Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, May 12, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.__________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, May 12, 2003 i the council chambers in city Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: none.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to the microphone to give your name and address for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events:
1) Ralph Honda, letter carrier, reported on food drive this past week. Mr. Honda stated this started as a pilot program 11 years ago, now involves 100,000 letter carriers, before this year collected over 500,000 lbs. of food for the needy - he stated with help from SuperOne, Rydell Chevrolet and the City of Grand Forks for donating dumpster - that Pro-Tram Trucking donated 53' trailer for them to load - this year they collected over 50,000 lbs. of food this year for the needy in this town. 30 to 40% of the people in this city go to bed hungry at night - poundage increases but so does the need. He thanked the mayor and city council.
2) this is Police Memorial Week, recognizing officers who protected and served; that the Grand Forks Police Department and Fraternal Lodge will host law enforcement officers memorial service on Thursday, May 15. They will be presenting the Wayne Anderson Meritorious Service award to Sgt. Kevin Kallinen for showing dedication and loyalty to the department and the profession of law enforcement.
3) thanked community partners for plan for responsible Springfest - the Police Department, Park District, UND administrators UND students and others.
4) thanked organizers of the Mark of Dimes WalkAmerica last Saturday morning, 93 participants for the walk and over $15,000 was raised to fight ill-effects of premature birth.
5) Circle of Friends Pet Show and Bake-off fundraiser, and congratulations to winning pets and owners and everyone who helped raise money for the Circle of Friends.
6) Dog Park - official meeting coming up on Wednesday, May 28 at Park District
7) Tops in Blue will be coming to the Alerus Center on Sunday, June 1 - first rate show for the entire family and is free.
8) he stated he would like to recognize the contributions of Fred Schneider who is retiring from the Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission, that he is leaving after 11 years on the Commission and more than 30 years at UND.
9) the National Symphony Orchestra was in town last week and was part of the Kennedy Center's mission of arts, education and outreach and part of the National Symphony Orchestra's North Dakota Residency Program.
10) Architectural Awards: Lonnie Laffen made the announcements - that the American Institute of Architects has a design award program, state by state, that there are approx. 25-30 submittals per year and juried by an independent group of architects from outside the state. That in 2001a group of architects from Des Moines, IA and 3 awards were given and that his firm, Johnson Laffen Galloway Architects, LTD, won all three awards, one of which was the Grand Forks Corporate Center; that in 2002 the awards were juried by an independent group from Oklahoma City and 3 projects state-wide were selected and his firm won all 3, one was the Metro Transit Center. He recognized Todd Feland and was their client on that project, and recognized Office of Urban Development for the Corporate Center.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK REPORTED PRESENT
2.1 Affordable Housing District Designation.
Council Member Kreun stated they have been able to accomplish some of their goals through funding projects, putting funding aside and making it available for various income levels - that their next step is to put it into place so houses can be built with some guidelines and being able to establish some entry-level housing district; that they have a deficit in housing stock in the city and were placing in front of committee for questions and answers and act on it next week at city council. He noted that the affordable housing district would have a base price, excluding special assessments, at 2 1/2 times the Grand Forks area median income for a family of 4 and that comes to $135,250; that 75% of the lots included in affordable housing district would have max. lot width of approx. 65 ft, and min. lot depth of 120 ft. and no restrictions or covenants re. materials, suppliers or builders in any affordable district.

He reviewed the City's participation: special assessment markup will be reduced to 15%; eliminating 50% up-front money for infrastructure; City will obtain but at a longer period of time for recovery; changing rights of way to give builders more building ability; deferring special assessments for 2 years; allow 2-year tax exemption on first $75,000; limit number of districts to 3; limit to 100 houses in each district; encourage Park District to reduce park and open space requirement from 8% to 5%; and encourage financial institutions to put special packages and funding mechanisms to assist construction and financing of homes within these districts.

Council Member Gershman stated there is not a subsidized dollar amount for the developers, making it easier for them to lower the price of the land and put more homes on the acres through policy, and if homes sell, property tax will increase, people will move up from lower affordable housing, etc.

Council Member Kerian stated that this would limit any one builder to no more than 50% of lots in any district. Kreun stated that they did not want to limit one builder to more than 50% of the homes in that area, that they have a couple other developers that own all the land and hard to limit them to 50%, they are able to sell the lots if so desire and let someone else build on them - don't see that as a specific item at this point in time and this would be new policy going forward. Kreun stated they invited builders, contractors, developers, appraisal people, etc. related to the construction or development business and in the beginning it indicated 3 districts and only had 3 proposals and would assume once this gets off the ground may have more people making proposals.

