the east and allow 50 feet of frontage for Lot B.

Kerian asked about the concern previously voiced by neighbors about the property and the fact that the property has been used as a dumping ground (equipment, snow, etc). She asked if the change would affect those concerns on Lot A.

Malm opened the public hearing.

Greg Opp, 3733 17th Avenue South, representing the lot owners, stated the owner, Acme Electric, planned to move a house presently located behind the rental yard to Lot B. He said the owners want to work with the city to utilize the properties and alleviate the concern of the neighbors (this was in response to Kerian’s concerns). In the past, snow was piled on the property and the neighbors do not want that. A house would be moved to Lot B and utilized by the Acme Electric family. Mr. Opp said the original request to rezone the entire property was a mistake on his part but they plan to see what they can do to clean up the property and make it acceptable to the neighbors.

Malm closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Reverse lot numbers “A and B” to match existing numbering direction.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GREG OPP, ON BEHALF OF ROAD RUNNER, LLC, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE R-2 (ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT THE EASTERLY FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET OF LOT 11, BLOCK 9, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION (TO BE REPLATTED AS LOT A, BLOCK 9, OF THE REPLAT LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 9, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION), AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT THE EASTERLY FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET OF LOT 11, BLOCK 9, WESTACOTT’S SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, AND LOCATED AT 1734 12TH AVENUE NORTH.
Durrenberger reviewed the rezoning request attached to the replat request of Item 3-5. In May, 2005, the properties were rezoned from B-3 to R-2. Now the request is to rezone the new Lot “A” to the B-3 (General Business) District. The property is contiguous to B-3 property. Staff recommendation was to rezone the east 40 feet of Lot A to the B-3 District.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY DR. KWEIT TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE EAST 40 FEET OF LOT A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN ESTATES, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF SOUTHERN ESTATES 5TH ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 20TH STREET, SOUTH OF THE DRAINWAY AND NORTH OF 43RD AVENUE SOUTH, ALSO TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION 18-0907 (2) (I) RELATING TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR LOCAL STREET.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the property was submitted previously as a standard single-family subdivision to be designated as an affordable housing district that included deviations from some of the subdivision regulations. After discussions, the city council decided not to allow a fourth affordable housing district. The owners resubmitted the request without a request for affordable housing designation but did request variances to accept 70-foot rights-of-way rather than 80-foot rights-of-way and include 15-foot utility easements instead of 10-foot utility easements. Staff recommendation was to approve the plat request with the variances as stated.

Grasser said the reason for requiring 80-foot rights-of-way was that with 70-foot rights-of-way, one of the city utilities would end up on the property side of the sidewalk (watermain or storm sewer). He noted property owners get protective on the property side of the sidewalk and the city generally does not put utilities on that side where they might have to dig up or disturb the property in any way. With an 80-foot right-of-way, the city is able to keep city utilities on the street side of the sidewalk. There is an unwritten agreement with the local utilities such as cable TV, electricity and gas that they generally would be located on the property side of the sidewalk because they are more shallow and less intrusive. Grasser said his concern about granting a variance is the possibility that it might change the 80-foot rights-of-way requirement. However, he stated there are unique differences in the subject area that should be considered. When the affordable housing districts were approved, more narrow rights-of-way were approved with wider easements. The plat area does not qualify for the affordable housing designation, but it does fit a need in the community since moderately-sized lots are included. In order to encourage that, some incentives might be in order. He said there were two reasons to consider the variances: 1) Most of the lots average under 70 feet in width and 2) most of the lots vary in depth from 127 feet to 135 feet where the normal depth is 140 feet. The development is fixed on the north end by the southend drainway and fixed on the south end by previously platted property. If the developer were forced to have 80-foot rights-of-way, some of the lot depths would only be around 122 feet deep. Grasser said the developer should be able to control the lot depths in most cases but in this instance, the developer is fixed on what he can do. If the variance is granted, it should be granted as being unique to this property because the average lot width is less than 70 feet and because the property is physically challenged by the lot depth that can be produced. Grasser further stated that South 22nd Street should not be granted a variance because it does not have the restrictions he spoke of for the property in question. Property is undeveloped to the west and there are no lots fronting on the street. Although he thought there should be some consideration for the variance on the property, he did not want to see a precedent set by doing so.

