Council Minutes

Minutes of Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the
Whole - Monday, May 14, 2007 - 7:00 p.m.___________

The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Committee of the Whole met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 7:40 p.m. following the Board of Equalization meeting with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, McNamara, Glassheim, Christensen, Bakken, Kreun, Gershman - 7; absent: none.

President Gershman commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
That there is a Tetanus Booster Blitz, Sunday, May 20, 2007 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Alerus Center, that the first 100 boosters will be free and after that $20.00 each.
On Sunday had a great dedication of the bike path for Andy Hampsten, about 75 bikers rode through town, please go out and look at bikepath, beautiful.

2.1 Request from Rhombus Guys dba Rhombus House of Pizza for authorization to serve alcohol in conjunction with outdoor café seating at 312 Kittson Ave.______
There were no comments.

2.2 Create special assessment district for Project No. 6150, Dist. 456, sanitary sewer for 5500 and 5600 blks. of 1st Ave.N.__________________________________________
This item was pulled from the agenda until further notice.

2.3 Consideration of bids for Project No. 6076, 2007 Loop Detector Repairs.
There were no comments.

2.4 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5727, Columbia Road Overpass Repairs._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Location List #1 for Project No. 6071, 2007 Sidewalk Repair and Installation.
There were no comments.

2.6 Bids for Project No. 6105, Menards Water Tower Reconditioning.
There were no comments.

2.7 Bids for Project No. 6045, North End Clay Stockpile, and Project No. 6102, South End Clay Stockpile._____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Bids for Project No. 6130, 2007 Seal Coat Project.
There were no comments.

2.9 Bids for Project No. 6131, 2007 Concrete Panel Replacement Project.
There were no comments.

2.10 Engineering Service Agreement with CPS, Ltd. for Project No. 6136, Phase VII Landfill Closure______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Bids for Project No. 6136, Phase VII Landfill Closure and associated budget amendment.______________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks asked for explanation in difference of bid and engineer's
estimate, and budget. Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated the project when originally budgeted was a smaller area of closure on the landfill, and as developed the project took on a bigger area; that this is the first time they had the contractor provide his own dirt, previously had dirt available, and that is reason for the spread between the bids, harder number to pinpoint.

2.12 Municipal Parking Ramp repairs.____________________________________
President Gershman stated this is an important feature to start with the surveillance
cameras for reducing vandalism and for safety. Council Member McNamara asked if by putting surveillance cameras in that more people will park there and if that is solution to that problem, and questioned spending $90,000 for cameras. Don Shields stated that about 3 years ago, had over $2,000 damage to City vehicles in the County parking ramp (breaking glass, scratching the cars and knives in tires), that NE Human Service Ctr. had a number of vehicles damaged, and as a result the County put in surveillance cameras and that has stopped, not only safety issue but because of damage to vehicles.
.
Greg Hoover, Urban Development, reported that in the consultant's report that was done through the MPO safety had been a recurring theme throughout that and one of the recommendations was to make safety improvements, that putting cameras in will not result in less people parking there, that is judgment on council's part whether they think that this is important, but in the study safety concerns were voiced.

Council Member Glassheim questioned funding. Mr. Hoover stated they have a Parking Fund which is inadequate to cover operations and maintenance, and part of the study is to come up with additional ways of increasing revenue, looking at fees in the ramps and off-street, but this improvement will come from excess sales tax, $27,000 from excess sales tax and $10,000 internal transfer in the Parking Fund, need to have $60,000 set aside this year for improvements to the parking ramps. Mr. Glassheim stated this acts as a deterrent and a positive addition. It was noted that the cameras are not hardwired to the police department but cameras that record.

Council Member Christensen stated this total project is $363,800, and once spend the first $97,100 for fire alarm repair and cameras, asked what is administration's plan to finish and to come up with balance of funds. Mr. Hoover stated that they came with requests not to approve bids for the decking repair but because didn't have sufficient money and some bid irregularities, have decided they will make repairs to get through to next year, have already done the fire alarms through existing budget, and as to future that is something that will be worked out with the council. There have been issues with regard to the special assessments downtown and may have to reconsider how they do that, may have to increase parking rates, and a number of things; that for 20 years Central ramp has had nothing done to it, and when defer maintenance over 20 years, do accumulate costs, and if don't set aside money to take care of that, you get into situation in which we are now, and at some point they will bring a plan to you.