Kreun stated that in the old note there was a formula that when reached a certain number, then create another district and law and demand would dictate when to open up another district. There were also questions as to enforcement of this to make sure agreement was being met; Urban Development will monitor this. Keith Lund, Urban Development, stated he anticipated U.D. staff will be monitoring this project very closely, it is demonstration project and will do research in terms of sale prices of homes, talk with developers and determine what base sales price was on the property, tracking that and developers are on the honor system of the project. He stated if developer blatantly misses his target, wouldn't provide the designation for that developer again but all indicating what they plan to do in good faith.

Council Member Glassheim stated he was concerned about affordable housing definition of $54,000 for a family and $135,000 for a house is a little high for what he would consider a target. It was noted they are using HUD's figures for the County - average median income in the County. Kreun stated that if you target the lowest portion of it, then don't leave that opportunity for the people that have the ability to move up to the next home - that if build $85, $95 or $100,000 home and if these people have that home available and want to move up, the market is still very small for the people in the $125,000 home to move up - and need to build those in order to get the move up to open up the lower ones as well. It was noted that there were only 101 homes for sale (houses for sale that do not have a sale pending or offer) at the end of April between Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.

Council Member Brooks stated he has some concerns - GF Board of Realtors had 67 homes for sale - 18 in the $75,000 to $125,000 but only 9 in the $75,000 and below; and asked once this is brought forward - still think need to look at the lower group which is not a builders area as can't build them for that amount. He asked what is it going to cost us and what's going to be the source of funds.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that many people have difficulty getting into their first home when approaching the $135,000, that some of our infill lots with homes are being sold for $80-85,000 and now have jumped up to $135,000 but need another category that a certain percentage of these shall not be more than $80-90,000 - that we need to earmark some for a lower priced home - not accomplishing one of the goals and hard to define affordable.

Council Member Christensen stated that keeping score to the 75%, that a method would be when the building permits are issued, that the developer certify what the costs of the home are going to be so can keep track of the 100 in the development so make sure x% after a certain percentage and have to be in the 75% and that would give oversight and control and force no more building permits in the area once you have sold the first 25% over the $134,000.

It is important that people know that the specials are not being paid by the City, but deferred - that on two of these developments, specials will be $1 million each and financed over 20 years at about 4.5% but the first 2 years you won't be paying the specials, just deferred, that we will front-load the specials in the bonds we sell and be a little more cost to the homeowner when he/she buys the home, and important to get that out to the lending institutions that make the loans when they qualify the buyer so everybody knows will have another bill for specials in the third year.

He stated that the cost to the City is that we are not charging 12% that would normally be charged on the specials and depending on how many specials we do, could be as little as $120,000 or as much as $360,000, that is revenue we won't have as a City coming into our general fund to fund other activities. He stated as a commitment we have a decision on behalf of the citizens that we need this lower end housing stock and these will be the consequences.

He stated he would ask that we have as part of our resolution that the task force reconvene and ask the developers to dedicate a portion of their land to the 75% to $100,000 because if you buy a house for $135,000, you have to have a 20% down payment, otherwise have to buy insurance to insure your loan - that causes the young homeowner to have to spend another $120/month to buy the insurance - and that's why have to seek lower regime, $75-80,000 and that may require that the developers actually put up some townhomes or condos or group homes so they an get the max. efficiencies out of their property. He stated there are some issues that have to be addressed - for monitoring and for the future of this program. He also noted this will not be in ordinance form, but in resolution form, and if it doesn't work we're not doing it again or try something else.

