Council Minutes

MINUTES/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, March 10, 2003 - 8:00 p.m. (following special city council meeting)

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 10, 2003 following the special city council meeting in the council chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim (teleconference), Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

Mayor Brown stated he would not stay on the line, that they had a function to attend, and that tomorrow they also will meet with their Congressional delegation, flood project funding and have been very well received and are presenting information about the community.

3.1 Release of 2002 UND seed money. 3.1.1 Request for funds from GF Convention and Visitors Bureau. with some of the other entities in town and interesting to hear about how that will play together. President Gershman stated he brought up the idea at the meeting and Ms. Rygg may be pursuing that, they have various entities in town that have money budgeted for marketing - the Alerus, Airport Authority, Economic Development Corporation, Park District, CVB, little bit in the Info Center, Engelstad Arena (which is not a public entity) but does a lot of advertising and that he suggested that somehow have to bring all those parties together because that is more than $1 million that somehow should be coordinated a little bit better. hits on meetings and conventions areas as well as sporting events areas - she conferred with the Alerus marketing plan and these were areas that were not in their marketing plan because of funding. It was suggested at the finance meeting that they get together to meet to discuss how they can take their dollars and market more effectively and CVB would be more than interested in doing that but her request would be that CVB doesn't call the meeting, that perhaps called by Mayor Brown or by someone on council - they are all protective of their budgets and don't want anything taken away because want to make sure they are effectively doing the marketing they should be doing - that while interested in being a part of it, would ask that the meeting be called from the City. President Gershman stated they will get that done. can coordinate their budgets and not have cross marketing but work together. He noted that they have 3 members from the Alerus Commission on the CVB and1 from Engelstad on the CVB and have good group put together at the CVB and good venue for them to call the meeting, and maybe the Mayor will call it on behalf of the CVB. if Mayor calls it because there are at least a half dozen agencies and if can get this pulled together and money can be pooled, it is going to become a great deal more cost effective and dollars go a lot farther. out of the Economic Development budget for a one-time marketing or operational expenditure, the point of economic development funds is to bring permanent buildings and companies or expansions into town - this is good activity and creates economic activity but not really the purpose of that money. the request was for $250,000 of which there would be some $20,000 that would be replaced from the membership, that they passed the motion out of the committee, $250,000 minus $25,000 so they continue to solicit memberships; the motion indicated that they should try to continue their drive. He stated this is a one-time allocation but it was for more than a one year proposal - many of the areas that they are going to solicit information from, make contacts with, become members of, will probably be their first time and this is an initial entrance into certain areas which they have not been involved in before to any great extent, and chore will be what's going to happen after as far as financing, but maybe this coalition within the city will help that. He stated a lot of this money will be spent for first contacts to join organizations and get to know these people so then solicit their consideration of coming to Grand Forks.

Council Member Christensen stated they are all concerned about the amount of funds and also heard about Alerus and shortfall, etc. and it isn't the time to cut back on advertising when taking the Ralph, the Alerus and King's Walk forward, and now is time to step up our advertising efforts to attract those and talk to the public and amenities of this community, and that the Economic Development budget, 2163, has $1.5 million and this council and community when we went with an Alerus, we have made a business decision to make our community a destination community, and to do that have to spend to get people there and that's why using this money out of the Economic Development fund.

Council Member Kreun stated that over the last couple years our sales tax has grown, that larger number of people have come to Grand Forks and that is attributed to some of the things that we have already been doing, and we've done a good job with what we have, but think of what can do if we expand this program. 3.2 Application for abatement of 2001 and 2002 taxes by Arnold Abels, 460 Burdick Court._______________________________________________________________ for abatement is here is by law - the person who is legally blind can document it through the physician and are eligible for abatement.)