The city auditor stated he didn't think this is half a plan, but start of a plan, because the plan is hopefully to be able to complete all of this project and at the same time hold down taxes, and perhaps look at other revenue streams through parking fees, that they are trying to put together the whole 5 or 6 year plan and have come up with other issues to meld all of these into one proposal so people can see all of the issues and then there will be choices to be made because there are far more needs than there are resources, have to determine which way going to go but will bring options and plans to proceed.
It was noted that what is before the council tonight is only the security cameras in the two ramps but items listed in staff report are 4 things being presented that staff says need to be done in the parking rams, but only voting on the cameras, and as the rest of it isn't in this year's budget that in the next 3 or 4 months as go into our budget meetings, that they move themselves from downstairs to council chambers where can do that in an open forum and hold budget meetings in council chambers with cameras on and can see how our conversations follow through from tonight through the budget process and all these things will get addressed.

Council Member Kreun stated that the #4 item is the $178,000 for actual reconstruction of the decking and that is part of the process, and that it may take them a few years but want to put this complete plan together so it comes to fruition and is used.

Council Member McNamara stated he knows that lighting and cameras can be a deterrent to crime, the least costly and effective is lighting, that structure repairs have to happen and a separate issue, but when talking about security, the logical thing is lighting and then if have huge problem down there then look at further remedies.

2.13 Agreement with ND Dept. of Transportation for Gateway Drive Entry Feature______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots A and B of Replat of Lot 5, Block 1, Auditor's Resubdiv. No. 17 (loc. at 1st Ave.N. and Riverboat Road)_______________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Ralph Applegren for prelim. approval of plat of Breton's 2nd Subdiv., being a part of NE Quarter of Section 3, T150N, R51W, Grand Forks County_____________________________________________
No comments.

2.16 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Glen Gransberg for prelim. approval of plat of Merrifield's Industrial Park Second Addn. (loc. at County Road 6 and S. 55th St_______________________________________________________________
No comments.

2.17 Request from Planning Department on behalf of City of Grand Forks for prelim. approval of ordinance to amend zoning map to exclude from I-2 (Heavy Ind.) Dist. all of Merrifield Industrial Park First Addn. and to exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Urban Reserve) Dist. all of Merrifield Industrial Park Second Addn. and to include within Merrifield PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Merrifield Industrial Park First Addn. and all of Merrifield Industrial Park Second Addn. (loc. in Sec. 31, T151N, R50W of 5th Principal Meridian)__________________________________________________
No comments.

2.18 Request from Planning Dept. on behalf of City of Grand Forks for prelim. approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Sec. 18-0206 A-1 (Agricultural Preservation) Dist. and Sec. 18-0207 A-2 (Agricultural Urban Reserve) Dist.__________________________________________________________
No comments.

2.19 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Frances L. Bertheuson for prelim. approval of plat of Frantastic Acres Subdiv., being a portion of NE Quarter of Section 35, T151N, R51W, Grand Forks County_____________________________
No comments.

2.20 Request from Planning Dept. on behalf of City of Grand Forks for prelim. approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, enacting Sec. 18-0224 Corridor Overlay Dist.____________________________________________________________
Bryan Lee, 2661 August Drive, business at 5118 Gateway Drive, partner in Gateway
Storage & Development, made a brief presentation, that the corridor overlay district is a plan to try to beautify and promote development of corridors entering the city, to develop these corridors with buildings that are visually pleasing. Gateway Storage is in total harmony with this idea;
they are in agreement that a plan needs to be implemented to beautify Gateway Drive as well as other corridors, however, there are several attractive buildings that have been built or remodeled recently that would not meet the new standards of the corridor overlay district because of 1) corrugated metal siding, 2) residential grade permanent siding and 3) exposed drainage pipes. He listed a number of buildings that would not be able to be built under the new regulations (Texas Roadhouse, Boston's Mid-continent, Happy Harry's, etc.); that it is not their intent to obstruct this entire process, but are asking that they take a little more time to help them and other developers figure out they can continue to build the corridors, esp. Gateway Drive and Highway 2.