Council Member Kreun stated that the staff report says treating this as a demonstration pilot project which fits into the resolution scenario - he stated that items several of the council members have brought up is the lower priced homes - in visiting with contractors and developers, as well as assessing people, almost impossible to build a home at $85-90,000 without some kind of subsidy - and that is the reason they put the level of $135,250 so they could build those to make that movement - he stated they have in the 3 proposals 3 different price point homes that they are looking at - the one the Housing Authority is putting together are able to utilize that with LMI levels and are able to utilize CDBG funding in order to help subsidize that portion of the development to get those houses down to that particular level. He stated that areas other developers are utilizing, will be a little higher because can't utilize them to bring price points down but will have 3 price points available. He stated to hold each developer to build a few houses at $85-90,000 probably won't work very well because of land costs. He stated there are twinhomes, quads, mostly single family in these areas but they are utilizing the land to the greatest extent that they can. He stated the infill lots is a very good program and those are subsidized housing projects through LMI and with CDBG funds; these are funds that are allocated back through federal government and are subsidizing through federal taxes. He stated with the infill lot program, those lots will be filled up in couple more years - less than 50 or 60 lots left and doesn't accommodate our needs for the future growth of the community. 2.2 Request from Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan to include the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2025 Transportation Plan Update, (2003 Street and Highway Element) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein.________________________________________________________________
Earl Haugen, Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization, stated they will have a presentation by the consultant, HWS, represented by Mr. Brian Ray. He stated in 2000 the MPO did request the City to consider addressing Transportation Plan and at that time the City asked the MPO to get 2000 census counts and other information, restudy the issues and come back with the results of that, and that is where they are at tonight and do have a proposal that was preliminary approval by the MPO April 16 and part of our presentation will also highlight where Wednesday night the Planning Commission for Grand Forks did some differences from what the MPO preliminarily approved and that will be part of the presentation. He stated they are asking that the City consider amending its comprehensive plan to update the Transportation Element, Street and Highway, and have new land use plan and it would behoove you to adopt some amendment to the Transportation Element.

Brian Ray reviewed the Long Range Transportation Plan Update - with recommended river barrier alternatives: Truck Route/Bypass Location - Merrifield Road Corridor and Local Traffic Bridge Relief Location -32nd Avenue South Corridor

Mayor Brown stated that the bridge on 32nd Avenue South, if that is the issue, would be built when. Mr. Ray stated there isn't a set timeframe, just be put in the long range transportation plan - it is a 20-year plan. Mr. Haugen stated that the motion from the MPO Board was to pursue the Merrifield bridge first, and after that is constructed and in place, then pursue funding for 32nd Avenue South and is in the 15-20 year end of the plan for the 32nd Avenue bridge.

Council Member Hamerlik stated they've struggled over the question, the final authority is with the MPO, no matter what the council or Planning and Zoning does. Mr. Haugen stated that the MPO does adopt a plan, MPO doesn't implement the plan but up to both councils to do that. Hamerlik stated that no matter what the councils do, the MPO adopts a plan; Mr. Haugen stated that the MPO does adopt a plan - that the city council has final say of what the city's transportation plan is.

Council Member Glassheim stated that if the MPO plan and the plan adopted by either City conflict, what is the situation in regard to federal funds and how one proceeds. Mr. Haugen stated that the federal fund is based on the MPO plan, if it doesn't conflict with the MPO plan, then the federal funds should flow - and if there is a conflict, then have to resolve the issue of whether amend the plan to remove the conflict or try some other way to resolve the issue.

Council Member Glassheim asked what is the harm to the inner-city residential areas of not doing a southend bridge at 32nd, is there any harm, significant harm, what would it amount to. Mr. Haugen stated you would have increased traffic volumes - the slide that showed Group 4, that the Point Bridge was up to 11,000+ cars a day and gets to be a capacity issue along that corridor and also have a greater increase in traffic along Belmont and throughout the residential area, south of 4th Avenue between Washington and the river, as you go farther south the difference in the traffic volume decreases with either Group 4 or Group 2 to 32nd - biggest impact is around Minnesota/4th area. Glassheim asked if they did Group 4 would there still be damage done to the inner-city, Belmont/Minnesota/4th area. Mr. Haugen stated they would have increased traffic and get two issues along the Minnesota/4th corridor with the volume of traffic that they would project in 2025 with just the Group 4. Glassheim asked if they would have to widen Minnesota/4th - Mr. Haugen stated they would have to look at a corridor study to determine what impacts and resolutions would be - would put in turn lanes at 4th and Minnesota but couldn't predict that the rest of the corridor would never have to be widened and that's where that project ended.

Council Member Brooks asked in terms of building this bridge involving 2 states and cities, what is percentage of the cost is the City of Grand Forks'. Mr. Haugen stated the general cost split when have bridge for 2 states, each side bears 50% of the cost of the project and within that 50% the standard breakout would be 80% federal and 20% local.

