City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

June 7, 2006

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee at 7:04 p.m. with the following members present: Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, and Frank Matejcek. Absent: Steve Adams, Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, John Drees, Dr. Rob Kweit, Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; 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).

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 3, 2006.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of May 3,

2006. There were no corrections or additions noted and Lee declared the minutes

approved as presented.

Lee turned the meeting over to Brad Gengler, City Planner. He introduced Ryan Brooks, the newly hired senior planner, to commission members. He was hired to fill the position Gengler vacated when he was hired as the city planner.

Gengler asked how many members would be available for the July 5th meeting in order to have a quorum present. Since it appeared uncertain whether or not a quorum would be present, Gengler asked if anyone had an alternate date and time for the July planning and zoning commission meeting. He mentioned that waiting a week might hold up some items. City council changed their Monday (July 3rd) meeting to Thursday (July 6th) at 7 p.m. Grasser suggested having the planning meeting at 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2006. Hagness and Malm were the only members who would be unable to meet at that time. Gengler said staff would advertise the change if the July meeting (July 5) was changed to July 6 at 5:00 p.m.

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

3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE YAVARROW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, ARDELL L. AND INA JANE KORYNTA, TIM CRARY, PRESIDENT OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., AND GRAND FORKS COUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE

REPLAT OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2; LOT 1, BLOCK 3; BLOCK 4; LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 5; LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 6; LOT 1, BLOCK 9; AND LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 10, CAMPBELL ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED NORTH OF U.S.HIGHWAY NUMBER 2 AND WEST OF NORTH 55TH STREET.

Lee said a request had been received to table the item.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF HOMESTEAD GROVE SECOND ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE 1000 BLOCK OF 47TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the only change would be the date of the city council action. On June 19, city council cannot take action on the final reading of the ordinance since it is an election year for some of the council members and final action cannot be made on ordinances. The next date for the council to vote on the second reading of the street and highway ordinance would be July 6, 2006. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the technical changes noted.

There were no questions by the commission members for the city planner.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY DR. HALL TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.

2. Submit utility master plan.
3. Include spot ground elevations.
4. Establish a 20-foot wide permanent right-of-way between Lots 4 & 5, Block 2 with an additional 10-foot utility easement on either side for the installation and maintenance of storm and sanitary sewer utilities.
5. Rename Cottonwood Court.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS GROWTH FUND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MAIER’S FOURTH RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1100 BLOCK OF SOUTH 48TH STREET.

Lee noted the fast track item would only be reviewed by the commission one time.

Gengler reviewed the request, stating the area was owned by the Growth Fund/city. The property is being replatted to split one lot into Lots A, B & C. PS Doors is purchasing Lots A and B and have started construction on a new facility on Lot A. Lot B is not being utilized at this time. The remaining large lot (Lot C) is still under the ownership of the growth fund and the city. There is no ordinance attached to the request and the city council will be able to take action on the item on June 19th.

There were no questions from commission members for the city planner.

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

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct scale to read 1” = 100’.
3. Add spot ground elevations.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM NEWMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR PROPOSED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS TO BE LOCATED AT 2475, 2909, 2205 AND 2830 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 by giving an overview of the issue. In December, 2005, the existing overall sign code was amended to change various provisions, specifically related to outdoor advertising (billboards) signs. The code revision was extensive and the applicable changes to the proposed request will be addressed. The ordinance established a cap of 90 off-premise outdoor advertising signs (billboards) within the city and the extra-territorial zoning jurisdiction. There was an inventory taken at that time which indicated a total of 87 existing signs. Part of the provisions stated that owners of existing non-conforming signs could remove the signs and place them in other locations as long as the code provisions were adhered to. Since then, Newman Outdoor Advertising has removed three signs from the county correctional facility site, presently under construction. That left 84 signs. Recently, six new permits were issued for new signs (one on Gateway, close to the Kennedy Bridge; two signs on the Lafarge property on DeMers; one sign on the 400 block of North Washington Street; one sign for the Butler Machinery, adjacent to the interstate; and one at the former Westward Ho). With the six new signs, the company is back up to the cap of 90 signs. Since the city has extended the extra-territorial zoning (ETZ) boundary an additional two miles, the cap of 90 billboards will need to be expanded also.