Council Member Christensen stated he and Council Member Kreun have been involved in this process for the last 18 months, that the issue is corrugated metal, the building design they have now is architectural flat metal panels, and have been advised by the planners that the architectural flat metal panels are the new step in building and mindful of Highway 2 and of these issues, that going to have as part of this final book is that they are instructing staff to have a booklet of what would be acceptable building materials, and that this would be routinely upgraded as they upgrade the Building Code so don't have vendetta for corrugated metal but there has been too much corrugated metal and not barring metal but want a different type of metal on the exterior of these buildings, that anything built is grandfathered in and if were to build another building and use metal would have to use architectural flat metal panels, not to bar what you are doing.

Mr. Lee stated they are proud of their complex, that ordinance is good intent but what see as developers on Gateway is that it is very difficult to incorporate every aspect that City wanting them to incorporate and yet still keep their costs down low enough for the particular rent district that they are in. He compared rental rates with 32nd Ave.S. and also that they are competing against other people that are 700 ft. off the corridor that can build at a lower cost building, and that is the crux they are in He stated that corrugated steel by itself is not the problem or wood by itself but how to incorporate those together to make it look nice or not.

Council Member Kreun stated they have been discussing what kind of materials go together with other materials to make these buildings aesthetically pleasing and somewhat consistent, that in some areas there is going to be some additional cost, but problem they have been having is get either big stark wood building or big corrugated building and have to stay away from that in those corridors and that is what this is intended in doing. and thinks they can put together a viable useable program; have to do design so acceptable and aesthetically pleasing to complement businesses and that is what their goal is, that Mr. Lee stated he thinks they can reach that goal by not leaving out any building material as well. It was also stated that architectural flat metal panels are what staff and consultant have given them and would appreciate from developers more information as to acceptable steel exterior building materials they could have and get into their catalog - but are not in favor of corrugated metal buildings.

Mr. Glassheim stated the provision re. Appeals and process of the interpretation of the requirements, there are some materials not listed as acceptable which they might find acceptable in the proper proportion and proper use, and if these are absolute or does the appeal process allow for judgment of an appeal. Mr. Swanson stated his interpretation of the section entitled "Building Design" and in subsection 1, about any exterior building wall facing the street "shall be constructed of one of the following materials, items a through f", and his interpretation of that section is if it is not included in a) through f) it cannot be used and there is no ability by either the planning director or by the appeal body to override the expressed provision of the Code as it exists currently. He stated his office has not had an adequate opportunity to review this draft, and that he will not have an opportunity in the next two weeks to give you a detailed analysis, that he is concerned with the lack of definition, architectural flat metal panel was an item he had identified as well as the glass curtain wall, they maybe terms of art but not defined in the ordinance to a level that he thinks is required; there are some other requirements in reviewing this that he doesn't believe meet statutory drafting requirements and is going to want to have some time to review it and only brings that up to you now so it doesn't come as a surprise later that he is going to come with recommendations, that they will note that this isn't in proper ordinance form and does not have the proper ordinance numbers, etc. and wants to do a fairly detailed substantive review.

Joe Solseng, part owner of Structures, Inc. and that his partner, Paul Ness is also here tonight, that they are on Gateway Drive, that they think they have nice building, theirs is a steel building and has earth berm; that have to blend certain things and thinks mixture is good, however, they feel ordinance regulations are very vague, needs improvement and is very restrictive as to what sources of construction can be used, corrugated metal vs. flat, nothing against flat metal but can be more costly. He stated they have to be careful as to how write our ordinances and have to make it appealing to all aspects of construction and all people who build, restricting corridors within 600 ft. very restrictive, and is concerned not only for his business but also for the city's growth because maybe constricting the growth of the whole town so have to be very careful.