Gengler noted that South 22nd Street has been designated by the right-of-way officer as 80 feet, not 70 feet.

Dr. Kweit said he agreed with Grasser and noted many larger cities are having trouble keeping middle class people in the city and are making concessions to keep people in the cities. With affordable housing designations it can become problematic but this particular development seems to fit somewhere in the middle of the standard housing and affordable housing. He further stated that standards should be established on lot width and geographic considerations that would allow concessions and provide more moderate housing but he felt it should not be allowed because a developer could develop more lots at the expense of the rights-of-way.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS, ALLOW THE VARIANCE OF 70-FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY EXCEPT ON SOUTH 22ND STREET AND ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO WORK ON ESTABLISHING STANDARDS UNDER WHICH RIGHTS-OF-WAY COULD BE LIMITED IN ORDER TO CREATE MODERATE HOUSING:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Provide backyard drainage plan.
3. Name the street between 41st Avenue S. and 42nd Avenue S.
4. Include ground contours or spot ground elevations.
Include a 10-foot utility easement along the west side of South 22nd Street. Separate document may be necessary.
6. Plat acceptance as shown recognizes a variance to Section 18-0907(2)(I) of the Land Development Code, requiring 80-feet of right-of-way width.
7. Change the north part of the South 22nd Street right-of-way to create Lot 12, as no drainway crossing is planned at that location.
8. Add land description to the owners certification.
9. Plat requires Street and Highway ordinance.
10. South 22nd Street R-O-W should be 80 feet wide.
11. Name 41 ½ Avenue.
12. Submit a utility master plan including roadway network for all undeveloped lands west of the plat boundary.

Hagness noted there were no cul-de-sacs on the plan that cost the city a lot of money and he offered his compliments to the developer for that.

Kreun said the developer is selling off the lots and that would allow other developers to purchase the lots and develop them. That would allow the property to be developed by several different builders and would put middle-priced homes on the market. This is the closest the city will get to entry level housing without subsidies. Because of the conditions around the property, the variance is useful but just to have standards of more narrow rights-of-way might not be the way to go. He felt they should be careful where variances would be considered and only allow them when there are situations such as the subject plat.

Malm asked if the city council could construct some criteria related to the granting of a variance under certain circumstances. Kreun said that could be done.

Dr. Kweit said he felt there should be some conditions established, otherwise there would be many requests such as this because it would be more profitable to do so. In certain circumstances, it makes sense to grant a variance. Even though every condition might not be covered, the city could work on certain parameters under which a variance could be considered.

Lee asked about parking on the street. Gengler said the actual roadway width would be 31-feet which is standard, regardless of whether it is a 70-foot or 80-foot right-of-way.

Lee asked if there could be a covenant regarding utilities that might end up on property side of the sidewalk. Gengler said there is an additional 5 feet of utility easement for a total of 15 feet for public utility easement.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-0301 AND SECTION 18-0401 RELATING TO SIGNS AND NON-CONFORMING SIGNS.

Potter reviewed the request stating the Sign Subcommittee had been working with Newman Signs and the city attorney to review the outdoor advertising section of the Land Development Code. He noted that Draft No.2 was included in members’ packets but there were questions raised by the city attorney that would need to be answered.

Malm asked that members consider sending the ordinance forward to the city council for review and consideration and then it would be sent back to the commission for final review and approval.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated Distributed Draft No. 3 had only been completed today based on information he received from the city planner on Monday. That draft was passed out to members. He stated there had been several other versions of the ordinance but he had only released three drafts from his office. He noted the latest draft was not a complete document as he had questions that still needed to be addressed. He said there were certain premises under which the draft was based that requires the commission to identify whether a lot is developed or undeveloped; there is no definition of what is developed or undeveloped. He said there had been a recommendation to substitute the word “sign structure or structures” wherever the word “sign” appeared. That cannot be done. There are contextual elements of the draft that would indicate one or the other to be appropriate, therefore he did not attempt to substitute “structure(s)”. Substituting words may change the effect of the regulation. He suggested going through Draft No. 3 and point out differences from Draft No. 2.

