Council Minutes
17697
August 6, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
August 6, 2001
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, August 6, 2001 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Bakken, Kreun, Martinson - 11; absent: Council Member Lunak - 1.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Shannon Vodden, Wal-Mart, stated their corporation is very proud of the city, and briefly reviewed their community activities in the city since the flood, including the Valley Middle School North Dakota Living Prairie Garden and that Town Square is a project adopted by their Wal-Mart Green Team this year; that over the past 4 years Wal-Mart has donated approx. $35,000 to the beautification of the city. He presented a $500.00 check to Mayor Brown and Steve Schadler of the Park District. Mayor Brown thanked the Wal-Mart Foundation and Mr. Vodden.
The city auditor stated he would like to recognize an employee in his department, that Maureen Storstad, budget specialist in his office, has passed the CPA exam.
FLOOD REPORT
Mark Lambrecht, Flood Protection Project staff, briefly updated the council on the flood protection project: construction work has been completed on the pedestrian bridge demolition downtown and contractor has cleaned up the riverbank areas; Riverside Dam Project is on hold right now because of the high water levels of the river and is due to be completed this fall as soon as river levels fall. An important milestone date for our project occurs this month when we will begin construction on Phase I of the levees, that contract recently awarded to Nodak Contracting of Grand Forks in the amount of $13.3 million and that will be for work in the Lincoln, Olson-Elmwood and downtown areas immediately a block north and south of DeMers Avenue, work will begin within two weeks, first in the Lincoln area and we are in the process of setting up a network such that any citizen concerns or questions that occur during construction can be very quickly be answered and addressed. Gowan Construction has a couple contracts that are on-going, cleaning up streets and utilities from areas that have been abandoned and are doing demo of houses and foundations. He stated some work coming to bid, the English Coulee Diversion that runs around the outside of the city and are working with property owner and township concerns along the route and hope to have that project bid within the next month. Phase II levees are another large upcoming project, design submittal will occur in August and will have a series of neighborhood meetings so that property owners can look at the plans, that will be the North 3rd, Reeves, Lincoln Golf Course and Sunbeam areas, and will explain land acquisition and for property owners to have input. He stated that next year’s federal funding, that a recent Senate bill included $31 million for our project in the next fiscal year, that the House version of that bill had $30 million and that funding will be reconciled between the House and the Senate very soon, and noted that both of those bodies have tentatively proposed amounts that are above the $25 million proposed by President Bush and our Congressional delegations are doing an excellent job on our behalf and we thank them. He stated in the southeastern area of the city, Countryview, East Lake and Shadyridge neighborhoods, there have been neighborhood meetings and a report done of alternative levee alignments in those areas, the neighborhoods have told us their thoughts on what should occur in that in that area and very soon that will be brought to the council for consideration. He stated that the city engineer had asked that he mention there have been again this season a number of demolitions, house movings, etc. and with that occurring there will be opportunities to better fight the interim floods that occur between now and when permanent project is completed, and the city engineer will be making recommendations to the council as to some opportunities that exist and again put us in a better position next spring to fight floods should they occur.
Melanie Parvey-Biby, Interim Greenway Coordinator, noted a few items in the greenway update:
Mowing and maintenance: if any citizen concerns on the greenway moving or City-owned property or private property, encouraging people to call the Info Center.
Flood 2001 Cleanup: that the engineering department maintains four areas within the greenway and spent approx. $4,000 this year on flood cleanup (removal of debris); and provided est. amounts from what Urban Development spent within their downtown area for mowing contracts, $40,000.
Maintenance: they have looked at different ways of maintaining the greenway, want public input and look at costs in the future to develop an overall maintenance plan which would include how they would mow certain areas and what level of maintenance they will do for spring cleanup during flooding times.
Events/Special Interest Groups: The Friends of the Greenway, a non-profit organization, that supports the greenway is having their 2nd Annual Chili Cook-off next weekend with the Cats Incredible Fishing Tournament. There is a Lincoln Drive neighborhood committee meeting which will be held at 5:30 p.m. the second Thursday of every month at Park District, group of citizens who lived in the Lincoln Drive to put together ideas for remembrance or historical information about the neighborhood to support the park in that area, and is coordinated through the Park District.