3.3 Request to extend 2003 Board of Equalization meeting. most of the letters will go out by the end of March and would give them about a month to address people's concerns. He stated that the State mandates us to be within 95% to 105% of what property is selling for - they target 97% (3% below the 100% level, they could target 96% or 95% or 104%, they target 97% and have for a number of years - that in this year's study they targeted 97% - some of the neighborhoods indicated a higher increase than they are actually giving those neighborhoods - there are two neighborhoods that should have had an 8% increase and are giving it 7%, one neighborhood that should have had 11% and giving it 10%, one that should have had a 13% increase and giving it 10% and somewhere below 97%. He stated that 100% is what property sold for last year compared to their assessments last year - there are those that are not perfect but for most part they measure out very close. He stated why the market has slipped or why their values have slipped compared to what the market is doing, is because they are in a rising market - not that their numbers were wrong, were right in February of 2002 but by year's end, the market has risen, faster in some neighborhoods than others, and just reflecting that change in the market.
Council Member Christensen stated he would like to get the comparisons gross revenue last year vs. gross revenue this year based upon his projections and would like to have an idea of what the expected increase in tax revenue will be for the new construction; and would like to have it within 6 weeks or by May 1 when start budgeting process. Mr. Carsen stated he would have that for the Board of Equalization when they meet on May 5.

3.4 Plans and specifications for Project No.5495, Mill Road Watermain Replacement._______________________________________________ out of service and asked what happens to those areas if they are out of service. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated there are two lines that are running parallel along that segment from Gateway up to North 20th Street and segments that are out of service, but there's water to the Mill now, and would like to insure that they have two lines at all times, and would replace the 10" and the 6" with the 16" equivalent and do that in two phases, one in 2003, north phase where doing the flood protection work, and budget the south phase for 2004. She stated the two would be replaced by one - at end of 2004 there would be one main 16" and the State Mill has a separate fire line and that isn't in this equation. Council Member Brooks stated that this was not in the CIP budget, and are requesting that the project be funded from the Waterworks Capital Projects, but that this wasn't one of the regular projects that they had scheduled to be done this year. Ms. Voigt stated they try to do that to try to budget in that manner, but in this case trying to piggy-back the project so that will not disrupt the same area twice in a row. She stated these plans are done and ready for bidding.

3.5 Three-way Construction Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5382, TCSP Greenway/Bikeway Improvements_________________________-________ coming in below that amount and if there are excess funds that can be used in some other way because this came in under budget. Mark Walker, asst. city engineer, stated that the grant amount was $1 million and their projected spending with the way the bids came in, there is probably about $200,000 that they have available that can be used at other locations, they have been reviewing the possibilities they have with NDDoT and have some ideas as to how that will be done - are getting some answers back from the DoT before they come back to the council to give an opinion as to their recommendations as to how those funds should be used. 3.6 Bids for Project No. 5382, TCSP Greenway Trail Enhancements.
There were no comments. 3.7 Bids for construction of Project No. 5409, 2003 Sidewalk Repairs.
There were no comments. 3.8 Amendment to agreement with Xcel Energy for relocation of utilities along the English Coulee Diversion Project. ______________________________________ has been done. Mr. Walker stated it has. Council Member Brooks stated it would be nice if could get a memo notifying them and that it would be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Walker stated in the future he will make it a point to notify council when these things come up. Council Member Kreun stated that this is work that is being done by Xcel Energy, not a bid process and there's not any mark-up on this work, and that this line serves the Air Base and they made the right call to do it as they did.

3.9 Design Engineering Services Agreement for Project No. 5456, District No. 416, Lift Station No. 89 Rehabilitation._____________________________________________
Ms. Voigt stated on her staff report that part of the engineering by WFW has in the cost for two bids and also included in that is to look at the most economical way to deal with the pumps that they have - either recondition them or replace them to save the City the most money and give most cost effective repair.

SUSPEND AGENDA

It was moved by Council Member Christensen and seconded by Council Member Kerian to suspend the agenda and consider item 3.25. Motion carried.