A provision in the sign code indicated that any sign proposals for the South Washington Street corridor from DeMers Avenue to the end of the ETZ boundary had to be approved by the planning and zoning commission to be determined as “fitting and compatible” for each specific location. He noted some of the wording in the staff report was in bold just for emphasis on discussions in the sign subcommittee meetings. Four proposals were submitted by Newman Outdoor Advertising and as stated in the code, notifications to surrounding property owners within a 200-foot radius of the proposed signage was sent. Although the information was sent out as normal, there was a holiday (Memorial Day) with many people out of town who did not receive the letter until later. Gengler stated he received calls from various business owners around the proposed sign locations. Individual letters of opposition were received from Valley Vision, and R & F Company, Inc., (Red Ray Lanes). One letter that was received collectively included the following businesses opposed to the proposed billboards: L & M Meats, Geico Insurance, Hitch & Go, H & R Warehousing, Floor to Ceiling, Checker Auto Parts, Tuffy Auto Service, Gregory J. Norman Funeral Chapel, Glass Doctor, P & L Partnership, and Midas. Along with a copy of the letters, Gengler said he provided a map showing the location of the businesses opposing the proposed signage. For the sign located at 2205 South Washington Street, he clarified that of the properties within 200 feet, the only opposition was received from the owner of the Red Ray Lanes. There was no response from businesses within 200 feet of the proposed sign at The Planet Pizza, 2475 South Washington Street; however, Don Larson from C & R. Cleaners, voiced opposition. Technically, C&R Cleaners was outside the notification area by approximately one-half foot. The same thing applied to Valley Vision. If businesses were located directly across the street but still outside the 200 feet, staff felt there was an obligation to notify those businesses. The code allows any applicant or property owner within two hundred feet to appeal the decision to the city council. Gengler next discussed the 2830 South Washington (All About Kids) and the 2909 South Washington (Happy Joe’s) locations. Checker Auto Parts and Tuffy Auto Service are technically not in the 200-foot area, but wanted to add their opposition on the petition letter.

Gengler said staff does not recommend approval of the signs, especially in light of the numerous signatures and letters received opposing the signs. He said he also received phone calls stating opposition but the parties would not reveal their names. He further informed the commission he was only involved in the ordinance revisions at the end of the process after Dennis Potter (former city planning director) left city employment. The requests are the first ones to be presented to the commission based on the ordinance revisions. The South Washington corridor is unique from the Downtown area, 32nd Avenue South and Gateway Drive. The downtown area received a great deal of attention and money post-flood; 32nd Avenue South has the privilege of being fairly new with stringent aesthetics and ground monument signage; the Gateway corridor has received attention with the Gateway Design Review Board and beautification dollars under the direction of the urban development department. The Gateway Corridor Association wants to change the sign code along the corridor to be similar with 32nd Avenue South and Columbia Road. In speaking with some of the business people who called in opposition of the billboards, they felt they have been left out since the flood. They have their own issues and with the proposed billboard issues, were provided an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Gengler explained that planning staff had been in discussions with the Grand Cities Mall for many years on signage and they were limited to an 8’ tall by 18’ wide ground monument sign. The code was revised to allow them a larger (20-foot) sign. One of the issues he faced was telling the mall they could only have an 8-foot sign, but a billboard could be placed on the property for off-premise advertising. One business might be allowed 50 square feet of signage by code but another business close by could have a much larger sign. He noted the examples to explain why he could not support the proposals by Newman Outdoor Advertising. He does not feel urban commercial corridors are the place for billboard signs. Many of the people he heard from addressed the fact that billboards were distracting to the point that their business signage was not utilized to the fullest extent.

Gengler gave a visual power point presentation and stated it was not meant to convince members one way or another, but to show what is actually along South Washington Street. He showed slides of the locations of the proposed signs, the spacing of the signs, and also to indicate the visual sign clutter that included existing business signs and road signs. All areas for the proposed billboards are in the B-3 District. The first site discussed was 2205 South Washington (Erickson Auto). The proposed billboard signs have a maximum allowable height of 50 feet (from base to the top of the sign) and the size would be 12 x 24. The proposed Newman billboards were shown as proposed by the sign company and also shown how the signs would look if made to the maximum allowable size and height. The former Planet Pizza site (2475 South Washington) was shown. With the revisions of the code, the billboards are now allowed to extend over easements subject to some provisions but they are not allowed to project over the public rights-of-way. Gengler said none of the four proposed signs project over the rights-of-way. The next proposed sign location was at the “All About Kids” site located at 2830 South Washington Street. Gengler stated since the cap of 90 signs has been reached, the proposed signs are being presented for approval so that Newman Outdoor Advertising know they can remove some of the non-conforming signs and replace them at one of the proposed sites instead of doing them individually. Presenting them individually would be very time consuming. He showed the slide for the proposed Happy Joe’s location.

One of the revisions to the sign code was to have a spacing between signs of at least 500 feet, but there was some differing opinion on how the spacing should be measured. The sign subcommittee has twice clarified the spacing rule to indicate a staggered spacing rule. The 500-foot spacing counts for a sign located on the opposite side of the street. The owners of Newman Outdoor Advertising have suggested the minutes indicate spacing 500 feet apart on just one side of the road. That issue will be formally resolved. Compared to other corridors, Washington Street could be considered over-signed at the present time.

Hagness asked if Gengler’s recommendation had changed based on the staff report. Gengler answered the original staff recommendation was for the commission to take final action and a specific recommendation was not stated in the staff report. He is still asking for the commission to take final action but also noted the planning department does not support the proposed signage.