Page 1 contains two items addressed by the city attorney:
Page 1, Subsection (3) (C) the word “additionally” was added in order to make it clear that the general provisions in Section 18-0301 apply as well as the specific provisions for signs under each zoning district.

Subsection (E). The recommendation from the committee was for the city attorney to review whether or not signs of paper or vinyl material could be used to cover windows or doors. Mr. Swanson strongly urged the commission not to allow signs to cover exits or doorways. His opinion was that it violated the life safety code among others. Although someone could run through paper or vinyl, the concern was that someone could identify that a doorway existed to enter or exit. Light and air do not present a particular issue in the life safety code but exits do.

Page 3, Subsection (L) the word “public” was added in front of the word easement. There was concern voiced on whether a sign could overhang a private easement.

Page 3, Subsection (R) and (S) were combined into (R) and he added Subsection (S). From comments of the sign subcommittee there was a suggestion that a sign structure would hold more than one sign. Subsection (S) was added to have no more than two sign surface displays. Mr. Swanson said the subcommittee might want to discuss the issue.

Page 4, Subsection (V) covers how the distance of the signs should be measured based on concerns expressed at the subcommittee meeting. The same language appears elsewhere in the code.

Page 7, Subsection (AA) similarly states how to measure distance.

Page 7, Subsection (DD) relates to the height of the sign and how it is to be measured. The measurement does not take place at the curb or the road base, but based on the roadway elevation.

Grasser said the measurement on I-29 would be the rural section and not the ditch bottom. Mr. Swanson replied he tried to address it as he understood it from the sign subcommittee and that would be the road elevation. In the case of I-29, unless there were a closer road such as 32nd Avenue South or a frontage road, the measurement would occur from the height of I-29. Grasser answered he wanted to be sure because it would be substantially different on measurement than from an urban type road with curb and gutter. Mr. Swanson said his only concern was in using the word “adjacent.” He stated he tried not to change the recommendations of the sign subcommittee.

Page 7, Subsection (FF) contains two changes. The first change is the beginning of the sentence “except as otherwise provided herein,” and the second change is the number “5,000” to “566.”

Page 8, Subsection (GG) Mr. Swanson stated that the wording “except as otherwise provided herein” is intended to reflect circumstances under Subsection (GG). If the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the city is increased, any signs existing within that area are automatically included as a permitted sign and the cap of 90 increases incrementally.

Page 8, Subsection (HH) Highway 81 also includes the name Washington Street since the roadway is referred to by both names.

Page 8, Subsection (II) 1. referred to the term “no net loss” which was originally intended to give a sign owner the opportunity to move a sign if it became non-conforming or were no longer to keep the sign on the lot where it was originally located. The original draft had 180 days (6 months) for the owners to physically move the sign. The subcommittee decided that time limit was too short and suggested two years.

Page 8, Subsection (II) 3. Washington Street was again added to as a reference to Highway 81.

Mr. Swanson made a comment on the “no net loss” policy. He said there would be very few instances in which the city would have the opportunity to invoke a “no net loss” policy. The reason is that one of the major changes in the document is allowing signs to be place on developed lots in many zones. In the past, signs were only allowed on undeveloped lots. With respect to those zones that signs are allowed on a developed lot, it is hard to conceive why a sign would need to be moved. The only exception he could think of was if the landowner refused to execute a renewal of a lease or other circumstances where the landowner is asking that the sign be removed. Other than that, Mr. Swanson said he could not find that the “no net loss” provision is effective.

Page 18, Subsection (C) Mr. Swanson explained that much of the language had been deleted from the original draft. The section now indicates that the on-premise business signs are allowed on both undeveloped and developed platted lots.