Council Member Brooks asked if there has been a shift in traffic flows in the city because seeing tremendous amount of development in the southwest corner of the city - Columbia Mall, SuperTarget, Alerus, etc. Mr. Haugen stated when they did the 2000 counts saw a shift from the northern and along the river out to the west and south, they built 42nd as it is to help Columbia Road, but as 42nd builds up and the area develops, then Columbia Road will still carry a lot of traffic, that what they are seeing and it is fairly consistent is that because they have 3 bridges so close together, that the southern one bears the brunt of most of the volume increases and when project in the future, find out that Minnsota/4th corridor on the ND side bears the brunt and have to pass the problems and as get to DeMers/Washington it gets worse and so are experiencing traffic taking Belmont Road.

It was noted that the Point Bridge was built in the late 60's - Mr. Haugen stated they have a project to do some re-painting and some other repairs and scheduled to be done in 2005-06 and if that happens, looking for another 30 to 50 years out of that structure, and if don't do that job in 2005-06 then starts to degrade.

Mayor Brown asked for citizens comments.

Several individuals spoke to the council opposing the bridge construction at 32nd Ave.S.
Tom Hagness, 1423 11th Avenue South
Lindsay Escobar, 3211 Cherry Lynn Drive.
Don Heier, 3302 Chestnut Street,
Randy Menard, 110 32nd Avenue South
Melody Nord, 114 32nd Avenue South
Gerad Paul, 3202 Belmont Road

The following individuals spoke in favor of bridge construction at 32nd Ave.S.
Theron Nelson, 505 South 6th Street
Ann Sande, 1110 Belmont Road

Council Member Christensen stated that this issue is to be voted on by this council next Monday, and that Council Member Glassheim will be out of the community next Monday as he will and asked that we go into special session of the city council and reschedule this for vote on two weeks so that all members of the council have opportunity to discuss it and vote.

SUSPEND AGENDA

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Christensen to suspend the agenda and to move into special session of the city council. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Following the special session of the city council, the committee of the whole reconvened with all members present.

2.3 Hotel agreement.
Mayor Brown stated he placed this on the agenda to update the council on the progress of the hotel agreement and will be looking for council guidance on main issues of the agreement, goal is to bring the complete agreement to you at the next council meeting, timing is becoming critical for the hotel developer to get in the ground next year. He stated because they are so close to completing the agreement, they agreed moving it forward on tonight's agenda.

Rick Duquette, adm. coordinator, stated that it is important to point out that there are still some areas that need to be worked on in this agreement and will ask Mr. Swanson to outline where we are in some of the areas where still have some difficulty. Our goal is to get the initial piece of the agreement completed, have the city council authorize appropriate city officials to enter into a lease agreement and to move this forward so that Canad can begin their financial and architec-tural engineering planning; they've expressed there is approx. a 6-8 month process to do this.