3.25 Request from Planning Department for ordinance to amend Section 18-0204 Rules and Definitions, Section 18-0215 B-2 (Shopping Center) District, subsection (3), Conditional Uses, and Section 18-0216 B-3 (General Business) District, subsection (3) Conditional Uses, relating to drive-up coffee kiosks._______________________
Brenda Burkhartzmeier, Billings, MT, owner of Mountain Mudd Espresso, stated they wanted to clear up a few misconceptions after reading the Planning & Zoning minutes of March 5, there were several comments that were made that they felt were inaccurate and conceptions about their type of an application before they went to another reading - She reviewed their background - that Mudd Espresso was founded by herself and her sister in law, Louise, in 1994 in Billings, MT, that they will be having their 10th year anniversary next year and she was Small Business Person along with her husband last year for the State of Montana - they are in 32 states and in 150 different municipalities with over 200 stores, dealt with administrations in Houston, TX, Denver, CO and with small cities- that they want to be in ND, are in Sioux Falls, Fargo; and their company will have local owners.

She stated they want to make sure they pay attention to rules, regulations and are very pro-regulation; that they have been working with the City over the last few months to institute rules and regulations for this type of a business - that Grand Forks didn't have any rules and regulations that pertain to their type of business and they tried to get these regulations in place and have been working with the City to make sure that the regulations are strict and enforced.

She distributed pamphlets showing what their kiosk looks like and what it would look like in place in location; she stated that the one kiosk that is presently located within the city has not gone through this same process that they are proposing;

She stated they are asking permission and want regulations, mobile vs. temporary use, etc.; that they are accredited through the IBC (International Building Code) through the United Building Code for all 50 states and this is a highly engineered very well manufactured building and meets all of the codes for all of the different regulations - she has calculation after calculation that's been done on this building to make sure that it meets all of your rules and regulations and this is the type of regulation they would like to see you enact so you can insure safety and make sure that these aren't storage sheds; they are approved by the Dept. of Transportation as a trailer and do have a license plate and have to be road worthy, that they are the No. 1 largest retail chain of coffee kiosks in the U.S. She stated in Billings they have 96 employees. She stated if you allow this type of business to go into the city of Grand Forks and does allow real estate people who own real estate to be able to use an unused portion of their parking lot to get maintenance dollars, to get tax dollars, to get rents, leases so they can generate more income for that piece of property and property owner does pay taxes. She stated a typical installation (they hold the national Wal-Mart contract for the entire country to place their stores into Wal-Mart) - they are not talking about forcing this into a shopping center for it doesn't belong and pay attention to site circulation, traffic, utilize unused portions of parking lots where there is excess - one of their proposed locations is the K-Mart Store here in town, that there is a huge amount of parking that is available, there is a large parking lot in the front next to the video store that is unused at this point. She stated having their business there makes the property more viable, can control traffic and they can illustrate good site circulation. She included a copy of the temporary use ordinance that was adopted by the city council in Billings, MT which is very detailed and has a lot of things that the City's ordinance didn't address and has some suggestions of additional regulations that could be instituted and make it even better for people going into this business. She stated they go through a process and planning and do the same as every other business. She stated they create a standard by having the IPC and UBC regulations met for buildings not commercially acceptable, these buildings are commercially approved before brought onto the sight and brought in as modular units. They do allow for competition - a lot of times they change the rules and regulations or adapt a rule or regulation to govern this but that doesn't mean that only Mountain Mudd Espresso can go into this business - it means that other businesses can go into this and compete against them if they can meet the high level and high standards of development and rules and regulations - it opens an entirely new industry that you don't have in your area - you do have existing drive-throughs that are in businesses that were used for a different purpose - that wouldn't go away and still be here, this gives you a new and different industry. She stated their buildings are aesthetically pleasing, and are a significant investment and are trying to by-pass all the rules and regulations and do want a successful businesses and want to bring this to your community, have a level playing field and create jobs.