Page 18, Subsection (D) This section grants a greater size for off-premise advertising signs in two areas – along Highway 81 (Washington Street) north of Gateway Drive in I-1 or I-2 zones and the I-1 and I-2 zones along DeMers Avenue from I-29 west to the railroad tracks. In those instances the advertising structures can be up to 672 square feet. All other I-1 and I-2 locations are limited to 500 square feet. Mr. Swanson said the minutes from the subcommittee were not clear if the height restriction (thirty-two feet) was intended to apply to the Gateway Drive and DeMers Avenue. Mr. Swanson said that would need to be addressed by the subcommittee.
Page 18, Subsection (E) appears to be in the wrong area. Mr. Swanson said his recommendation was that the subsection should be moved forward in Section 18-0301 as a general sign provision as opposed to being in zone restriction.

Page 23, Subsection (J) indicates that off-premise advertising signs may be erected on platted lots in an A-1 or A-2 agricultural zone. He assumed that meant developed and undeveloped lots but again need further direction as to the proper intent from the subcommittee.

Section 18-0410 Non-Conforming Signs
Page 23, Subsection 3:
Mr. Swanson stated there was a major change in the code if the ordinance is adopted. The city would have virtually no ability to remove a sign because of non-conformance to the sign code provisions. The exception would be a sign that becomes dilapidated or based on safety issues. By virtue of Subsection 3, any non-conforming signs that existed today would be allowed to be reconstructed and that sign, once reconstructed, would be allowed to remain indefinitely. There is a area that lists the non-conforming signs and Mr. Swanson indicated he did not have a list of those signs and that area would need to be completed. If there is not a listing of non-conforming signs, then the city would have the ability to remove non-conforming signs. However, if listed, those signs identified would be grandfathered in and would be allowed to be modified, be reconstructed, etc. provided that the requirements of the subsection are met.

Mr. Swanson stated there were other provisions originally drafted in Subsection 3 that were removed.

Mr. Swanson asked that members review the ordinance and let him know of any changes, errors or inconsistencies.

Potter said he would work with the Newmans on getting a list of non-conforming signs.

Harold Newman, President of Newman Outdoor Advertising, Box 1728, Jamestown, ND 58402, stated his son Russ Newman and Bill Kvasager were present with him to answer any questions on the issue. He said they had been in business since 1954 and placed a high caliber on sign maintenance. The sign ordinance in Grand Forks has prevented them from bringing their signs to a state-of-the-arts status. The signs are low to the ground and have caused snow removal problems. He commended the sign subcommittee on their hard work and effort.
Since they only received Draft No. 3 a short time ago, he stated they would have to review it before agreeing to it. He did ask that the ordinance be forwarded to the city council.

Matejcek wanted clarification on the two-sided signs and asked if there were three or four sided signs before. Mr. Swanson said he did not know if there were three or four sided signs but the ordinance would limit them to only two-sides signs.

Dr. Kweit explained that discussion at the last meeting indicated that signs could be two sided instead of one sided. The committee decided they wanted it standardized to no more than two sided signs as long as the signs were cleaned up. The easiest part the subcommittee dealt with was the non-conforming signs because there were signs in the community that are in disrepair and eyesores. As long as the signs are in place, it made sense to allow the owners to bring them up to the standards of the 21st century. The subcommittee was also trying to be business friendly and recognize that the Newmans play a role in the community and the people who advertise are supportive with having the ability to advertise. Other businesses, however, are upset about the changes and he felt the city council should deal with both sides of the issue.

Steve Johnson, Vice-Chairman of the Gateway Committee, stated the Gateway Committee was created in June 2004 by the mayor and city council. They were tasked with a number of responsibilities with two of them being looking at zoning and land development regulations and enforcement and jurisdictional issues on the Gateway corridor and also to act as an advocacy group for the Gateway corridor interests. With all due respect to the sign subcommittee, the Gateway Committee has taken the formal position that it does not support the proposed changes to the city code, specifically regarding off-premise advertising or billboards. The committee has expressed its concerns to the consultant that is preparing the extra-territorial land use study and the Gateway corridor study. The committee does not believe the changes as they are currently proposed are in the future best interests of the Gateway corridor. Committee members support a no net gain rather than a no net loss provision as it applies to Gateway Drive and off-premise advertising. The proposed changes are a retreat from the existing standards which have served the community well. He referred to the 32nd Avenue South and the South Columbia Road corridors as roadways to be emulated. The proposed changes adversely discriminate against the Gateway corridor relative to other corridors regarding off-premise advertising or billboards. The ordinance deals with specific numbers of billboards on Washington Street and DeMers Avenue but does not deal with specific numbers of billboards allowed on Gateway Drive. He asked that proposed changes be delayed until the extra-territorial land use corridor study is completed. He also reminded those present that if existing extra territorial limits be extended another two miles, it would add an additional 12 billboards beyond the 90 cap established. He asked that they consider a billboard that has two sides but has two advertising displays on each side, not related in anyway to each other; a total of four advertising signs is in place on one two-sided sign. That is already in place on Gateway Drive.