Mr. Swanson reported that each of the council members has copy of memorandum he drafted on May 8 and that document to some degree out of date based upon further discussions that occurred on Friday, and reviewed the summary. He noted that the hotel developer has not entirely agreed with all of his summary of the document or position of negotiation. The leased premises will require a replat, now describing as Lot 12 which is the largest lot that the Alerus is actually seated on, the area discussing is immediately north of the north door, would have common wall on the north side of the building, and will be replatted into a separate lot. The agreement does talk about requirement of designated parking. The purpose of the lease is limited to the construction operation of a hotel, restaurant, cocktail lounge and gaming area, and later in the document did refer to the gaming area as a casino as allowed under ND charitable gaming law. One of the areas of debate has been the exclusivity portion of the agreement, the City has proposed the exclusivity on Lots 3 and 12 subject to replat, the hotel developer is seeking to have that expanded to include other lots owned presently by the City of Grand Forks and has even suggested at one time that it would apply to lots in the future that may be acquired by the City of Grand Forks. The common analysis of 3. exclusivity, is no portion of Lots 3 or 12 could be used for another hotel, gaming area, restaurant, bar, casino or the like, and there is discussion as to how far that extend. The term of the agreement is for an initial 50 years and an option to renew for an additional 50 years, that in the year 2101 that lease could be terminated by the provision of 180 days notice. The rent negotiated is $1 for the first 50 year term and an additional $1 for the second 50-year term, the rent should the lease continue after year 100, it would be established at the then present market rate, and have debate over how language should appear.
6. identifies that upon termination of the lease, the ownership of the hotel would be that of the City of Grand Forks.
7. the naming rights to the hotel, subject to approval by Alerus Financial would be allowed to use the word Alerus or Alerus Center in their name.
8. Taxes and special assessments, hotel is fully responsible to pay all applicable taxes and special assessments, and for utilities, they are responsible to pay all utilities for operation; there is a requirement that the City would have the connections at the boundary of the area to be leased for the hotel, and true for water, gas, sewer and electricity, and storm water is nearby. Insurance, we have agreed that they will be required to maintain a min. of $10 million property coverage and $10 million in min. liability coverage. Liens - Canad attorney pointed out summary is deficient here, that he has said that Canad will have no ability to place any liens or encumbrance against the land, except that they may place a mortgage against the lease. The attorney pointed out that he overlooked was the ability to have crossover easements both for ingress, egress and parking that will encumber the land and the exclusivity agreement if it applies to Lots 3 and 12 would be considered an encumbrance.
12. Assignment and Subletting - Canad is allowed to sublease portion of the area of the hotel (gift shop, flower shop, shoeshine, etc.) but would continue to be responsible under the lease.
13. Disputes under the lease are subject to arbitration.
14. has received several e-mails and memo out of date , this identifies the entering into of a lease there are other requirements or agreements that go along with it, parking and crossover type easements. And should be rather than a licensing and marketing agreement it is a marketing agreement, and have not agreed on language, but deals with commitment that the City would be making to spend $300,000 annually for advertising or marketing of the Alerus Center, the hotel and generally facilities in the area. The particulars of the market plan would have to be approved by the City. Water park facilities agreement is no longer another schedule or requirement under the lease. In addition to the lease there are various easements, marketing agreement and exclusivity agreement that go along with this. Parking - there is a dedicated parking requirement for approx. 200 vehicles and additional parking requirement in the event of any expansion of the hotel. There is some concern from the operations of the Alerus that the layout of that parking may hinder or impact the use of the north loading ramp and they are reviewing that.
16. He has identified that they are to be granted authority to place signs on the leased premises subject to compliance with zoning codes. the hotel has proposed that they be allowed to place a pylon sign in that area - the city has not allowed a pylon sign along 42nd and it also would not be on their lot so we have an off-site advertising issue and have not agreed on language for the signing portion. Financing is fully contingent upon what Canad can obtain, the City is not providing any financing to Canad for the construction of the hotel, however the City will allow them to encumber the lease as a portion of their financing tool. He stated under the terms of the lease the City is obligated to provide as a physical linkage between the Alerus Center and the hotel - that cost will be borne by the City however actual construction undertaken by Canad. The City would have in addition to the cost of constructing that, the cost of maintaining that linkage. There is language that in the event that the hotel is destroyed by fire, wind, tornado, etc. that they have the responsibility to remove debris and remaining structure and to turn site back over in a cleaned up condition. There is an item of debate - that the hotel has proposed that in the event the Alerus Center were to be destroyed by fire, wind, etc. that the Alerus would have to be rebuilt or if the City were at any time to no longer be operating the Alerus, that the City would be required to purchase the hotel, and the City has not agreed to that language and there is significant debate on that. The lease agreement is more than a week out of date and has not kept up with the discussions that occurred last week, and last draft of the lease is a May 2 draft and that draft is approaching 40 pages long. He stated they will take 2 more days of negotiation of language and drafting.

Brooks asked for cost and our sources of funds, that he thinks it is important and interested in the Alerus Enterprise Fund, that the parking lots we purchased if for the Alerus needed to be funded by that, and if taking that lot on the north side of the Alerus and is going to be part of a hotel deal, the Alerus Enterprise Fund needs to be reimbursed for those dollars, wants to look at that and any costs related here - the Alerus, can't' be saddling it with expenses that aren't a part of it.

Christensen stated there is a committee that is working on this and would appreciate the committee to reconvene before bringing it to the city council so they will have an opportunity to go over some of the details - that he wants it clearly understood that a water park is not a contingent and as they go forward, clear to the community that if choose to put a water park on the table, that it isn't for the hotel - stated several times that they will build the facility without a water park and his document of May 9 says, contingent upon the execution of this document as a commitment to build a water park, and that language excluded.