Ms. Biby noted that overall maintenance plan for the greenway should be available by next spring so they can start implementing it or whether or not there’s any opportunities for ecological restoration within the project (March, 2002) Downtown Pedestrian Bridge: it was noted that the downtown bridge would be an addition to what the Corps is actually providing as part of their recreation plan, there have been grants submitted to assist with funding this bridge, and there is a grant in Transportation Community and Systems Preservation Grant that was put in for $2 million by Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, as well as TE DOT funds that were supported by the State; doesn’t have any numbers as to actual funding and will have to look at closely to determine whether they can support that. Council Member Christensen stated we have $6.5 million for betterments and as construction phase is started we will be getting into either allocating money for betterments in Phases II and III of the construction and not sure whether bridge might have some impact for Phase I construction, and questioned when they would be able to give status report on funding for the pedestrian bridge. Ms. Biby stated that as soon as they hear something out of the Conference Committee on the amount that is allotted between the House and the Senate for that grant.
It was noted that Phase II will be able to do a good review of the plans at the end of this month and there will be a series of neighborhood meetings set up late August and early September, bids will be received in about April of next year, and will be a two-year duration construction project as are most of the levee projects and be constructed in 2002 and 2003, and there will be preparatory work this fall, and the contract is let by the Corps of Engineers for levee and floodwall and pump station construction, prior to that it is the City’s responsibility to remove utilities, relocation of houses or demolition, etc. Part of Phase II is going up North 3rd Street, north of downtown to approx. to Simonson’s Lumber Yard (8thAvenue) and starting that portion in the spring of 2002.
COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE REPORTED PRESENT
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3896, AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY CODE, AS
AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE GRAND FORKS/EAST
GRAND FORKS 2022 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE;
TOGETHER WITH ALL MAPS, INFORMATION AND
DATA CONTAINED THEREIN
An ordinance entitled “An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0801, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2022 Transportation Plan Update, 1999 Bikeway and Pedestrian Elements; 2001 Transit Element, and 2000 Street and Highway Element” which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on May 7, 2001 and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter; and stated that we have two plans before us: the MPO Plan, the Bus Drivers/Citizens’ Plan - he stated to the audience that they can do a straw vote by raising their hands to which plan they want, and those who feel they wish to speak can come forward, but by raising hands they are expressing their opinion to the council.
Mayor Brown called for a show of hands from the audience supporting the MPO Plan, no hands were shown; and asked of the citizens present for a show of hands for the Bus Driver/Citizens’ Plan, there were hands shown by all those attending for this Plan. Mayor Brown asked if any of the citizens would like to come forward to address the council; there were none.
A petition from a number of people (67 signatures) asking that the buses remain as they are with same routes and time schedule, and with the new trolley going from the transfer point out to the Target Store and back downtown was presented to the mayor and council.
Council Member Glassheim questioned if they wanted to adopt the Citizen/Bus Driver Plan, what are procedures. Mr. Swanson stated they would have to make a motion to amend the ordinance to include whatever plan or modifications to the plan and that amendment would be voted upon, assuming it passes, the council would vote upon the second reading of the ordinance, as amended.
Council Member Glassheim moved that we amend the plan before us to the Citizen/Bus Driver Plan; seconded by Council Member Christensen.
Council Member Bjerke stated that the MPO provided document that show savings of approx. $100,000, that there are savings in the Plan and they responded to the questions and given information to council, and wanted to make sure it was known publicly that their plan has potential savings of approx. $100,000/year. Ryan Brooks, MPO, stated what potentially could be the savings, that they were looking at reduction in Saturday service, and some of the off-peak during the summer and that’s where the saving were, when pulled back those buses if they decided to do that and that would be separate from this but you would be able to do that if you implemented the MPO routes.