Malm told Mr. Johnson that his remarks would be part of the minutes forwarded to the city council.

Matejcek asked Mr. Malm as County Planning and Zoning Chairman, if the billboards in the county were on platted land. Mr. Malm replied they did not deal with platted land but a zoning change had to be made. They are not allowed on agricultural land any longer. The county would rezone a strip of land in order to put in the billboards. Over the years, it was decided that this was not a good idea.

Hagness asked Dr. Kweit if the Gateway Committee had an opportunity to appear before the sign subcommittee and present their concerns.

Dr. Kweit replied no, but said he and Potter attended one of the Gateway Committee meetings and answered their questions on what the subcommittee was considering. The Gateway Committee responded to the subcommittee and after discussion of the issues in the subcommittee group, it was decided to forward the ordinance to the city council but they would certainly have the opportunity to bring up their concerns on the ordinance.

Mr. Johnson said he realized that no real progress would be made until the ordinance goes to the city council and some of the larger issues were dealt with.

Hagness said the sign subcommittee had made progress on the issue and felt they had made great strides to work with the owners of Newmans outdoor advertising sign company.

Grasser referred to Page 2, Subsection H regarding sign illumination and the source of light. He spoke about the new technology of high intensity light and lasers. He asked if there should be some consideration about the light coming off the sign itself being reflected. Mr. Swanson said there was no change from the existing code.

Bev Collings, Inspections Office, asked about a business advertising on an off-premise billboard with their own business. Mr. Swanson replied it was not addressed because it is an unconstitutional restriction on the content of the advertising to limit who can advertise on a billboard sign.

Collings asked about the site plan issue. The ordinance says a site plan has to be submitted, but does not say what the site plan has to contain. There are no longer any restrictions on where a billboard can be placed. It used to be the building setback line and now there is none. There is no direction for the planning staff on where to place the billboard with the exception that it cannot overhang the right-of-way and that could lead to some problems. Mr. Swanson said his understanding was that it was discussed and no changes were recommended.
Dr. Kweit said it was discussed but could not remember what was decided.

Collings said the proposed ordinance shows nothing to be non-conforming except for the height and size limitation. She stated they did not have a list of non-conforming signs and in several areas the zoning administrator has the authority to waive requirements but she did not know what the requirements were. It will be difficult to manage.

Dwaine Espegard, 3649 Lynwood Circle, commended the sign committee on their diligent work in changing the sign ordinance. He stated that several years ago the city council decided to become business friendly so that businesses could operate. He sat in on many of the sign meetings and there have been delays waiting on reviews by legal counsel. He arrived at the meeting and received a copy of Draft No. 3. He felt this was not being business friendly. He said he concurred that the proposed ordinance should move forward to the city council so the outdoor advertising business can survive in the city. Mr. Espegard said the concerns of the Gateway Committee were just recently brought up.

MOTION BY DR. KWEIT AND SECOND BY LEE TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

Potter referred members to the document prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff regarding eminent domain for their review and education.


6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Malm stated he was at the Land Use Subcommittee meeting earlier in the day and comments were made about A-1 and A-2 Districts. Since A-1 District is no longer used, he asked that research be done on whether or not that district is needed. Potter said staff would research it.


Matejcek said the study on agricultural towers for farm equipment in Fargo is expanding. A meeting was held in Grand Forks last week and the towers will soon be in Grand Forks.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SEOCND BY DR. KWEIT TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



___________________________
John R. Drees, Secretary



___________________________
Gary K. Malm, President