Robert Drees, Planning Commissioner, stated that representing the businesses in the ET area outside the city and his concern is that businesses that have structures made of corrugated metal siding, if they would be allowed to expand their building or if put up another building along side the one they currently have, would they have to follow the new Code; understands that they would not be able to expand or construct new building of same materials, and that there is no way to appeal that issue. Ryan Brooks, planning department, stated on expansion up to 25% would be allowed, and once exceed that amount then have to meet new standards.

Mr. Glassheim stated the main concerns that he saw were corrugated metal, external drain and glass requirements and asked where this would go for further consideration or if it has been considered sufficiently. Mr. Brooks stated they have a working committee of the Planning Commission and are at a situation now where actually bringing it forward for approval, but if the council wants them to take it back and review, can do that and come back at date certain or even before preliminary approval. Mr. Glassheim stated it would take some time by the attorney' office to put in proper form and perhaps two, four or six weeks, and would ask that the committee review further, and to look at some sort of appeal process and to see if that would be something because of blending of materials rather than each material outlawed or okayed in itself but rather blending, and look at that.
Council Member Kreun stated that it is going to take a little time to review and to it thoroughly and properly and that they can take recommendations from contractors and business people,
and are looking at the main corridors, and might be different regulations behind the 600 ft. and not going to hold the same standards 601 ft. as would on people on main corridors and that is the idea behind this is to dress up the corridors, and not opposed to listening to what you have to offer and goal is not to continue and add to the problem and can look at it.

Joe Solseng stated on the metal building section of that ordinance, it says that no metal building will be allowed with the exception of flat metal panels or a full glazed front, says nothing about brick, stucco or anything else, and as well as that building is guzzied up, south of I-29 Café, you could not build that with that ordinance.

Council Member Kreun suggested taking this item off the agenda for next week so have time to look at and find out what the concerns are.

Don Lee, 33236 Royal Circle, Gateway Storage, stated they would like to have them look at the issues, that is never going to be retail, because retail is on 32nd, can't ban something because somebody doesn't like the word corrugated steel, that they are talking about architectural panels as something new, those panels aren't new as he has a building in Williston that was built in 1976 that has architectural panels on it, didn't see architectural panels on Boston's, Texas Roadhouse and don't see them on the new hotel, don't have them on the Alerus Center because very costly to incorporate into the building; that if corrugated steel and flat panels were relatively the same price, they would be used on new buildings, don't ban the product because you don't like the word, there is nothing wrong with the product itself, it is up to developers and builders to try to figure out how to use all those to make it pleasing so they will approve it.

Council Member Kreun stated that if you look at #3, don't want non-decorative exposed concrete block buildings and plain old flat metal buildings or corrugated either, and that is what trying to get away from, and thinks we can work together to put this in an ordinance form that will incorporate the different materials; that they will work with Mr. Lee, Mr. Drees' concerns and Mr. Solseng's, this is work in progress.

Mr. Christensen stated they knew there would be some issues coming back, that they have to do something on Hwy. 2 and have an architectural design review committee, and points have been made and they will work on that. He suggested that Mr. Solseng, Mr. Ness, Mr. Lee and whomever else is in this industry to get to the Planning Department with some ideas as to what would be acceptable metal usage so they have that input.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary Report ending April 20, 2007.
Information only.

3.2 Statement of Changes in Cash Balances through April 30, 2007.
Information only.

6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member McNamara stated there will be a property tax forum tomorrow night in Ward 2 at 6:00 p.m. at Valley Middle School, everybody is welcome.

2) Council Member Glassheim stated there will be discussion and report from the consultant on the Riverside City Pool, first a working session at 4:00 here in the council chambers on Wednesday, May 16, and also a public meeting at Wilder School at 7:00 p.m. , everyone is invited to both of those sessions.

3) Council Member Christensen thanked Mark Walker for an excellent job with the Sunbeam Addn. presentation, didn't have many people to talk to but he and his people were well prepared and did a good job.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member McNamara that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor