Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.

13

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen (joined meeting in progress), Kerian, Kreun, - 6; absent: - Council Member Brooks - 1.

Mayor Brown made following announcements.

1) Brad Towers has been appointed to serve as the Mayor’s Appointment on the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He stated that Mr. Towers has a long and outstanding history of supporting and promoting the community and should be an asset to the board. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Towers agreeing to serve in this capacity.
2) He attended a “board cutting” at Lowe’s on Sunday and wanted to take this opportunity to welcome them to the community. He stated that they are providing over 100 new jobs for the community with 96% of them being local. He encourage all to visit the wonderful new store
3) Stated that the Memorial Union is a wonderful asset for the students at the University and saluted their use of Dakota products, such as Baker Boy and Cloverdale, and that they have provided 12 full-time and 50 student workers with new jobs.
4) He extended a Welcome to Cold Stone Creamery and Campbell’s Fresh, both new restaurants in the community.
5) He expressed concern over the vandalism that is occurring in our community with the car window breaking. He assured the public that the police force is working on this case and that Crimestoppers is working with them and has issued a $500 reward for information leading to an arrest in this case.
6) He issued an early welcome to the guests coming to our Air Force Base later this week and commented that they will find top notch facility and personnel that serve our country and community well.
7) He commented that the past weekend’s entertainment was spectacular with the Bette Midler concert drawing 8900 people and Lorie Line performing for 2 sold out shows at the Chester Fritz which get better each year.
8) He stated that the American Dream Program is on the agenda for tonight and he wanted to take this opportunity to thank all those involved with this program which has helped 63 individuals and families have been able to acquire their first home.
9) He announced that the 2005 City calendars are out in the mail and to watch your mailbox for it. He added that it is filled with good information on City services as well as with many wonderful pictures of our community taken by local individuals.

(Council Member Christensen joins meeting.)

2.1 Budget Amendment, Department of Finance/Administrative Services, for Pension.
Council Member Kerian inquired as to what the plans were to cover this difference in 2005 Budget. John Schmisek, Director of Finance and Administrative Services, stated that we do not have funded this higher level of recommended contribution and that the proposed funding source will again be to look at any closed out funds, as we did this years was and then to plan for a higher recommended contribution as part of the 2006 budget process.

Mr. Schmisek continued with a brief history of the City pension plan. He continued that back in 1993 it was brought to the attention of the City that the Defined Benefit Plan was not funded to the extent that it should be. He stated over about six years changes were made in the plan assumptions and increases in the employee contributions were made to move the plan to a better funding status. He added that another major change that was made was that all new employees hired after January 1, 1996 would enter a Defined Contribution Pension Plan. With the changes that were made, the plan moved from being 79% funded to being 102.9% funded in 2000. He continued that with the market losses that started in 2001, the plan has again begun to see a decrease in the funding status. He added that the committee is in the process of distributing an RFP to replace one of the money managers for the plan that has not been performing as well. He stated that the hope is that this change, along with a gradual build up in the contribution to the plan to the recommended level will bring the funding level back up.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that as Mr. Schmisek stated, the change from the Defined Benefit to the Defined Contribution Plan for all new employees will also help alleviate this situation in the future.

2.2 Budget Amendment, Department of Finance/Administrative Services, for 2004 Special Events and Grand Forks Regional Airport.
Council Member Gershman inquired how much of the amount listed is billable. John Packett, Police Chief, responded that the overall annual cost for providing the protection is $180,000. He continued that $156,000 is the amount that they can be reimbursed for from federal funds, leaving $24,000 to be charged to the special events budget.

Council Member Gershman inquired as to the 2005 budget for special events and whether there will need to be an increase to cover all the expenses. Chief Packett responded that there is $150,000 budgeted in 2005. Council Member Christensen inquired how any additional costs would be funded. Mr. Schmisek stated that since we only need to cover what is not reimbursed, there should be sufficient money budgeted in fund 2163 and the account will be monitored as we move into 2005.

2.3 Matter of Cable Television Franchise Renewal – Midcontinent Communications.
Discussed in conjunction with Item 2.4.

2.4 Matter of adoption of Cable Services Regulatory Ordinance.
City Attorney Swanson stated that the Council packet contains a copy of the final agreement that has been reached between Midcontinent Communications and the City for the Cable Television Franchise Agreement. He continued that this is the 3rd franchise renewal process that he has been involved with for the franchise with Midcontinent, however this is the first time that the Council will be passing an ordinance that lays out the framework for how any provider of cable services will need to conform. He continued that the City does not give exclusive rights for the providing of cable services, and therefore, we felt it appropriate to establish an ordinance. He added that the services of Adrian Herbst, a nationally recognized consultant in this area, to assist us in the drafting of both this franchise agreement and the ordinance.

Mr. Swanson continued by highlighting various points of the documents. He continued that the franchise agreement is for the term of ten years, and that historically terms have been between seven and fifteen years, and that he has found that ten years is an average term for municipalities. One major change in this agreement is that there will be two separate channels established: one for government, which would be for our use and that he foresees we will make available to other governmental entities such as the county, school district and park district should they wish to use it, and the second channel for educational use, which will be primarily used by the University of North Dakota.

Mr. Swanson stated that the franchise fee will remain the same at 5%. He added that there has also been adopted a customer complaint handling process. He noted for the record that a result of the survey that was undertaken showed a lower level of dissatisfaction with the service than there has been in previous years. He stated that the system was also technically reviewed by a consulting firm out of Texas and the report that was received showed that the system we have is as good as any in the nation, and equivalent to that in place in other much larger cities. He stated that we have also added some new requirements in the areas of identification, insurance and similar areas.

Mr. Swanson stated that one of the areas where it was hardest to come to agreement was in the area of a level playing field. He stated that the final language in the final document is actually from a document used in Grand Forks in the late 70’s or early 80’s and states that any franchise granted by the City of Grand Forks can not have different terms that would give a greater financial advantage to one entity over another, assuming that they are both providing cable services. He stated that there are representatives from Midcontinent here this evening, as well as Mr. Duquette who was also involved heavily in the negotiations. He continued that the original agreement expired last fall and was extended by Council to allow negotiations to continue. He stated that for Monday’s meeting the recommended action would be to give preliminary approval of the agreement and ordinance, with final adoption at the first meeting in January, 2005.

Council Member Hamerlik inquired for the benefit of the public as to what role the City has in regards to individual costs to the householder. Mr. Swanson stated that the Federal Cable Television Act of 1985 eliminated entirely the ability of City’s to have a say in cable television rates, as well as eliminating any authority over programming and content.

Council Member Kerian stated that the service and responsiveness of the provider improved notably and wanted to recognize that. She stated that she had heard there was a chance of a change in ownership at Midco and was wondering if that was a part of the negotiation at all. Mr. Swanson stated that he had no knowledge of this and was not part of the negotiation. Council Member Kerian inquired what requirements were included that they would need to meet in providing service to new areas of the City. Mr. Swanson stated that there were significant discussions in this area. He continued that they are required to provide to any newly annexed or developed areas and that in earlier agreements, this had been left to them at their disgression to provide the service based on development ratios and a variety of other factors. He stated that this lead to a belief by some areas of the community that they could not receive service until the whole neighborhood was developed and that this is not longer the case.

Council Member Kerian inquired whether this ordinance covered satellite providers at all. Mr. Swanson stated that it only covers cable provided entertainment. Council Member Kerian inquired what the section dealing with telecommunications would affect, especially the reference to “dependent on law..”. Mr. Swanson stated that the purpose of this section is to address recent cases where the courts have found against the City’s authority to regulate and impose fees on services carried over the cable system and is anticipating that perhaps in the future there will be more restrictions placed in this area. He added that at present there is no effect from this section.

Council Member Glassheim inquired whether there was any ability to change this agreement during the ten year time of the contract if changes occur in the industry. Mr. Swanson stated that the contract would stand alone there are very limited areas available for modification unless there are changes in law that override existing contracts. He added that the franchise ordinance is more likely to require amendment in the future.

Council Member Kreun inquired in regards to the section which states that the City has the authority to conduct an evaluation of the provider and wondered what events would trigger this evaluation (Section 6.1). Mr. Swanson stated that in subsection c the areas that can be evaluated are listed and that most would be the result of FCC rulings that may come out.

Council Member Christensen inquired why, since this is such an area of change, we would not want a shorter term contract, perhaps 5 years with automatic renewal, and further what opportunity really exists for a new competing provider to enter the market. Mr. Swanson stated that the opportunity for any larger provider to come in is a possibility, but typically there are not competing cable systems in cities. In regards to the contract term, Mr. Swanson stated that a shorter term was not acceptable to Midco, since they have made a significant investment in equipment for the system improvements that we have seen, they are looking for a contract of a long enough term to allow them to amortize their investment. Mr. Swanson explained that Midcontinent had requested initially 20 years and the City has in fact never granted an agreement less than 7 years. He commented that while this arena overall has changes, the majority are not in the provision of cable services, but are more in the telecommunication and data services areas which we have no authority to regulate. He continued that the major competitor is the satellite dish industry. In regards to the auto-renewal process, it was reviewed, but it would be more advantageous and easier for us to terminate or disqualify an existing agreement for cause than it would be to justify a nonrenewal.

Council Member Christensen inquired where in the ordinance it dealt with cancellation of the agreement should we have a large amount of complaints or were not satisfied with service. Mr. Swanson explained that the City has no authority to terminate based on programming offered and cited that there are specific sections of the agreement that deal with termination, which are 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9, and that all of those reasons are the technical aspects and provision of service. He added that federal law does not give any authority for us to influence programming and service.

Tom Simmons, Vice President of Public Policy for Midcontinent Communications, stated that for the record he can appreciate the concerns on the services that are offered and that they are proud of the quality of services that they offer and the $9 million investment that they are making in the Grand Forks system which is over and above the cost of the system and feels that is a good justification for the term agreed upon. He informed the Council of the variety of services and improvements that have been done to the system since 1997, none of which were required under the prior agreement, and listed some new services that they are hoping to have available starting in 2005. He continued that their main concern is the satellite saturation that is growing in the community, and that they have two tough competitors in that arena and that serves as a valuable incentive to provide better service to its customers and that they are also open to discussing any concerns of the Council, whether positive or negative.

Council Member Kerian asked whether on page 21, section 5.61 concerning annual reports being available at our request and whether we may want to modify this so the information could be required to be made available in some manner that would be easy for customers to review and not sure what the method would be, but if the customers may want to see it. Mr. Swanson stated there were two reasons for this wording, one was not to place a burden on the company, and the second to not put a burden on the city staff to collect, review and file any more reports than we would really need and that most of this information is public information and is already available with the FCC. Council Member Kerian stated that her intent was that the information would be easily accessible for those interested and that maybe some change could be considered in this area.

Council Member Gershman stated that historically we had approached many companies for providing service to our community, but Midcontinent was the one that stepped forward and has been providing a good product and that it is in their best interest to continue to provide quality service so a window for a competitor to come is not created. He added that they have been good corporate citizens of Grand Forks and have provided opportunities for nonprofits to gain exposure both through donations and through public service announcements and that from a business standpoint he can understand their desire for a reasonable term of agreement so that they can recoup their investment.

Council Member Glassheim inquired as to why the public access channel was not included as a requirement at this time. Mr. Swanson stated that the agreement does not prohibit a channel being offered, but it does not require it, as at this time there have been numerous problems with these channels and the content that is often offered on them in other communities. He stated that by there nature and the first amendment requirements, they must be made available for anyone to use and since there are still some concerns in this regard from many in the community, a public access channel was not listed as a requirement at this time.

Council Member Christensen stated that he wanted to let Mr. Simmons know that his concern is not as much for the service being provided today, but for what may be the need for the future and what we leave behind for future councils. He inquired whether there was any estimate of what the new planned services will add to the gross revenues for Midco. Mr. Simmons stated that the franchise fee does not cover all areas of their many services that they provide, only on the cable portion of their services. He added that his main competitors, the satellite industry, are not required to pay a franchise fee. Mr. Swanson added that the federal legislation does not permit the City to collect the franchise fee on any services other than the cable and that we have no authority under federal law to collect it on satellite, telecommunications or internet services.

2.5 Budget Amendement, Request to Bikeway Capital Projects Fund 4108.
No comments were made.

2.6 Create Special Assessment District for Project No. 5787, Dist. 609, Paving Chestnut Street (5400 Block).
No comments were made.

2.7 Award bid for heavy duty tow vehicle (Fire Department).
Council Member Hamerlik inquired as to what the abbreviation “SF” stands for. Peter O’Neill, Fire Chief, stated that it stood for Sioux Falls. Council Member Hamerlik inquired as to whether the bid specifications were written so that only Ford dealers were able to bid, as there were no respondents other than three Ford vehicles. Chief O’Neill stated that the same specifications were used that had been used for purchasing by other cities participating in the weapons of mass destruction grant, including Bismarck. He added that the vehicle that was purchased there has been performing very well in situations similar to the uses we will have. He continued that our specifications were not specifically targeted to a particular brand, and in fact, the specifications did allow for bidders to take exception to any spec and we did not receive any bids that chose to do so.

Council Member Christensen inquired as to where the vehicle would be stored. Chief O’Neill stated that the plan is that this equipment will be housed in the 10 Bay building that is planned construction for this spring on the Fire/Police Training Site, as discussed at other meetings as a Capital Improvement Item for 2005.

2.8 Award bid for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) fill station (Fire Department).
No comments were made.

2.9 Budget Amendment, Police Department, Grant from ND Div. Of Emergency Mgmt, Weapons of Mass Destruction.
No comments were made.

2.10 Budget Amendment, Police Department, Grant from Dept. of Homeland Security 2003 State Grant Program.
No comments were made.

2.11 Budget Amendment, Police Department, Grant from Dept. of Justice, Div. Of Emergency Mgmt. 2002, 2003, and 2004 State Grants.
No comments were made.

2.12 2005 Salary Plan Update.
Council Member Christensen stated that in the past Council had requested a report on how the implementation was going and inquired when they could expect to receive it, as he feels that as the process moves forward it is important to know how the rank and file employees feel the system is working or not working. Daryl Hovland, Interim Director of Human Resources, stated that he could contact the employee reps group and have them conduct an employee survey and that he felt that could be accomplished and delivered to Council by late January or early February.

Mr. Hovland stated that he wanted to take this opportunity to express thanks to the Council for their continued support of the pay for performance plan as it moves into its second year of implementation.

2.13 Request for approval of resolution to annex parts of deeded lands known as the Kindness Animal Hospital and I-29 right of way easterly thereof, except those lands previously annexed. (loc. At 4400 32nd Ave South).
Council Member Hamerlik asked the members serving on Planning and Zoning Commission if there could be some notation made in the information given as to which members were present and he noted that when a vote was taken it lists who voted against, and that it may be helpful to also include who voted for it. Council Member Kreun stated that it should be in the minutes which should have been in the packets and that they could work with staff to get those modifications made if that was the desire of the group. Council Member Kerian stated that she had supported this resolution as given the development in this area and that it has been located just proximate to the city for a long period of time the annexation seems in order.

Rick Odegaard, 3566 69th Street N, property owner of Kindness Animal Hospital, stated that he feels this is mainly coming forward due to the new development for the Tractor Supply and that his business has been located there since 1973 and has not changed since then. He continued that he had checked on the impact for his property should it be annexed and found that he would then be assessed for fees and special assessments in the amount of $104,000 which is a material amount for his business and if they were due fairly quickly he would be forced to sell his property in order to pay them. He stated that he did express his concern with this impact at the Planning and Zoning Commission, and requested a smaller portion of the property be annexed to lower the cost, but that was not approved. He continued that he is having some discussions in regard to the sale of part of the property and that he understands that at that time the annexation would be almost an automatic and that when the sale occurs he would also have the cash available to pay the costs. He stated that if the annexation goes ahead at this time he may have to sell more rapidly and as a result, get a lower price than he otherwise would. He added that he feels that he is being forced into it due to the occurrences around him and that he never asked for this and that the benefit to and value of the land will not appreciate until it is sold.

Council Member Kreun stated that much of this information was discussed at Planning & Zoning and that at one point in the past a letter was written to him explaining that he would be given at a given date given a series of occurrences near him. He continued that the $104,000 will not be due up front, and will in fact be spread over a number of years, with portions of it paying over 20 years and this is in line with how all other properties are treated when they are brought into the City. Council Member Kreun added that Mr. Odegaard had been given two weeks to return to the Commission with a proposal of some kind for a variation following your meeting with the Engineering Department and this matter was tabled with the intent of discussing it and that he understands that you then were ill and did not attend the meeting or send any correspondence with a proposal back to the commission and therefore, the Commission annexed the entire piece of property. He continued that he was to have been notified Mr. Odegaard that he could meet with the Zoning Deaprtment and still make a proposal, and should deliver it prior to tonight’s meeting, but no proposal has yet been received. Mr. Odegaard stated that he was not informed of the latest opportunity. Council Member Kreun stated that since this has been talked about for more than ten years, there should have been adequate notice that this type of action was likely to occur and that the longer that the City waits to annex this property the more of the share of costs for infrastructure that the general public pays that should be associated with this property, in particular with the flood assessment. Mr. Odegaard responded that he was not affected by the flood. Council Member Kreun stated that there were many properties in the City that were not directly affected, but were indirectly affected and that is the basis for setting the assessment district. Mr. Odegaard concluded that he would be opposing this as far as he can due to the large financial burden it creates.

Council Member Kerian added that for the knowledge of the City any property being considered for annexation is scored on an evaluation sheet as to the services that are available and a number of other factors and that the property must be within a certain range in order to be considered for annexation and that in fact this property had scored very high on the scale. It was pointed out that the score sheet is a part of the packet on page 176.

Council Member Christensen stated that this is a matter of policy and he commends the commission and annexing some property that is painfully adjacent to the city. He added that many other cities have a more aggressive policy for property near its borders and that as this property comes in and gets developed the cost for the services in the City will lessen for all. He commended the Commission for taking the initiative to make this move.

2.14 Request from Planning & Zoning to amend text of the Land Development Code, Charter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Zoning, Section 18-0204, Rules and Definitions, subsection (2) Definitions; Section 18-0301, Signs, subsection (9), paragraph (B); and Appendix F, all relating to ground monument signs. (Public Hearing and second reading of the ordinance will be held on 12/20/04).
No comments were made.

2.15 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 2030 Transportation Plan Update, (2004 Alternative Transportation Modes Element) together with all maps, information recommendations and data contained therein. (Public hearing and second reading of ordinance will be held on 12/20/04).
No comments were made.

2.16 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for final approval of the replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Curran’s 3rd Addition (loc. in 4600 block of S. Washington Street).
No comments were made.

2.17 Request from Scott Weekley for extension of The Weekley’s Auto Parts, Inc. conditional use permit (CUP) for the operations of a junkyard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard (loc. on north side of Hwy. 2 between N. 69th St. and N. 83rd St.)
Council Member Christensen stated that he has a concern on approving an extension for this item without including some direction to a final resolution for these facilities. He continued that discussion of this item started over 18 months ago, with the intent that concerns could be addressed and resolved before the expiration deadline and he has a concern with just telling the committee to continue to meet once a month with no periodic reports or final resolution occurring. He added that he would like to see included in the approval of any extension first, a requirement for at least quarterly reports from those assigned to work on the issue so that Council knows the progress that is being made on the issue, and second, that the Committee work with the Urban Development office to explore the process for securing Brownfield, as well as any other federal, funds to assist with the cost of the clean up efforts that this area needs for a final resolution.

Council Member Gershman stated that he would see that the suggestions were brought forward to the committee that is working on this issue and thanked Council Member Christensen for the ideas. He added that his goal is to come back to the Council within six months with a final plan for the clean up of these properties.

2.18 Request from Jerry Swangler for an extension of the Swangler Auto Parts, Inc. conditional use permit (CUP) for the operations of a junkyard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard (loc. on the north side of Hwy 2 between N. 69th St. and N. 83rd St.)
Council Member Hamerlik expressed that the same comments for this item would be the same as those just made for item 2.17.

2.19 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Jerry and Mary Volk for final approval (fast track) of the replat of Lot 1, Blk. 16, Cox’s Addn. (loc. at 2105 and 2107 S. 10th St.)
No comments were made.
2.20 Request from Advanced Engineering on behalf of Turning Point, LLC for preliminary approval of a replat of Village Resubdivision No. 4, being a replat of Lots 3 through 11, and Lots 15 and 16, Block B, of the replat of Block 2, Village Resubdivision No. 2, and Lot G, a replat of Block 2, Village Resubdivision No. 2 to the City of Grand Forks, ND (loc. west of N. 42nd Street between 5th Ave. N. and University Ave.)
Council Member Kerian stated that she wanted to note that the staff report does not appear to address many of the concerns that were voiced at the Planning & Zoning Commission in regards to traffic flows with this design. Dennis Potter, City Planner, displayed a map and stated that he had a meeting earlier today with Engineering staff and Mr. Ritterman, the developer, to further discuss the traffic flow concerns. He stated that they are reviewing a couple of additional entrance points, in particular in the northwest and northeast corner of the property to open up the flow of traffic onto 5th Avenue and that the new proposal will be brought back to P&Z at their next meeting. Council Member Kerian stated that another concern was the traffic flow onto University Avenue with the overpass being so close to the entrance point on the south and asked whether any changes were proposed at that point. Mr. Potter stated that there were also other concerns voiced in regard to some private easements and their flow onto 42nd Street and some potential problems with stacking at peak times based on the number of units in the development, structure of the development with most units geared for 4 or more residents, and that the target residents are the university students. The Committee discussed that there needs to be more discussion on this development in particular with concerns on 42nd Street which is anticipated to be a high traffic roadway and the entrance is proximate to the stop light. Mr. Potter continued that there are more meetings and discussions to take place and more details of the proposal will be brought to planning and zoning.

2.21 Request from the Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 2, Zoning; Section 18-0217, B-4 (Central Business) District; Subsection (2) Uses Permitted, relating to apartment dwelling units.
Council Member Christensen pointed out that this ordinance, if approved, would allow residential dwelling on the first floor in the downtown area and that this came about as a result of a request by the new owner of the old YMCA building at 121 N 5th Street and their proposed development and that he wants to make sure that everyone realizes that this has the potential to change the look of the downtown by allowing the redevelopment of any vacant commercial space into apartments. He commented that the language “solely for..” may not be necessary to accomplish what we desire, but he is more concerned with our intent on the policy we want to adopt for the downtown area.

Council Member Gershman stated that it is a change and he did initially have a concern, but now thinks that it may not be a wrong choice, as in many major cities have been converted to main floor residential and our downtown has been struggling to fill commercial space in our downtown, and that if some were converted, then it may lead to commercial filling in other areas. He cited an example of the downtown area in Boston. Mr. Swanson added that he is in the process of providing a language recommendation for this ordinance to the planning department, and that he wants the Council to be aware that this language still does not authorize the use of condominiums in the downtown and that he would recommend that the group should also consider whether they would want that language to be included as this is a change that is being seen in other cities not far from us and he will have redrafted documents by Monday’s meeting.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that he has a concern that if too many of the limited spaces that we have on the main flood were converted that then there is no space to draw businesses and we could be hindering the downtown development unless we could find a way to limit this development.