Hagness asked if the existing billboard was located on Domino’s property or the Red Ray Lanes property? Gengler said it is located on Domino’s property. Hagness realized he was thinking about the Southgate property and asked if a letter was received from Southgate. Gengler said there was no response from Southgate. Hagness asked if the Floor to Ceiling (south of Happy Joe’s) was within the 200 feet of the proposed billboard and he was told yes. Gengler said John Satrom, owner of Floor to Ceiling, contacted him by phone and also by letter with his opposition.

Hagness asked if the sign subcommittee had ever discussed or recommended ground monument signs along South Washington. Gengler answered the sign subcommittee’s only involvement with the issue was in re-drafting and re-adopting the sign code that implemented the provision that signs had to be presented to the planning commission if they were planned to be constructed along South Washington Street. Hagness asked if owners of Newman signs were involved in the meetings with the sign subcommittee. Gengler said they were invited to and present at all of the meetings. Gengler was asked if there was considerable give-and-take on the ordinance and he answered yes, based on his limited involvement with the sign subcommittee. There have been six new sign permits issued recently, while in years prior there were very few, if any. The “no net loss” policy (90 cap) that was implemented, generated the idea that signs could be relocated to more beneficial areas. The previous sign code allowed signs to be erected on an undeveloped lot in the B-3 District or in the industrial districts (I-1 and I-2). When the lot was developed, the sign would have to be removed unless the new owner allowed the sign to remain under certain provisions. Non-conforming signs can now be removed and placed on a developed lot and the six new permits were part of that. Allowing billboards on developed lots was one of the significant changes. Gengler stated another change was to allow billboards in a PUD if they are adjacent to I-29. Butler Machinery was an example of this. Under the previous sign code, any property located in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) was off-limits for any sign other than ground monuments.

Hagness asked what the closest sign would be to Happy Joe’s. Gengler said the closest proposed sign would be the “All About Kids” site across the street. Hagness asked if there were any other billboards in a vertical line. Gengler said the next one would be Domino’s to the north, then Erickson Auto and then the sign at DeMers and Washington.

Kreun explained he was on the sign subcommittee and for many years, based on the previous sign code, owners were unable to update, repair or replace dilapidated billboard signs. In order to entice them to update, repair, or replace them, there was some negotiations to allow the sign companies to move the non-conforming signs to other areas. At one time, the sign companies were at a disadvantage in the community based on the sign code; however, there was not a desire to add a large number of billboard signs to the community. That was the reason for the cap of 90. There was a decision made to allow more flexibility and allow them on three corridors (Washington, Gateway and DeMers) since they had existing signs on them. The idea was to change the code enough to allow more new and modern signs rather than the dilapidated ones. This is the first time for them to ask for additional signs and for the sign subcommittee to determine if it will work or not based on input from surrounding property owners. The commission should not just say “no” but should think through the process. Signage will be around one way or another. Some businesses prefer billboards, some prefer ground monuments and others prefer the type that is attached to the building.

Kerian asked about the “X” marks on the maps. Gengler said that indicated the location of someone who objected to a sign. She stated she was concerned about the requests for 2830 and 2909 South Washington. That appears to be a significant amount of signage in a short distance.

Jeno asked about the extension of the ETZ boundary and how that would affect the cap of 90 signs. Gengler said there were existing signs located in what were formerly the two-mile and four-mile boundaries. The 90-cap represented the corporate limit and the two-mile boundary. The number will need to be adjusted based on the extension of the ETZ.

Dr. Hall said there was a discussion about signage for the new TSC facility by the interstate. It was not allowed because it was considered off-premise advertising. The billboards should not be allowed to offer off-premise advertising for other businesses that would draw business away from someone where the sign is located.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Gregory Norman, Norman Funeral Home, 2950 South Washington, stated he opposed the signage, especially at 2830 South Washington. Because of the ambiance of a funeral home and the cemetery close by with the Veterans Garden, he did not feel a billboard was appropriate. He wanted to add on to his parking lot along with a 3-4 car garage but is concerned about doing that because of the view of the Veteran’s Garden. He does not feel there is any value to having a large billboard. He noted he had gotten several people to sign the letter opposing the billboard signs. The credit union manager was not available to sign the letter but he felt she would have done so. Mr. Norman said his personal opinion is that the billboards belong on the freeways and not on the local streets. There are existing businesses that do not want the billboards. He pays approximately $1400 a month in taxes.

Russ Newman, owner of Newman Signs, gave a brief history of the work with the sign subcommittee. They spent approximately three years reviewing the code and there was give-and-take on revising the code. There are three or four corridors off limits, where traffic exists. to billboard companies. His company wants to be on Columbia Road, 32nd Avenue South and South 42nd Street. One of the issues was the ability to have signs on South Washington Street, a high traffic street. That is where the advertisers want to be. It is all about exposure. He disagreed with Mr. Norman’s statement that businesses do not want them; 95% of their customers are local Grand Forks clients. If businesses did not want them, the billboard companies would be out of business. Part of the reason to change the sign code was because the sign company was losing signs to attrition. There were clients like the Alerus Center and the Ralph Engelstad Arena not being able to advertise in Grand Forks because the sign company did not have the inventory and they were going to other cities to the south and the west. There are events here and they wanted to have the local exposure also.