Council Member Burke stated when it was said at the past meeting that there was no savings given the current state of the various proposals, that contemplated no reduction of service to one-hour headways on Saturday or in the summer. Mr. Brooks stated that they weren’t recommending do that right now but if you wanted potential savings, that’s where they would be. Council Member Burke also stated that during the mid-day period ridership drops considerably between 10:00 and 2:00 p.m. under our current system and that would also be an opportunity to increase the headway, reduce the number of buses on the street and perhaps have year-round savings. Mr. Brooks stated it would. Council Member Burke stated MPO’s memo also took issue with the notion that this plan would force more people onto Dial-a-ride; Mr. Brooks stated that initially these routes were set up to bring people to the fixed route, the current routes were established in 1998 and MPO has modified them from that plan. with half-hour headways and each route was individual upon itself and MPO combined those and kept the 30-minute headways, and didn’t set up the routes just to bring people to the fixed routes, reason they set up the routes was for a 30-minute headway. There was some discussion re. ridership on both plans because of the change factor and what would be anticipated from that: Mr. Brooks stated that any time you make a change in routes, there’s an elasticity that you have a reduction in riders, and that small route changes are 2 to 3% for 2 to 3 years, that there have been many studies done of what elasticity really is and many different factors that do into this - the fact that we increase frequency of the buses provides a positive elasticity, and see a rise in ridership and before only had reduction in ridership because just pulling back service area when in fact the areas we are pulling back, ridership are in the low ridership areas. Council Member Burke also questioned if the system we have right now was implemented 10 or 11 years ago with minor tweaks along the way; Mr. Brooks stated there have been minor tweaks along the way and been running as is since 1994 with no changes. It was also noted that there is a decrease in ridership - 300,000 in 1996, last year approx. 220,000 if not for the trippers, we’ll probably go below that this year.
COUNCIL MEMBER KERIAN REPORTED PRESENT
(TELECONFERENCE SYSTEM)
Council Member Gershman stated that if you are going to make people travel farther than quarter of a mile and large pockets of three-quarters of a mile, you will increase the cost of dial-a-ride, and is convinced that the MPO Plan will do that; that nobody has addressed the cost or lost money of the curb cut and moving of the shelters and recreating the curb cuts, disruption of people’s lives at this point; that this doesn’t mean that we can never change and something that everybody has to understand.
Council Member Christensen stated that he is also concerned about the $100,000 that has been discussed and the 30-minute headway proposal changing the route and reroute deviation was designed to decrease dial-a-ride ridership 20 to 40% , estimate, and that when this is done, that one of the problems with dial-a-ride is two times whatever the fare is, and this service is also subject to scrutiny by this group and may require raising the fare, and if raise the bus fare and dial-a-ride would be double that amount, we can alleviate the increased fare through the discounts we give you through buying blocks of tickets, and hopes council will think about a policy decision which mandates our staff that not buying buses any bigger than a size 5, that the staff should be reminded that the mill levy is 4 for transportation, and if all work together as a group and the ridership understands that they may have to pay more for the convenience afforded, and will be bringing these ideas forward in September.
Council Member Glassheim questioned for any change that is made, have to go through the MPO process or if minor modifications be made administratively or hearing process, or adopt a new plan for any change. Mr. Brooks stated that the current long range plan has 30-minute headways in it and that is what was modified by MPO, that if go to the Citizens/Drivers Committee routes will probably have to go through your long range transportation plan and amend it if your desire is not to go to 30-minute headways; that what the City is running currently is not in your long range transportation plan, and there’s been a reason why it has been delayed from implementation, was because going through this study and there were some other changes in the public transportation department, and believes long range plan would have to be amended.
After considerable discussion Council Member Hamerlik stated he’s concerned about the motion, and in one way to reach a conclusion that we pass a motion which would be a substitute to the motion, to leave the present system as is and to direct staff to make the ncessary changes as has been brought forth that are for the good of the public and good of the system, that we’ve had good suggestions from both plans and should come out with better system than for council to try to piecemeal it, and moved a substitute motion that we direct staff that we continue our current bus system but make the necessary improvements where at all possible considering the Citizens’ Group and the MPO Group. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim stated opposition to the motion, that we’ve been considering this for a long time and thought the last few weeks were that period where both parties looked at each other’s proposals and each came up with their best notion, the MPO Plan has changed radically since the time it was the MPO Plan, and the Citizens’ Plan took into consideration some points that were brought up during the discussion, and has no confidence that we will get any further with more study and would like to resolve it tonight - that the Citizens’ Group made a proposal and have routes, and that’s what the motion is.