Dennis Potter, city planner, stated they have had a number of interested expressions come from various mobile coffee shops and to deal with those is within the Planning office, Bldg. Insp. Div., Fire Department and Health Department and are trying to find a way to make this work within the context of existing regulations - that the kiosk in Town & Country is an example of how it physically looks - that is another issue - but that was one of the ways that they were able to place it on the existing property out there is because to have it be mobile had to have it meet the regulations of the Health Department, Fire Department and Inspections - as they went through this is one of the questions they kept asking was, were they pushing the limits too far of our existing ordinances and should they have some form of a comprehensive ordinance that gives them a clear focus on how to deal with the coffee kiosks. He stated the draft ordinance came out of that questioning and placed it before the Planning and Zoning Commission and they chose not to advance it. He stated they have been working with the Mountain Mudd people and had the ordinance gone forward, would have continued to work with them and whether ordinance goes forward is up to the city council.

President Gershman asked if the ordinance included in the staff report was the ordinance rejected by the Planning Commission; Mr. Potter stated they wanted to get a sense from Planning & Zoning if that was the appropriate thing to do, to move forward and draft a new ordinance, had they said yes, they would have been to the Mountain Mudd folks and others; having said no, they have not moved forward on that because ultimately the council leaders say yes or no to that recommendation of Planning and Zoning.

Council Member Christensen asked how many people had to sign off on this little coffee shop (Mr. Potter stated Planning, Building Inspections, Health, Fire), and if there was anybody here to speak against this; and if Mountain Mudd had been here on Monday to ask for a special use permit until we got our act together, he would be in favor of that, not here to discourage young folks from putting up coffee kiosks, and hope can facilitate this process so these people can be encouraged to go forward in this community.
Council Member Kreun stated during the process if look at the existing ordinance it doesn't fit any of those and main question is that want to be user friendly but that particular unit that is out there now has hard wire trenched in the parking lot and that is not moving, not temporary and not portable and if that is permanent structure they have to abide by all the building codes, foundation codes, land ordinance, use of parking lots, etc. and nothing was brought forward in that respect to Planning to make that decision and until that happens, can give them a conditional use permit but always fall under fire for the parking requirements in this community and takes more than 5 or 6 by the time you get a drive-through and in this one use up to 12 or 14 stalls. Council Member Christensen stated at one place talk about retaining youth and encourage entrepreneurs in one breath and second breath we're more concerned about 6 or 10 parking stalls and a fire truck - they can put this someplace in the K-Mart parking lot. Council Member Kreun stated what the process was and they will be glad to go back and work with that system, but in the interim, if want to have a special use permit, that is fine, but have to have rules and regs. in the ordinance so that it can be governed.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that Planning and Zoning denied the preliminary approval of an ordinance drafted by Planning Office and recommended to council to deny it, and that we should go along with denying that ordinance and ask Planning and Zoning to go back to the drawing board with the help of city staff to come up with something using what was suggested here by Mountain Mudd and others, that we need to deny at the request of Planning & Zoning that ordinance. Mr. Potter stated if the council's desire is to go forward and provide a mechanism to have coffee kiosks.

Council Member Kerian asked why this was unanimously defeated because have had some others and those who are concerned about the existing coffee place, and that say we need to do this, and need to enforce it - and to vote against this because we don't like something that is out there now, and need some ability to control this, and if in terms of parking and if can somehow define where there maybe issues and what are some small things that maybe able to be done to strengthen it so could move it along - and asking how make some adjustments.

Council Member Glassheim stated there seems to be a disagreement between Planning & Zoning and some of the council people about whether we want to have an impermanent structures at all - some want them and to be regulated and thinks Planning and Zoning voted against having any impermanent structures at all - but it seems if the council wants to have these, then should pass the first reading of the ordinance and send it back to Planning and Zoning for any kinds of amendments and amendment would be appropriate to whatever started and if specific things wanted to add or change could do that, but if we vote it down on Monday night, not sure anything is going to start again because it doesn't seem like Planning and Zoning wants to have these kinds of things, whether 12 or 9 spaces required.

Council Member Christensen stated that when stating that the applicant shall not cause a reduction of the total number of required off-street parking spaces provided by the principal use of the property - that's not fair because that precludes a lot of locations where they probably aren't using the parking and would like Planning to rethink that language in paragraph E(3), and if they have been in all these different cities and have proposed regulations and should encourage that, and if this is going to delay these people in getting in business, would like a proposal as to what we could do to get them a conditional or temporary use permit so these folks can move forward and if 30-60-90 day permit they have to understand that they might have to move, but hope to move this forward.