In the discussion of the sign code, a mini cap set of nine advertising locations on South Washington Street from DeMers to the south extra-territorial limits was set, approximately four to five miles long. If nine billboards are allowed, that is one billboard each one-half mile. He cannot believe that would be too intrusive to the traveling public. Mr. Newman said he believes in consistency and did not believe Mr. Gengler’s recommendations were consistent. He sat on the committee meetings and never indicated a problem with the mini cap of nine billboards along South Washington Street. He cannot believe that not one of the four proposals could work.

Mr. Newman said they were trying to relocate advertising structures in the city. Many of them are low to the ground on wooden poles and the expense of moving them and upgrading them is considerable. He questioned some of the objections received and said the businesses were not within the 200-foot radius. The Floor to Ceiling store was 450 feet from the front door to the billboard near Happy Joe’s. He also questioned the power point presentation showing the maximum height (50’) of the billboards proposed. He said it costs a lot of money to make structures very high. The higher the structure, the higher the cost. They will not spend money they don’t need to spend just to reach the maximum height. The sign height given to planning staff and shown on the presentation (not 50 feet) is approximately the height the structures would be built and they would be well under the height limit.

Hagness questioned the proximity of the two signs at Happy Joe’s and All About Kids, and asked if Mr. Newman would give up the All About Kids site. Mr. Newman said the sign code reflected a 500-foot spacing and they were well past that. They have followed the parameters of the code and he would not give up the sign. Mr. Newman said they would follow the code.

Grasser said there was a request to approve the four proposals. If approved, the signs would be designed and installed. There are significant details that need to be determined (i.e. height of the signs) before approval is given. Without knowing for sure about the details, the commission loses control of the ability to influence the details. A “no” vote might indicate a need to re-evaluate the need for more details. Grasser said he would like to know the details for sure upfront. More information might help to address the concerns of the citizens.

Mr. Newman said a site plan had been submitted for every location. They are following the code for height and other parameters.

Grasser asked Mr. Newman if he was or was not going to build the signs to 50 feet as allowed by the code. Mr. Newman replied the signs shown on the slide show were not what they were proposing; they were proposing a height less than that. Grasser said even though the code allows billboards up to 50 feet, Newman’s would not build them to that height? Mr. Newman answered they do not intend to go that high.

Gengler said the slide slow was not intended to suggest the proposals were going to be built at that height; it was meant only as a visual of the height the signs could be built according to the code.

Jeno asked how many signs presently existed on South Washington Street from Demers Avenue to the south. Mr. Newman said there was a total of four billboards at the present time and they are allowed a mini cap of nine. If the four proposals were approved, they could only apply for one more. Jeno said the statement about a billboard every one-half mile was not be correct because the four proposals are within a one-half mile area. Mr. Newman said that was based on an average. Jeno asked where the four existing signs were located. Mr. Newman replied that one was near Southgate and the other three south of 32nd Avenue South. Bill Kvasager, Newman signs, said some of the billboards located on South Washington Street past 32nd Avenue South would have to be removed because of development. That creates a greater need for the four proposals presented.

Hutchison said one or two of the signs may be more acceptable than others. He asked if they could be approved or disapproved separately and was told by Gengler that the commission had the discretion to approve none or all of them. Hutchison said the two most northerly (2205 Erickson Auto and 2475 Planet Pizza) signs appeared more acceptable than the others.

Malm asked Gengler if everything Mr. Newman suggested on his proposals fit within the new sign code. Gengler said as long as the billboards are properly placed per location and they meet the spacing rules set by the subcommittee, the only two that do not meet the code are the two southerly ones because of the spacing. The subcommittee does not agree that signs can be directly across from each other. Their rule was a 500-foot spacing between signs regardless of where the signs are placed.

Malm said three years were spent on discussions and review of the sign code and now there are more questions. The commission approved the new sign code. He suggested that all the signs be kept on the east side of South Washington and leave the west side alone. There are no existing billboards on the west side of Washington Street so just continue them on the east side. Malm said he would rather Mr. Newman be out of business in the community, but that is not happening so they should make the best of it. He noted Mr. Newman could not build all of them right away as other signs have to come down first. The four proposals are potential signs. If Mr. Newman follows the code and the rules that have been set, he would be hard pressed not to approve the signs. Twenty-five years ago, the mood was to do away with all of the billboards.

Matejcek asked if a motion on each site would be appropriate and Gengler said he would prefer that.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO DENY THE BILLBOARD SIGN AT 2830 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET “ALL ABOUT KIDS.”

Lee closed the public hearing.

Kreun said he agreed with the motion because of the 500-foot spacing rule. The only disagreement between the sign company and the sign subcommittee was the determination of measuring the 500-foot spacing. The sign subcommittee agreed to the 500-foot spacing regardless of where the signs were placed.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE BILLBOARD SIGN AT 2909 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

Gengler stated that pending approval of the motion, the appeal section of the ordinance is in place not only for the applicant or sign company, but also for any business owner within 200 feet. There are some business owners that object to the sign at 2909 South Washington but the sign code did not clarify the process of what should happen. It should be noted that since the planning department has received official protests, the next step in the process is to appeal it to the city council. He suggested the motion recognize that opposition to the billboard has been received and an appeal would be forwarded to the city council.

Hagness said that in recognition of a protest of the sign at 2909 South Washington Street, an appeal should go forward to city council.

Kerian asked if there was a site plan for each billboard site that indicates the exact height of the billboard and the size of the billboard. Gengler said the site plan was not like regular site plans. There was not a formal submittal of a site plan. He worked with Bill Kvasager on site sketches and maps from the city planning office. The site plan is more administrative. Those that are approved will be identified as to exact placement on the lot, whether or not it overhangs over the rights-of-way and size and height. The city code limits the size. He agreed that the specific information as to size and height should have been available for the commission at tonight’s meeting.

Kerian said the members could follow the ordinance that was worked on and still object to one or more of the proposals by following the section in the code that refers to “fitting and compatible,” “visual clutter” or “concentration of off-premise signs.” There are a number of ways one could have objections and concerns and still follow the code.

Malm asked Gengler if the commission would ever see what would be on the sign once the site is approved. He referred to the monstrosity at the corner of 32nd Avenue South and South Washington Street that flashes and barks as the cars go by and state that sign did not come before the planning commission. Will the commission ever see what Mr. Newman is bringing in after the site is approved?

Gengler said there would be no need for them to come back. The outdoor advertising industry is held to certain rules by the state and federal government. Our code states a billboard must be on a single pedestal pole, no higher than 50’ in height and no larger than 300 square feet (for the Washington corridor). There are also rules for lighting. The city does not dictate the content of the sign. If the commission approves a site, it would not come back to them for any reason.

Malm said billboards were not his favorite issue but after working for three years on the ordinance, Mr. Newman deserves the opportunity to make it work. If he does not follow the rules, then he doesn’t want to see him again. He did remove the signs from the new county correctional site, but they required some nudging to get it done.

Gengler said Mr. Malm was approaching the sign issue on South Washington Street from a black and white issue. The elements of the provision are subjective (fitting and compatible, visual clutter, concentration of signs, reduced visible sight lines) and were built in purposely. If it were not for the criteria, there would be no need for them to appear before the board. The billboards are handled on a case-by-case basis.

Hutchison said he agreed with Mr. Gengler, but the subcommittee did agree to nine signs along the Washington corridor. Unless they are allowed to have them along there someplace, they will never have nine signs. Mr. Newman has not state an exact height for the signs and that appears to be one of the objections. He asked if an amendment could be made that the signs could not be over 40 feet.

Gengler said he would have to leave that up to Mr. Newman. The signs are site specific and to have a certain number put on the height might not fit.

Lee said she knew the code allowed 50 feet, but Mr. Newman said he would not build them to that height. She asked Mr. Newman what the general height would be for the signs. Mr. Newman passed out four drawing showing exactly what he wanted to do with the proposed signs. He also stated he did not see any of them exceeding 40 feet. Mr. Newman discussed several signs and the size and height of them, i.e. Blockbuster sign. He will not go up to 50 feet unless he absolutely has to in order to be visible. He will always follow the rules and will do whatever the commission says they can do. He stated their requests are reasonable.

Matejcek said the company is allowed more signs and as much as he does not like billboards, he is willing to give them a chance and will vote for the remaining three as long as they are located on the east side of the road.

Lee said a motion is on the floor to approve the sign at 2909 South Washington Street with the provision that it could be appealed to the city council.

MOTION CARRIED WITH GRASSER AND DR. HALL VOTING NAY.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE SIGN AT 2475 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET. MOTION CARRIED WITH DR. HALL VOTING NAY.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE SIGN AT 2205 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET. MOTION CARRIED WITH LEE, KERIAN AND DR. HALL VOTING NAY.

Gengler explained that when Mr. Potter left in November, 2005, the sign ordinance was already in the works and he was not involved in the process much of the time. Mr. Newman mentioned that he had never indicated an opinion of the sign ordinance. He noted his opinion was never sought and most of the work was already accomplished on the sign code. Since he came into the process very late in the game, he chose to sit back and let the process continue. He also once again stressed the subjectivity of the ordinance. The slide show was put together as an informational tool and the drawings of the signs at 50 feet were simply to let the commission members see what the signs (allowed according to the code) would look like at that height.