Todd Feland, director of public works, suggested that the Citizens’ Plan incorporated some of the things they would have done if their goal was to modify the existing route structure, would have looked at the southwest marketplace, possibly having an express route on Route 3 which is the Med-Park route and would have done similar things, and could make modifications without bringing everyone back, don’t know how much gain by studying it more.
Council Members Hamerlik and Gershman withdrew their motion and second.
There was considerable discussion relative to whether they are in the process of changing the City’s long range transportation element, transit section of the City’s Comprehsnsive Plan or whether it has to go back to MPO. Earl Haugen, MPO, stated they are in the process of changing the City’s long range transportation element, transit section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; it went through the Planning Commission preliminary and final; it has gone through this body preliminary and been hung up on final, and that they are asking for an amendment to the long range transportation plan, transit section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Swanson stated that there is no other document that needs to be changed, because by changing the ordinance that is up for second reading tonight, you are in effect amending what has been referred to as the long range plan. He stated by adopting the ordinance the MPO Plan that was preliminarily approved and final approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission is amended and the final adoption would be whatever action this body makes; that he wanted to clarify that there are not two different documents, one document and that document is adopted by ordinance and that ordinance is what is up for second reading, and the point that he is making is that council with whatever decision they choose to make, that’s the only action that you’re required to make.
Council Member Christensen called for the question.
Council Member Burke asked for point of information - if our transportation plan is secondary to the MPO Plan. Mr. Swanson stated that not the way they have set this up, that we do adopt this by ordinance under Article 8 of Chapter XVIII in the Comprehensive Plan and it is so specific it includes routes, you are not required to adopt the Comprehensive Plan that would include that much detail and that’s the position you in, that this is the only document that he’s aware of that you are acting upon or need to act upon to implement the changes that have been discussed, whether the MPO Plan or the other Plan.
Council Member Burke asked Mr. Haugen if the City ordinance is subservient to the MPO Plan. Mr. Haugen stated that the MPO is asked when you request federal funds from Federal Transit Administration whether or not what you are asking your funds to do are in accordance with the MPO long range transportation plan, and if the MPO cannot find that it is in accordance, then they could not recommend that the FTA provide you with funding to operate something that is not in accordance with the long range transportation plan, that action takes place during the process of the transportation improvement program which is annually done, there is preliminary approval in April and final approval in July and do that every year at those time frames and ask for all of the propjets that will have federal funds attached to them, transportation funds or even projects that are federally funded but regionally significant are asked to be included in the TIP document in order to be included into that TIF, have to be in accordance with the long range transportation plan and be prioritized by the MPO; that the MPO has to make a determination of whether what you are requesting funds for is in accordance with the long range transportation plan or not.
Council Member Glassheim stated the MPO’s normal process is April and July, both those dates have passed, and what is the status of this in terms of MPO’s TIF planning process, wait another year or what. Mr. Haugen stated that’s a question for the executive board to ask staff, that they just recently recommended approval of the final TIF and has been submitted to both states and they recommended that partly on part because the process to date had everybody approving the MPO route structure or the amendment to the transit section and that where it was hanging up was at this body, otherwise every other body along the approval process of the plan has done so, and they would go back to the executive board and ask them knowing that the transportation plan states 30-minute headways with certain routes, had a document prepared to help implement that, and also looked at deviation and other things that were set aside, but the executive board will be asked again whether or not what action you take tonight and your request for federal funds to assist you in operating what you decide to do and whether in the transportation plan or not. Council Member Glassheim asked whether the executive board decide by itself or would there have to be a meeting of the full MPO, and if we should recommend a different thing then you would submit that to the full board for their discussion in terms of the federal funds, not in terms of our ordinance, which we can do separately from the MPO but in terms of federal fund recommendation; Mr. Haugen stated it would be a full MPO board meeting and could happen even though past July.