Mr. Duquette stated that during phone conversations with Canad rep., he indicated that he was comfortable and trusted what we were doing re. water park, in the sense of what has presently committed by the city council about siting a potential water park, in a resolution $2 million has been resolved by the council towards the construction of that; during that conversation that was represented to us and the Canad rep. asked they move this forward to the agenda, and staff at Canad Inn feels the water park is still an issue so hoping that during the next couple days Mr. Swanson and he will have a better sense of where that is at. He stated he didn't think it was off the table to the extent it was originally referred to us. Mayor Brown said that we could use the language of the council supporting the aquatics site and the supporting the $2 million, and that was adequate for him to move forward with the hotel.

Christensen stated if there is an ambiguity in this document as to whether or not there is going to be a water park or not - have to be very careful that everybody knows what they can get and what's at the risk of the electorate. He stated he didn't want to get into situation where we authorize going forward and sign this lease and document these people will rely upon, they may have damages if they think there was a water park promised or money promised to go into the construction of a hotel - it is very clear for City and citizens to understand that before we sign this, there will be a position taken by the City that building it with or without a water park. 2) stated how we can sign this document if they want to use the name Alerus, to go to the bank to get financing if they don't have a deal with the Alerus as to the utilization of their trade name.
The third issue is that if we are committing $300,000 of advertising funds and if committing that kind of money, go with Mr. Brooks and have a source and application of where we expect to get this money, sees money coming from sales tax revenue. Gershman stated that he feels this council is committed to having the people vote on the water park, yes or no, and hopes that Canad Inn's understands that the citizens will determine whether there is a water park, not Canad Inn, not city council independently and has to be a clear vote for the public, understanding that costs and of any subsidy to it or shortfall, and wants to make sure that is understood that we cannot commit, and concern in the community seems to be that there is waffling by the City on whether or not the citizens will have a chance to vote on the water park, and he is saying they will and feels and that they will have their chance to have their say on this.

Mr. Duquette stated that re. the water park agreement and need for clarity, Mr. Swanson has made that very clear through discussions with Canad; that the Park Commission has appointed an aquatic center task force whose work is not done and won't be done until the end of June.

Kreun stated they have to give Mr. Swanson credit for bringing this to our attention in the last committee meeting how this is going to be played out and worked out, and how this would intertwine with the water park and the hotel issue and should be worked out prior to that - that this has been perceived and been negotiated back and forth several times, but in the very beginning the water park has never been a make or break situation for the hotel, it has been a negotiated item like everything else and if comes out now that is part of the negotiation process that is not completed and will be written into the agreement when we get there. He noted that that no bonds being sold for this project, no financing for this project from the City for the hotel. He stated there is a time factor involved and want to complete this in and are having a special meeting on May 27 and if want to take a look at this, and give Mr. Swanson some time to put this together and get deliberation that we need and information out to the rest of the council and vote on it at that meeting. (This matter will be held until the May 27 special city council meeting. Kreun stated that they would like the information brought forward to their committee prior to the council meeting so committee can take a look at it).

2.4 Application for moving permit to move garage from outside city limits to There were no comments.

2.5 Application for moving permit to move single-family home and garage from 1415 Lewis Blvd. to 1829 North 4th Street (cont. to May 19, 2003)__________________ mitigating factors for the neighborhood, that they delayed it so that things could be worked out for landscaping, etc. Mr. Walker stated they have prepared some additional information and distributed it by memo, that they talked with Urban Development about the possibility of other lots in the area, and found that were no other lots that could be utilized for this home. Council Member Hamerlik stated they postponed it to the next meeting but asked that it be placed on the COW this week in the event that some other information came up that they could address, and assuming that on Friday will have more information.

Council Member Glassheim asked if the Historical Commission had a chance to consider this, and if they knew when they approved it that the height change was going to be so severe and if that impacts the historical nature of the house. Peg O'Leary, Historical Commission, stated they did assign this house to this lot, that was done several months ago, before the fill was put on the lot, and they have upon occasion questioned the need for the fill or that much fill and been assured that it won't be quite that high - it is part of an SMA and how established and it is representative of the neighborhood, the effort in the whole process has been to keep the house intact and to help maintain the neighborhood. She stated they understand and have commented that they don't feel that this is ideal, don't see any other neighborhood lots that are possible nor upon advise from engineering, are there other lots that would have to be built up any less to accommodate a house at this time in that location. She stated she is representing the Commission to say that it is still in the best interests for this house to stay in this neighborhood and that this is about the only lot that it can go on - no other lot in that area could be any lower.