3-5. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM COOK SIGNS, ON BEHALF OF H AND H PROPERTIES, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF AN

APPEAL TO THE SIGN CODE

AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18-0301.1 APPEAL. MORE SPECIFICALLY THE APPEAL IS

TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS FROM EIGHT (8) FEET TO 9 FEET

FOR A PROPOSED GROUND MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT 405 BRUCE AVENUE (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT).

Gengler reviewed the request, stating this is the first official request for an appeal to the sign code. He referred members to the drawing in the packet and said the design had been reviewed and approved by the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB). Eight feet is the maximum height for a ground monument and in order to get what they need at the NICOA business office, the request is for nine feet. Gengler said the sign height is always measure from sidewalk grade; however, there is a retaining wall to consider and that should be recognized as a change in interpretation. The DDRB was comfortable with the design and staff supports the request. There is no physical location on the property to accommodate the type of sign they need and there is no room on the façade of the building to construct the signage they need. The property is somewhat restrictive.

Gengler said he was disappointed that an appeal section was added to the code. The appeal section has opened the doors of opportunity for any and all businesses to ask for a variance. On one hand, it is a good thing for the businesses but it will put the commission in a position of approving or disapproving a request and to determine a standard of true hardship. He noted as an example that in a PUD, the sign cannot extend above the roof or parapet line, but someone will want bigger letters which will go a foot or two over the limit. The sign under discussion is one that fits the appeal section. The business does not have a lot of options and is only deviating by one foot. The main thing to remember about the appeal is that someone cannot be granted an appeal for a sign that is not otherwise permitted. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Kerian made the comment that the first spaces were deeper than the rest and if that were made the same as the others, it would meet eight feet requirement. Gengler said that was noted and discussed at the DDRB.

Dr. Hall asked if each of the businesses could have an individual sign. Gengler said they could as long as the building itself stayed within the maximum allowable sign surface area. In this instance, the building and lot is very large. Staff would only look at the maximum square footage. By focusing all the businesses on one sign, it reduces sign clutter and offers a cleaner look. The business would be limited to one free-standing sign.

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

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY KREUN TO APPROVE THE SIGN APPEAL REQUEST.

Jeno commented that although he did not want to design signs, a one and one-inch per slot reduction would make the sign fit the code. Gengler said that was also discussed at the DDRB, along with the sign company representative, but with the material they had, reducing it another foot would eliminate the potential for other panels. It was suggested at the DDRB to lower the inner cabinet but the sign representative said that was created for snow to blow through.

Malm said he would vote against it. The central business district has spent long hours determining how things can be done with their own board and then they ask for a different way to do it because they cannot settle it themselves. They have their own regulations and then shift it to someone else. Without the appeal, the commission would never have seen the request. They should figure out a way to make it work.

Gengler said if the decision is not to approve the appeal, he asked that they allow the sign height to be measured from the base of the sign instead of the adjacent sidewalk.

Discussion continued.

Hagness said he made the motion based on comments from Gengler and the decision of the DDRB. If they wanted to, each business could have their own sign on the building. The proposal is a small sign compared to the rest of the building. It is a ground monument sign and it fits the situation.

Grasser made a comment that the code cannot be written to cover all contingencies. The retaining wall is next to the sidewalk and the sidewalk is the best reference for a sign. In this instance, the retaining wall becomes the ground or point of reference.

MOTION CARRIED WITH JENO, MALM AND MATEJCEK VOTING NAY.

3-6.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF BOB ELMAN AND ELMAN RENTALS, FOR APPROVAL OF AN

APPEAL TO THE UNITED RENTALS DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON ESTATES PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), AMENDMENT NO. 2,

DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK A OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 3 AND LOT 4, BLOCK 4, WASHINGTON ESTATES RESUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3900 BLOCK OF SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET.

THE APPEAL IS FOR AN INCREASE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA FROM 85% TO 87%.

Gengler reviewed the request stating the commission gave final approval to the replat at the May meeting contingent upon ultimate approval of the appeal. The United Rentals owner decided to split the entire property into two sections, the main building and the storage units. The southerly portion conforms while the northerly lot is over 1.4% over the maximum allowable impervious surface area. The owner was willing to tear out some of the existing paving and replace with grass but that made the turn radius awkward. This is not a significant issue and with a developed lot, there is not a lot that can be done. Staff recommendation is for approval of the appeal.

Kerian asked about the water drainage conditions in the area. Grasser said there is adequate storm sewer in the area. With only a two percent (2%) variance, it will not create a problem with the storm sewer.

Lee opened the public hearing.

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

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-7. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE

REPLAT OF LOTS 16 THROUGH 33, BLOCK 2, CORNERSTONE ESTATES ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT BEACON CIRCLE.

Lee reminded members the item was a fast track and tonight would be the only time they would see the request.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the request is to reduce the number of lots in the development from 17 to 13. A twinhome was built on Lots 14 and 15 without selling; the owner has now decided to reduce the number of lots and increase the size to allow for the construction of single-family homes. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

Hagness asked if the cul-de-sac area was a private road and Durrenberger replied it was a dedicated road. He questioned the width of the road and was told it had previously been approved and met all requirements.

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

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY KERIAN TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.

2. Add plat boundary distance on the north line of Lots H-N.

3. Show correct distance on the west line of Lots F & G. (363.63’)

4. Show plat boundary distance on the north line of Lots C & D.

5. Remove minimum ground elevations note as it does not pertain to this replat.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-8. MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM BROWN CORPORATION AND DAKOTA AG PARK II FOR APPROVAL TO

VACATE A CUL-DE-SAC

LYING ADJACENT TO LOT E, BLOCK 1,

BROWN CORPORATION ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating when there is a dead-end street, a turnaround or cul-de-sac is necessary. The code prohibits dead-end streets. A replat for the property will be discussed under the preliminary items. The existing cul-de-sac is no longer necessary as the company is extending an access road as they continue to expand the business. Originally, the replat was listed as a fast track item and advertised for the meeting but it was changed and placed as a preliminary item because of right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of the vacation.

MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE VACATION REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-9. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CLARENCE NIKLE FOR APPROVAL OF A

VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BIRKHOLZ FIRST ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA AND LOCATED AT 1706 SOUTH 34TH STREET, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VARYING THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ALLOWABLE FROM A COLLECTOR FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOME FROM ONE (1) TO TWO (2).

Durrenberger reviewed the request for a variance. According to regulations, a single-family duplex cannot have a single-access road onto a collector street (South 34th Street). Staff recommended denial of the request because of the proximity to the intersection of South 34th Street and 17th Avenue South and because immediately adjacent is another twinhome that has one access onto South 34th Street. It was also determined not to be a true hardship case for the variance. The owner feels single driveways for each unit is more aesthetically pleasing and the house would not have to be set back as far. Durrenberger said the owner, Clarence Nikle, wished to address the commission. He does have a hearing problem and Durrenberger will assist him in understanding what the members are saying.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Clarence Nikle, 1703 South 35th Street, stated he had spoken to the city engineer, Al Grasser, and discovered the city engineer could approve a curb cut up to 40 feet. That would be more than needed. The request was withdrawn.

Grasser explained to commission member that he could administratively approve a wider curb cut and if the solution is acceptable, the item would not need further commission action.

3-10. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CHRISTIAN, ON BEHALF OF AL EIDE, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE

REPLAT OF LOT G, BLOCK 1, PERKINS SECOND ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3100 BLOCK OF 32ND AVENUE SOUTH.

Lee reminded members this was a fast track item and tonight would be the only time for the commission to review it.

Durrenberger reviewed the request, stating the development had been replatted several times. He showed a map of the site and indicated where the new Kohl’s store was located as well as the Burger King Restaurant, the Grand Forks Abstract office and the area for a new strip mall. Lot H would be the site of a Golden Corral Restaurant. The owner wants to split the large lot into two smaller lots to allow sale of a portion of the lot. Access is from a private road. Staff recommendation is for final approval.

Lee asked about the small jog in the middle of the lots. Doug Herzog, surveyor, said it was the difference between the building wall and the way the parking lanes fit.

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

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY MALM 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. Check cord length for curve No. 3.
3. Add spot ground elevations.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-11. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF AN

APPEAL TO THE SOUTHBROOK DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SOUTHBROOK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FOR TOWNHOMES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHBROOK THIRD RESUBDIVISION

, (BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SOUTHBROOK SECOND RESUBDIVISION OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SOUTHBROOK FIRST ADDITION) AND LOCATED IN THE 1400 BLOCK OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH.

THE APPEAL IS FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA FROM FORTY-FIVE (45) PERCENT TO FIFTY-FIVE (55) PERCENT.

Durrenberger reviewed the request stating the area was originally platted for townhomes in a different configuration. The original area for the townhomes was larger, ending next to a commercial lot. An application for rezoning to R-4 type uses was received for the area. That would increase the impervious surface area to 55%. In reviewing the current zoning, it was noted the area was eligible for up to 10 units per acre; the new proposal does not exceed that. Planning staff felt the preferred alternative was to address the issue as an appeal to the detailed development plan instead of rezoning the concept development plan. The area was a PUD/R-3 type land uses. When there is a designation of the type of use, staff goes by the impervious surface area for that district. In the R-3 District, the impervious surface area is 45%. In reviewing the detailed development plan, fire marshals noted a need for access/turnaround in one area. On the original plat, a hammerhead turnaround was shown in that area; now the east half of the turnaround has been turned into a driveway. Whenever two units are built and only one side with access, new building code requires sprinkling of the building. To avoid installing a sprinkler system in the building, the six-plex will be reduced to a four-plex. The owner will also extend the private service road, eliminating the need for a turnaround. With the reduction of the proposed units, the impervious surface area changed from 55% to 52%. The plat for the area will be discussed under Item 4-1. Staff recommendation is for approval of the appeal.