Council Member Christensen and Brooks called for moving to the question. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Upon roll call vote on the amendment is to amend the ordinance to incorporate the Citizens’/Bus Drivers’ Plan, the following voted “aye”: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 8; voting “nay”: Council Members Bakken, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 5. Mayor Brown declared the amendment carried.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance, as amended, and upon roll call vote, the following voted “aye: Council Members Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman 8; and the following voted “nay”: Council Members Bakken, Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Burke - 5. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
REPORT FROM EVENTS CENTER COMMISSION
Darrell Larson, 397 Woodland Circle, chair of the Grand Forks Events Center Commission, stated that that Fritz Smith, Food and Beverage Director and Mike Lucas, marketing director, will be making a brief presentation relating to Saturday, August 4, that they had problems with the banquet facility involving the All School Reunion, that they realize this is an Alerus Center Commission problem and they will be dealing with it but wanted to bring it to the attention of the city council and update them. He reported that Jeff Kossow, executive director, and Charlie Jeske are in Los Angeles at a meeting scheduled to run through Thursday, but that they are returning today and will be in the office tomorrow - that they viewed this as a serious problem and want to take care of it right away. He stated that David Evenson and other Commission members are with him this evening.
Fritz Smith, 3500 30th Avenue South, stated they asked for this opportunity to make a statement to the council tonight in regards to the many complaints about their food services last Saturday, that they are extremely sensitive to the dissatisfaction of many of the guests that attended Saturday’s All School Reunion dinner; in execution of their food services Saturday they failed to deliver their standards of excellence and service - their bar and buffet services were inadequately prepared, that he takes full responsibility and apologized to all of those attendees that did not receive food services; and in going forward the Alerus Center Management will rectify any and all of the shortcomings that resulted in dissatisfying their customers Saturday evening, working through and with the Grand Forks Events Center Commission. Mr. Larson stated they will be working on it very closely.
PARK DISTRICT PRESENTATION
John Staley, Park District, stated he understands there is the issue of moving houses and trees in boulevards that the council would like to discuss, that to vacate floodways and make way for the levees and moving houses because of the historic regulations; difficult for staff people to try to negotiate and work out situation where they do not damage the trees but to get houses to new locations in the community or out of town; that he had appeared before the public service committee a couple times and his statement has been and still is that this is flood mitigation issue and have asked for the advise of the council and have followed it to the best of their ability; they try to err on the side of the people who live adjacent to the trees along those routes, those people get nothing out of a house move, they benefit in no way and when see trees damaged it upsets them and get calls about it, the people’s lives disrupted and to many of them their house values are diminished when trees damaged, and in trying to deal with the issue they’ve asked the housemovers to take parts off of houses and that’s costly to them, but that they don’t know how else to work this out; and tried their best to take care of all those people up and down the routes.
Council Member Burke stated the reason this issue was brought up was because they were told there was a house that was not allowed to be moved and that along the route that was planned, the homeowners didn’t have a problem with the trees being trimmed to accommodate the house but that the Park District denied it and would like to know the facts in that particular case, and also asked if the Park District has the unilateral authority to deny moving of a house that the city council would otherwise permit. Mr. Staley stated that the answer to the first question is that didn’t happen; every request they get and every housemover they keep notes but in every single case what has happened; and would be happy to investigate it. He stated the issue re. authority, that he doesn’t know what the statutes are and would have to look at it, but have said if the council wants to order them to take out a big row of trees, they will do it.
Mr. Staley stated that if the housemover is not satisfied with their judgment, can go to the Park Board and then to the city council and they will abide by their ruling. Mr. Staley said that on everyone of these house moves, their crews go along and take branches and rope them back, trim trees to a tolerable level, what can’t be done is that they start to bite into that tree to the point that the homeowner finds it very offensive. Council Member Burke asked if they have any control over the utilities when they come and denude a tree like they did on North 20th Street, etc., those trees left naked for some utility wires; Mr. Staley stated they do not, they have an easement and are going to cut the trees to the level that is their standards for clearing the wires and they have full authority to do that.
Mr. Swanson stated the answer to the question, the Park District has exclusive control over the trees on the berm, both by State law and by local ordinance, with respect to the second question on utilities, it appears both in terms of their easements but also have the authority under their franchise agreement to do necessary tree trimming, and where there is a gray area is whether or not the trimming that they have done is necessary for the protection of their utility lines, and if it is not the Park District does have the authority to take action back against those utilities.