Council Member Kerian stated we want to be pro-business and is also being consistent and that if we have parking regulations that have to do with property, don't want to throw that out without due consideration, that if expect it for some property owners and if want to make exceptions for others, there needs to be some rationale for that as well and would like that seriously looked at to see if some ways within what we would normally do that this could be handled.

Council Member Kreun stated that to make sure that this is conditional use permit, that it becomes mobile and not permanent because the potential to become permanent is very high.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there are some legal entanglements that we should be aware of. Mr. Swanson, city attorney, stated the comment hasn't been made that we should provide a temporary permit of some type, your Planning and Zoning Code doesn't provide for that type of a permit for this use in the interim - the quickest way to move it forward would be to give the ordinance preliminary approval at your next city council meeting, refer it back to Planning and Zoning and upon the next available meeting after Planning and Zoning has filed consideration, take whatever action. He stated he received a draft of this ordinance within the last week or so from the Planning Department and he has a number of comments in the manner in which it is set up, but as far as whether you wish to move forward with it, that is purely a policy decision.

President Gershman asked when they started this process. Mr. Potter stated about 4 months ago.
President Gershman stated 4 months was incredible, and asked how long it will be in the normal process as they go forward for these people to get into business. Mr. Potter stated he wanted to contract the Mountain Mudd program and the work that has been on-going there with the work that was done for the one currently in the Town & Country parking lot - they have put together a program within the current regulations and needed specific type of information from the proposed applicant related to meeting the mobility requirements of the Health Department, need to have review done by the Inspections Department and Fire Department, however the applicant that is currently sitting in the Town & Country parking lot went through all that and that is how they got there and have not seen a similar process come forward from the Mountain Mudd and have been talking for four months. President Gershman stated from tonight assuming that an ordinance is written, when would these people get a permit to do business under our normal procedures; Mr. Potter stated they would have the ordinance back to finalize at April 21 meeting and on the assumption as they move the ordinance forward and working with the applicant, Mountain Mudd, should be able to clear a permit for them within either 10 days after you finalize the ordinance because the draft now calls for a conditional use permit process, and if leave the conditional use permit it would be closer to 30 days after April 21, and if conditional use permit process comes out, then finalized within a week after April 21. - about 6 weeks.

Ms. Burkhartzmeier stated on parking lots common concern that they run across the U.S. and the real reason behind mobile and temporary is that reason - if they change the parking makeup, if go into K-Mart and today may not be a busy K-Mart and have all this extra space available and not being utilized and makes perfect sense for them to let them have more space, leasing space and makes good sense from a traffic engineer is who generally approved that plan and site circulation
- and reason they are portable and mobile is that reason - if put in permanent facilities and put in permanent city sewer and water and don't allow for movement and if they cause a traffic congestion problem because can't move them - utilizing unutilized portions of parking lot for a temporary period of time. Council Member Kreun stated it has to be mobile and not permanent and one they used as an example has hard wiring and is permanent. Ms. Burkhartzmeier stated they use a quick connect and that is a mobile unit. Council Member Kreun asked if they have filed and made a formal application; a rep. of Mountain Mudd stated she was asked not to go forward with submitting a site plan and application until this ordinance was passed because they came in at a point where it was better for them to wait to see the outcome, then to push forward and have a chance of being denied sooner. She has worked with the Health Department and has received approval with them and since it is a mobile building, the Building Department no longer has jurisdiction over that and their final step is submitting site plans, they have locations picked out and time to draw up site plans. Mr. Potter stated that Brad Gengler of his office asked them to put that on hold approx. a week before Planning and Zoning Commission meeting which was last Wednesday. President Gershman stated they got our attention and hope to be able to move things along

3.10 Mosquito control bid recommendations and budget amendment (new revenue). 3.11 Budget amendment (Fire Department). 3.12 Budget amendment (Public Transp. Department). 3.13 Request for final approval of a replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Young Subdivision (lying in the SE Quarter of Section 33, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M) and including variance to Section 18-0907(5)(A) of the subdivision regulations in regards to minimum lot sizes in the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District (located at 7274 S. Washington Street).
Council Member Kerian stated some of the information she was given in support of
approval for the replat was that there were questions and asked Mr. Swanson
to explain his opinion on that. Mr. Swanson stated his opinion is the definition of lot size,
although not specifically defined in the Code, is very clear and unambiguous, it means the
area/dimensions within a lot, and doesn't find any ambiguity in the ordinance - the materials that
were provided to you by Warren LeClerc and Ray LeClerc are accurate in that the concern was
what development would be allowed outside of the corporate limits in the A-2 zone - the issue
was that you didn't want a lot of small lot development or didn't want to have a bedroom
community developed within the zoning jurisdiction of the city of Grand Forks and were
contrasting that with what occurred around the city of Fargo with the number of small
incorporated communities within their zoning jurisdiction and when that ordinance was drafted
in the mid-80's and came into effect in 1986, the regulations addressed both density and size, and
the one Warren LeClerc runs up against now is a question of size. That his opinion is that there is
no ambiguity, the ordinance is the ordinance and the area he has to work with is less than the
minimum size allowed by ordinance, and because it is not defined in the Code, he used part of the
definition of lots which is in the Code, there is no definition in Code of size so used Webster's to
come up with definition of size and said if the Planning and Zoning Commission feels he has the
wrong definition of lot size, that they could choose to find ambiguity and write their own
definition or what he actually recommended was, if you disagree with the effect of a definition
that he set forth, then amend the Code to specifically identify whether you want to include that or
exclude it - as of now they don't address it one way or the other so falls back to definition of lot
size - so there is a policy decision in effect and if wanted to change the Code, and if do so, don't
do it in a grandfather clause, nor through backdoor but take it straight on and amend the Code if
that is what the choice of the council is, to specifically identify whether you will or will not
include public right of way in the calculation of lot size. He stated he has read his opinion over
and over and didn't find the confusion, but that in reading the Planning & Zoning minutes he
didn't know how some of the comments that came out of Planning & Zoning could be reflected in
the meeting from the memo he gave them.

VICE PRESIDENT HAMERLIK RELINQUISHED CHAIR; PRESIDENT
GERSHMAN PRESIDING

Mr. Swanson stated that the Code addresses the issue, and without a change in the Code, his
memo is straightforward, and if as a policy matter that you wish to change the Code, suggest that
you change it one of two ways: either you address the issue of size of lot and that has a great deal
of complication and effect beyond what this is; or address the specific issue as to whether or not
right of way should be included in the calculation of minimum lot size.

Council Member Kreun stated even if they used that particular lot size including the right of
way, it still does not meet the minimum amount of sq. footage, and doesn't meet the variance of
the minimum amount of sq. footage; and it was approved by Planning & Zoning and what does it
take to override that. Mr. Swanson stated there is no proposal from Planning and Zoning or from
this body to amend the Code.

Council Member Kerian stated it was unanimously passed by Planning and Zoning to approve the
replat, and if that restricts vote on this. Mr. Swanson stated a majority vote of council.

Warren LeClerc stated he wanted to make aware that he was sending additional information to
the city council for next week's meeting.

Council Member Christensen stated that the definition of 2.5 acres and language in the Code that
excludes right of way from the 2.5 acres; Mr. Swanson stated he was not aware of any language
that would exclude right of way from the 2.5 acre requirement. Council Member Christensen
stated he would go through research and e-mail it to him.

3.14 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of HDD, Inc. for final approval of the Plat of Perkins Seventh Addition. (located at 36th Avenue S. between S. 31st and S. 34th Streets). ____________________________________________________________ 3.15 Request from Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on behalf of IHOP Realty There were no comments.

3.16 Request from Pribula Engineering on behalf of Georgia and Dieter Heitmann for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Heitmann WEG Addition (located at Angela Drive and 62nd Avenue SE)_______________________________
There were no comments.