Glassheim stated that if through the desire to preserve the house, will injure the neighborhood and have the house be set 3 ft. above where houses have traditionally been and is an unhistorical situation - and all of that comes because you won't compromise the other part of the historical regs, which is an addition to it. Ms. O'Leary stated that is not the case - that there were 14 houses in the SMA originally being addressed, determined that 8 would be saved and are down to 8, no options left and this house has to be saved (others have been disposed of) and the Commission has approved one addition to one home, there were peculiar circumstances as that house had an addition (addition the Commission approved was an addition to the addition) and on a lot that was sheltered from the street - this house will go on a corner lot and no way an addition could be sheltered from the street. She stated the point they have no control over is that the person who has purchased the house doesn't want to put an addition on and hasn't applied to them for one, not sure what the Commission would do. She stated that in talking with Ms. Collings even with an addition, the floor of the house could only come down 9" and still has to be at the 100-year floodplain - the other houses in the neighborhood are not at the 100-year floodplain but below - that she's last one to say it's an ideal situation. Glassheim asked what the terms are of SMA, if no one bid on those houses, what is the City's responsibility. Ms. O'Leary stated this house would not be destroyed because this is a "must save" house given parameters of the Standard Mitigation Agreement - and it would be up to the City and the Corps to decide how and where to move it.

Gershman stated that he would like to see if could have the landscaping as a provision but also to run with the property, that if Mr. Blue decides to sell his home have something run with the property and have to have the landscaping. Ms. O'Leary stated they have a 5-year covenant on the property, that the home won't be altered without prior approval of the Commission and if Mr. Blue would agree to an additional clause on the covenant. Mr. Swanson stated that the City would have no authority to do that independently without agreement of the property owner. Mr. Blue stated he has given his word, and as far as signing away his name to something and having the neighbors say if good enough or not - that he wants to make that decision; that he likes the neighborhood and is going to live in it and wants it to look as good as the neighbors. 2.6 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5489, Dist. No. 591, paving S. 34th St. from 36th Ave.S. to Ruemmele Road and on Ruemmele 2.7 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5527, Dist. 421, Southbrook
area sanitary sewer.________________________________________________ 2.8 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5528, Dist. 277, Southbrook area watermain._____________________________________________________________
There were no comments. 2.9 Create special assessment district for Project 5529, Dist. 422, Southbrook area storm sewer.________________________________________________________
There were no comments. 2.10 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5507, Dist. 419, Pembrooke area sanitary sewer._________________________________________________________
Council Member Kreun stated that these are part of the affordable housing districts at
2.10, 2.11 and 2.12 and are going to be couple variances - rather than 65 have 68 ft. lots. Cindy
Voigt, asst. city engineer, noted that items 2.7 through 2.12 are part of the affordable housing
district, may have some assessment district boundaries revisions based on the desires of the
developer and next week may see new maps.

2.11 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5509, Dist. 420, Pembrooke
area storm sewer.__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Create special assessment district for Project No. 5508, Dist. 276, Pembrooke area watermain.____________________________________________________________ 2.13 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5488, Dist. 418, sanitary sewer on 47th Ave.S. in 1100 and 1200 blocks.________________________________________
There were no comments. 2.14 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5504, Dist. 590, paving Cherry Street from Southend Drainway to 55th Ave.S._______________________________ _________ 2.15 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5501, Dist. 417, sanitary sewer on 55th Ave.S. from Cherry St. to east edge of LeClerc Addn.______________________
There were no comments. 2.16 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5502, Dist. 275, watermain on Cherry St from Southend Drainway to 55th Ave.S. and on55th Ave.S. from Cherry St. to east edge of LeClerc Addn.____________________________________________________
There were no comments. 2.17 Request from Xcel Energy for power line easement re. Project No. 5217, 2.18 Consideration of bids for Project No. 4769, Raw Water Intake and Transmission Pipelines, Part 2._______________________________________________________ 2.19 Request from North Valley Crematory LLC on behalf of Lori Gossard for 2.20 Request from Dee Phaneuf on behalf of Deacon's Development, LLP and R J Zavoral and Sons, Inc. for reconsideration of final approval of Replat of Deacon's Gardens Addition (being Replat of Block 1, Lot 6, Kannowski's First Addn. (located at 2500 62nd Ave.S.)____________________________________________
There were no comments. 2.21 Request from CPS, LTD. on behalf of Mike Benson for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 7, Block H, Sunbeam Addition (loc. at 211 Northridge Hills Court).