Council Member Hamerlik stated that they have moving permits on their agenda and generally have had a recommendation from Inspections and assume that some of those questions might have been asked or taken into consideration. Mr. Staley stated to move a house in Grand Forks you have to have a permit, start with the Inspections and there is a check list of departments and utilities that have to be advised, that when they see a person that’s going to move a house they talk to foreman/operations manager who goes out with them and looks at the route and advises as to what’s necessary, within that limit that don’t ruin the neighborhoods.
Bev Collings, Inspections, explained procedures that apply to city council initially to make sure the house is fitting for the new neighborhood, when moving into the city of Grand Forks or within the city, complete the application, that they don’t ask for the route but have to approve the physical route 48 hours before the house is actually moved, but hear more if fitting for the neighborhood. Inspections brings everything together, inspect the house, make sure of lot measurements, meets zoning regulations, site plan is correct and once its moved and brought up to current Code, that they process the routes and get it approved by Park District, fire and police departments, utility companies and once returned with all required signatures, then approve the building permit and write the permit for them.
Mr. Swanson stated that the Park District determines that the trees would be impaired to the point that they will not allow it to occur, they can effectively deny the moving of that structure or if the structure is moved, they have an action for damages against either the property owner or moving company, or both. Council Member Bjerke stated that the trees on the berms are not owned by the citizens of Grand Forks, those are government trees and if homeowner objecting to the tree cutting, can be taken into account but they don’t own that those trees.
Council Member Christensen stated he would direct staff tomorrow morning to look at 19-0112, moving permits, and only supposed to grant moving permit if we can be assured that the moving will be accomplished without damage to the trees or other property, etc. and it seems that it would be quite easy for staff to tell the person requesting the moving permit to provide map of route and staff could check the route with the applicant for permit, and that should be handled before it gets here and statute gives us the ordinance to make sure that staff is doing job to check route, etc. and check with Park District.
Mr. Staley stated that trees on the berm are public’s trees but trying to work with everybody and those people who live next to them do identify with them and trying to work with all the citizens of Grand Forks.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO
MOVE GARAGE TO 3521 CHERRY STREET
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by Kevin Storstad to move building (garage) from 21 Euclid Avenue to 3521 Cherry Street to be used as a storage shed, had a public hearing at the committee of the whole meeting on July 23, 2001 and that no protests had been filed or made.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Klave that the application for permit be approved and that Mr. Storstad is authorized to move the building subject to meeting any conditions established by the Inspections Department. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE
BUILDING (RESIDENCE) TO 614 SOUTH 4TH STREET
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by the City of Grand Forks (Urban Development Office) to move building (residence) from 421 River Street to 614 South 4th Street to be used as a residence, had a public hearing at the committee of the whole meeting on July 23, 2001 and that no protests had been filed.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
Phil Vanyo, 612 South 4th Street, adjacent to the lot where the building is to be moved, that in May before he purchased his own property he spoke with staff from Urban Development as he was interested in purchasing the vacant lot and was told the property was red-flagged and that nothing was planned to be done with that lot until the floodwall was put in, and that it was in the best interest of the City that they were going to save 50 ft. lots for affordable housing and that because of the flood permits and people needing flood insurance, probably nothing done for a couple years, and if put up for sale or do something the adjacent property owners would be notified. He stated he closed on the house on July 26 and then noticed the posted notice on the vacant lot stating that a house was being proposed to be moved from 421 River Street, that he again called to inquire about it and he was told the date of the public hearing at committee of the whole to discuss this property, that he missed that as he was not aware of it and neighbors were out of town. He stated his reasons for objecting to the move: that he would like to buy the lot, that he talked with staff as City owns both the house and the lot, and was informed of the historic relocation of houses; and if the house is moved, he would like it to be painted and that showed colored pictures of the building, that because of the process of getting the house moved and being sold before winter they are short of time and that painting is not on top priority because too many other things to do, and that he was told that a house cannot be moved if it is going to de-value the adjacent properties, and feels that value of his property would go down. He also noted that the attached garage will be detached to fit on the property and inside garage house is white, outside gray, with purple trim and pink, back side of house paint is coming off the house, and without somebody saying something has to be done, doesn’t want it in his back yard, that he is paying taxes on his property, and asked for painting, etc. or what needs to be done.