3.17 Petition from D & M Enterprises, Inc. to vacate the alley adjacent to Lots 1 through 12, Block 9, Villards Addition. (located 910 S. Wash. Street)_____________________ we set the public hearing or should it be preliminary approval. Mr. Swanson stated the process established for the vacation of street and alley does provide for you to give approval and then set a public hearing which establishes a protest right. 3.18 Petition to vacate streets and alleys in Baukol's Addition, Riverside Park Addition and Riverside Park 2nd Resubdivision Additions. (located in Riverside area)
3.19 Petition to vacate the utility easement in Lot 1, Block 1 of DeMers 5th Resubdivision and Lot 1, Block 1 of DeMers 6th Resubdivision (located in the 1900 block of DeMers Avenue)_________________________________________________________ 3.20 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Dakota Sales Company, Inc. for preliminary approval of the plat of Kieffer's Resubdivision (located in the 1900 block of DeMers Avenue)________________________________________________________________ 3.21 Request from Dee Phaneuf on behalf of Deacons Development, LLP and RJ Zavoral and Sons, Inc. for preliminary approval of the Replat of Deacon's Gardens Addition, being a replat of Block 1, Lot 6, Kannowski's First Addition (located at 2500 62nd Avenue S.)___________________________________________________ 3.22 Request from Branden Bartholomew on behalf of the City of Grand Forks for the approval of the plat of Auditor's Resubdivision No. 32 (located in the 3000-3200 blocks of Olson Drive)___________________________________________________ Olson Drive rather than a dead-end there. Mark Walker stated the purpose of the replat is to plat new streets that intersects 32nd Avenue with Elmwood Drive, and would be a T-intersection at Olson. Mr. Christensen asked if the affected homeowners given notice of this. Mr. Walker
stated they've had public meetings approx. year ago and a few requested cul-de-sac streets and explained that if you did put in cul-de-sac streets would theoretically have to take out several more homes.

3.23 Request from Branden Bartholomew on behalf of the City of Grand Forks for the preliminary approval of the plat of Auditor's Resubdivision No. 33 (located at 34th Ave.S. and Elmwood Drive)_______________________________________________ 3.24 Request from Cyrus Builders on behalf of Deacons Development, LLP for preliminary approval of plat of Fountain Vista Park Resubdivision, being a replat of Lot 20, Block B of the Replat of Lot 7, Block 1, Kannowski's 1st the 5800 block of Pinehurst Drive).________________________________________________________
3.26 Request from Planning Department for ordinance to amend Section 18-0907(6) relating to layout of additions and subdivisions' survey and plat required; contents of plat; public sites.______________________________________________________ commercial portions but his research in the area says you may need some additional language rather than just a flat percentage, that it was mentioned at Planning and Zoning where it was suggested that there be some criteria developed as to the percentage of land you take, and would look into that. Mr. Swanson stated that Mr. Kweit was addressing the concept of going to an impact fee. Council Member Christensen stated when you go to an impact fee it is based upon some measurables against which a Planning body exercises some discretion so that it isn't a carte blanc taking and will discuss his concerns with Mr. Swanson. 3.27 Request from Carrol Burtness and Gaylin Schmidt for ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to rezone and exclude from the R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) District and to include within the B-1 (Limited Business) District, Lots C and D, Block 28, Budge and Eshelman's 3rd Addition (located at 1611 and 1613 4th Avenues North).________________________________________________________
President Gershman stated these are the people that were looking at the Silverman home
for the substance abuse and recommended today in their meeting that we have more information
on these types of requests and this is a specific use and made the recommendation today that they
have additional information on these types of things. Council Member Kerian stated there was
information in P & Z minutes and for anybody who is interested, the denial of this does not mean
that this would not go forward, but that it was not needed to change the zoning of it in order for
this to go forward.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

4.1 Portfolio Management Summary.
Info. only.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
1) Council Member Brooks wished his wife a Happy Birthday.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Christensen to adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor