City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

September 18, 2006

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by President Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Michael Brown, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. Absent: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, John Jeno, and Dr. Robert Kweit. A quorum was present.

Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department).

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

3. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM FURNITURE ROW USA, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL TO THE SIGN CODE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18-0301.1 APPEALS, OF THE GRAND FORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE APPEAL IS TO ALLOW AN INCREASE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR GROUND MONUMENT SIGNS IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FROM EIGHT (8) FEET TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FOR A PROPOSED GROUND MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT 4000 39TH AVENUE SOUTH (BEHIND THE LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE) NEXT TO INTERSTATE 29.

Gengler reviewed the request for a sign appeal. The Furniture Row business has proposed a 25-foot high and 6.5 feet wide ground monument sign. Immediately adjacent is a sculpture of three chairs molded together. The chair sculpture is an integral part of the sign.

The city planner showed a summary of most types of signs permitted by the code. The summary included a standard ground monument sign, the only allowed sign in a planned unit development (PUD) and sized a maximum of 8 feet tall and a maximum of 18 feet wide. The next sign is a business landmark sign which allowed signage for certain sized businesses along I-29. Billboards are now permitted in PUD areas immediately adjacent to I-29 with a maximum of 300 square feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. There are two types of event center signage. Type 1 is a maximum of 1,000 square feet of signage with a maximum of 50 feet in height and a maximum width of 55 feet. Type 2 allows a maximum 225 square feet of signage and 30 feet maximum for width and height.

After considering all of the issues, Gengler said the commission should look at the possibility of allowing those businesses on I-29 more visibility with larger signs. Gengler’s recommendation was to direct staff to meet with the sign subcommittee in order to draft an ordinance that would address the code for those businesses that need visibility on roads of 75 mph or faster. Gengler showed aerial photos of the Target sign location as well as the proposed location of the Furniture Row sign.

Lee opened the meeting up for questions from commission members.

A discussion of the sign followed. Hagness asked Gengler if granting approval of the sign would set a precedent. Gengler responded they would have to set up certain stipulations based on location, acreage, etc. He reminded commission members that the city council gave special approval for the truck stop sign (around 90 feet high) several years ago. Another sign concession was the Super Target sign (business landmark sign) that permitted a maximum of 25-feet high and a maximum of 30 feet wide to allow other tenants to be listed. Members wanted to know if any changes would lead to pylon signs. Gengler said they should maintain the nature of the ground monument sign; the sign would still be rectangular and on a base mounted to the ground. No one wants pylon signage in the PUDs. However, changing the code to accommodate those businesses on I-29 would allow more versatility and flexibility.

Hagness wanted to know if the sign would be constructed this fall if approved and Gengler said he believed so. The site plan is in good order and acceptable. The request for the signage would be reviewed by council at 7 p.m.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO APPROVE THE APPEAL.

Dr. Hall asked if the sign were ultimately approved, could Target come back and ask for a bigger sign? Gengler stated Target was locked in under the business landmark sign.

Kreun stated as the community grows, there will be more national type companies and there will be various types of signs that are part of the company. Sign issues for large companies are a good problem to have and Grand Forks must be prepared and willing to accommodate some of the issues. He agreed that the ground monument mold should be retained but if national companies want to move here and have the I-29 frontage, they should be allowed larger signage.

Gengler said the action for the appeal is to allow an increase from 8 feet to 25 feet. If the commission approves the appeal, they are also recognizing the sculpture as an integral part of the signage itself. The chair sculpture itself does not have any wording on it. There will be some external lighting shining up on the sign.

Malm said the reason for the motion was because it was just off the interstate. However, getting into the heart of the city, even with a national company, should be considered very carefully. He does not want to ruin what they have accomplished within the city.

Grasser stated it makes some sense along the interstate to have a slightly bigger sign but also wondered on the Furniture Row sign if it could be moved north. The location of the sign will probably catch the advertising not only from the interstate, but also people traveling along 39th Avenue South. Will that sign overwhelm the other signs along that road and will those businesses feel they also need a larger sign in order to compete? He wondered if it would be possible to shift the line to the north to remove it from the direct line of sight and have it more directed to the interstate.

Gengler said according to the site plan, the sign is oriented for north-south view. There does appear to be room between the proposed location of the sign and the parking lot to shift it somewhat if the commission feels that is a concern.

MOTION BY GRASSER TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SHIFT THE SIGN TO THE NORTH SO IT IS OFF THE ALIGNMENT OF 39TH AVENUE SOUTH. SECOND BY KREUN.

Malm and Kreun said that could be added as part of the original motion

Hagness stated he did not think that was necessary and asked that it be a separate motion to be voted on independently. The sign was obviously placed by the company to be seen by many people and the visual to 39th Avenue South would not affect it one way or another.

Kreun said he did not care whether the motion was separated or not. It will be a common sense issue. The sign cannot be moved very far because it would interfere with the spacing on the parking lot.

Grasser said the engineering department would not make it an issue administratively if the commission does not direct them to do so. He made the motion from a precedent standpoint. If they are advertising to the interstate, they should probably be more centrally located on the property. He spoke about the possibility of someone to the south of the Furniture Row business siting their sign close to their property line on the north and obscuring another business sign. He sees this issue as a potential conflict.

Discussion followed.

Malm withdrew his original motion.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY WHITCOMB TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

Malm said the discussion that occurred is as he feared. The original motion was for an appeal to allow a larger sign along the interstate. Now the discussion is centered along 39th Avenue South. His motion was for the sign as presented.

GRASSER AMENDED THE MOTION TO MOVE THE SIGN 40 FEET NORTH. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Paula asked for a vote on the original motion by Malm and Whitcomb.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY MALM TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:53 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary

___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President