Grasser discussed the design of storm sewer and said they based it on the assumption of land uses and impervious surface areas. It appears the community is consistently increasing the impervious surface areas. He stated he is concerned with the increased impervious surface levels in the whole development. The area is being intensely developed. The things that limit development are zoning and density and perhaps the impervious surface. The storm sewer for the area is in good shape with the southend drainway around it on two sides. However, in order for the southend drainway to function for the long term, holding ponds are going to be necessary as a way of allowing for stormwater runoff. Otherwise, eventually there will be problems with the southend drainway. Grasser said there is no immediate problem, but if the trend to increase the impervious surface area continues, the design of the storm sewer standards will have to change and the storm sewer costs for a subdivision is approximately 20%-25% of total costs.

Kerian asked about the zoning density. Durrenberger said the original density for the entire area was 10 units per acre. The unknown is what will develop to the east behind the area designated for commercial.

Discussion continued on the impervious surface issue and densities.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Doug Herzog, surveyor, stated there had been discussions with the engineering department on the design of the storm sewer for the area. He agrees that the only units that can function until the storm sewer is constructed on 47th Avenue South are the ones on the westerly side of the project. He talked about the vacant land to the east and said there was no plan as yet because there was no buyer for the commercial land. The area between the proposed development and the commercial is left undeveloped until it is determined what type of commercial will be there and how much land the commercial property will need. Once the commercial use is determined, the remainder will be built out and probably will end up end up meeting the 45% impervious surface area rather than 52%. He discussed the code revision process that will be starting soon. He said the R-2 and R-3 zoning does not work; it has to be single-family or R-4 zoning. There is not enough jump in the impervious surface area or densities to make R-2 and R-3 work.

Grasser again discussed the impervious surface issue. He discussed the impacts to the southend drainway and the limited capacity of it. Over time, holding ponds will be necessary to keep the drainway functioning properly. There is a trend for increasing the impervious surface area which is causing more and faster runoff. When development designs exceed the design standards of the storm sewer, there are going to be problems with flooding. He said he was uncomfortable with radical changes and jumps on impervious surface in the area without some holding ponds. He suggested the new zoning regulations require some type of ponding on development sites or as a regional pond. That will address the problem in the future. He said he was more concerned about the trend and not specifically this site.

Herzog pointed out the small areas throughout the development that have catch basins for holding water.

Discussion continued.

Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED WITH GRASSER AND KERIAN VOTING NAY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM CRARY, ON BEHALF OF

CRARY DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE

PLAT OF SOUTHBROOK THIRD RESUBDIVISION

, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SOUTHBROOK SECOND RESUBDIVISION OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SOUTHBROOK FIRST ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 1400 BLOCK OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Durrenberger reviewed the plat request, stating the appeal for the property had previously been discussed. The original plat was never recorded. Instead of platting four eight-unit complexes and one ten-unit complex, now there will be nine four-unit complexes with the one six-unit complex modified into a four-unit complex. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval.

MOTION BY KERIAN AND SECOND BY MALM TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct plat title in title block and in owner’s certificate to reflect previous replats.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM TIM BROWN, ON BEHALF OF BROWN CORPORATION AND DAKOTA AG PARK II, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE

REPLAT OF LOT E, BLOCK 1, BROWN CORPORATION ADDITION

TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE AG PARK OFF MERRIFIELD ROAD.

Durrenberger reviewed the replat and said it was attached to the vacation request previously discussed. The company will further subdivide the large lot and extend the access road to the east. He addressed technical change No. 11 regarding the need for a cul-de-sac for turnaround options or submission of a master street plan. Staff recommendation is for preliminary approval based on the technical changes.

Doug Herzog, surveyor, stated that rather than having a permanent cul-de-sac, they will continue the street down to the right-of-way. There is a large lot that is tentatively set to be an overpass.

MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:

1. Submit title opinion.
2. Correct plat title in title box and owner’s consent as shown.
3. Re-label lots to reflect the most recent replat.
4. Show 50’ right-of-way for rural water line along north part of Lot “G”.
5. Plat requires vacation of existing cul-de-sac.
6. Plat requires street and highway ordinance to establish new right-of-way. Add appropriate wordage to the city council approval.
7. Name street.
8. Add spot ground elevations.
9. Add easements along new street rights-of-way.
10. Needs street and highway ordinance with the creation of new right-of-way
11. Plat cul-de-sac as right-of-way or supply city of Grand Forks with a street master plan for Lot G.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

None.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

Gengler stated he would like to meet with the executive committee soon to consider committee changes/assignments. He also suggested a change in the rule for appointing the planning director as a voting member on the park dedication committee. He feels a city employee should not be a voting member on a committee. He would still act as staff for the committee but did not want to be a voting member.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY MATEJCEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

___________________________

Lyle A. Hall, Secretary

___________________________

Paula H. Lee, President