Mr. Swanson stated that the City owns the house and the lot, and within their prerogative to do what you may like, may not be true if the City wasn’t the owner of the house or the lot..
COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON EXCUSED
After some discussion it was moved by Council Member Burke and seconded by Council Member Gershman that we approve application for moving permit contingent upon its being painted within one month after it is on its new foundation and that the immediate neighbors are consulted on the color. Carried 11 votes affirmative; Council Member Bjerke voted against the motion.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE
BUILDING TO 521 SOUTH 6TH STREET
The city auditor reported that the notice of public hearing on the application by the City of Grand Forks (Urban Development Office) to move building (residence) from 423 River Street to 521 South 6th Street to be used as a residence, had a public hearing at the committee of the whole meeting on July 23, 2001 and that a protest had been filed by Tom and Joan Kuchera..
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter.
Tom Kuchera stated that his opposition to the permit request has to do with the unsuitability of the architectural style of house proposed to be moved but also skeptical about the measurements and the size and shape of the house with respect to the real size and shape of the lot.
John Teige, 517 South 6th Street, stated he was unable to attend the meeting several weeks ago, that he looked at the house and that he does have a concern re. the size and style of the house, newer than the ones in that neighborhood, and they were told there were a number of lots available if it didn’t work on this lot.
COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON REPORTED BACK
Joan Kuchera also appeared in protesting the moving permit for this building.
Bev Collings, Inspections, reported that zoning requires that a five foot setback for side yard and house is about 37-38 ft. wide, and have 8 ft. on one side and 5 ft. on the other side and it does meet current code.
There was some discussion as to whether there were additional lots where this house could be moved and how easy is it to move with trees. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated there are other lots, but they are trying to compare these houses to neighborhoods that have been in the past suggested by members of the Historic Commission as well as other people and try to put in areas that are as compatible as possible without having to move them too far and without having to be too concerned about taking down trees to get the houses moved. This move is a relatively easy move to this lot; and feels the house is appropriate for this neighborhood; and that there are a number of other houses that have to be moved down the road and could be difficult to find neighborhoods that accept every house that will come up.
After further consideration it was moved by Council Member Hamerlik that we direct staff to find another location and permit by the City to move this house from 423 River Street to 521 South 6th Street be denied.
Peg O’Leary, Historic Society, stated this is a fine home and a good location for it, it fits on the lot, only 2 ½ blocks from its original location, and is somewhat newer than the homes there but if that lot stays empty, anything could be built there; that the intent of the Commission and staff is to make the best match as possible and they think this is a very good match. Ms. O’Leary stated that if the adjacent homeowners buy this lot and divide it between them the lot will not have a taxable value that it will have with this house or other house on it
After further consideration and upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion failed.
It was then moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the permit as requested. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK
1, DREES PLACE SECOND RESUBDIVISION AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
DREES PLACE THIRD RESUBDIVISION
The staff recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request from Larry Stammen on behalf of South Forks Plaza 97, LLC for final approval (fast track) of a replat of Lot 3, Block 1, Drees Place Second Resubdivision and Lot 2, Block 1, Drees Place Third Resubdivision (located at South Forks Plaza on 17th Avenue South), with recommendation to approve the plat subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
It was moved by Council Member Martinson and seconded by Council Member Klave that this recommendation be and is hereby approved. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
ADOPT RESOLUTION VACATING ALL THAT PORTION
OF AN ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT LYING IN
LOTS 2 AND 6, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA PARK 27TH ADDITION
The city auditor reported that pursuant to instructions by the city council after having received a petition from Art Greenberg, Jr. and Oppidan for approval to vacate all that portion of an access and utility easement lying in Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, Columbia Park 27th Addition to the city of Grand Forks, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 32nd Avenue South and I-29, the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held this evening, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with the auditor’s office.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave that we find and determine an insufficiency of protest to the proposed vacation. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
Council Member Kreun introduced the following resolution which was presented and read: Document No. 8088 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Klave that this resolution be and is hereby adopted. Carried 13 votes affirmative.
ADOPT RESOLUTION VACATING ALL THAT PORTION
OF STREET TURN-AROUND OR CUL-DE-SAC AND ALL