Council Member Kreun stated that in the information that was given at planning and zoning stated that the actual change to allow main floor residential development was done by ordinance in 1995 and that the only change being made at this time is to add the wording to allow single family in a B4 area. Mr. Swanson stated that he has not addressed in any way whether or not main floor is allowed and he has not addressed and at the request of the committee will look at that area. Mr. Swanson stated that the question that was posed to his office was whether it was allowable, in a B4 zone, to take a structure and convert it from commercial to residential and if you could convert it how many units were allowed and that is the issue that they have been working on drafting language to address. He continued that there was no information given as to the type of dwelling, whether it be single family or multi-family, and during the course of their review found that there was no provision for a single family dwelling to be allowed in a B4 zone and language was drafted to make the inclusion of this and the issue of condominium usage was brought to light and that has been added and he will need to research the other issues of main floor or upper floor and report back to the committee. Council Member Kreun requested that this research be completed, as the discussion that has taken place tonight leads to a different direction than what was presented at the commission meeting.

Council Member Christensen stated that he recalled the spot zoning that took place for M&H and the positive change that occurred as a result of the rezoning and offered that possibly if this may be another way to accomplish what the requesting property owner is asking for without making major policy changes in what development we have in the downtown or perhaps look at granting a conditional use permit for this property for a number of years to allow the type of development for that property. He continued that the Council also needs to be concerned with affecting any other B4 area of town and may have a long-term effect on the community and that before we vote on this issue, may need more information from Planning & Zoning. Council Member Christensen stated that the legislative committee is also looking at requesting an expansion of the Renaissance Zone to other areas not contiguous to the downtown as a way to help our near north side and we need to study any effect this may have before we proceed.

Mr. Swanson stated that there currently is no authority to use a conditional use permit in the B4 zone to allow for a single family residence in the downtown area. He added that while you could look at changing the ordinance to allow the conditional use permit and that there has been a desire by the Council to stop using conditional use permits to solve individual property problems.

Council Member Kerian inquired as to the definition of the B-4 (Central Business) District is. Mr. Swanson stated that the B-4 is a central business district and there is only one B-4 district in the City and it is in the downtown are and runs roughly from just North of City Hall to the south edge of the Water Treatment Plant, east to the river and west to roughly the overpass with maybe a few exceptions in that area. Council Member Kerian stated that she does agree with the statement that a business will come to best use economically and that she wanted to extend appreciation to Mr. Swanson and his staff for realizing that the condominium usage was not covered so that could be included now instead of having to come back later and add it, as ownership in the downtown has been heavily talked about and encouraged.

Council Member Kreun stated that seems to go back to the stated purpose of the ordinance change from the 1995 ordinance and that we have already allowed this back in 1995 and we are only broadening the language to allow condominiums and single family to the apartments that were already permitted back in 1995.

Council Member Glassheim requested a review of the parking requirements for any converted units, as he has a concern given our already limited amount of parking downtown. Mr. Potter stated that on page 226, section I and II address the parking requirements and that in brief, if the structure would fall within the bounds of the municipal parking boundary they either provide it on their site or pay into the municipal parking fund and utilize the available ramps. He continued that if they are outside those bounds then they must provide as specified in ordinance. Council Member Christensen stated that there is a proposal for 8 units in the old YMCA building and that there is no parking unless you go to the ramp or on street and he is also curious how we solve the parking problem for an additional 16 cars. Mr. Potter stated that he can provide feedback on Monday. He stated that he has a concern from already driving through downtown and seeing all the cars on the street from the upper floor apartments that don’t have other parking.

Council Member Hamerlik stated he also had the same concern as Council Member Glassheim. He continued that he had been approached by a southend business person that had a desire to open up downtown but was swayed away based on the lack of adequate parking in the downtown area particularly after five o’clock and on weekends when our timed parking is not enforced.

Council Member Glassheim commented that this is an interesting idea and that he would like to see more discussion on possible ways to make the downtown more livable and increase the usage and viability of downtown businesses. He stated that related to this would be whether any follow-up was forthcoming from Urban Development on the request he had made to check on the feasibility of converting some of the unoccupied second floor office space to apartments. Urban Development responded that the report will be forthcoming. Council Member Gershman commented that he agrees that this is an interesting idea and that he has heard from others that are interested in developing a group of buildings downtown, but are not ready to proceed using existing buildings due to the lack of parking. He agreed that this is an area that he would like to see receive further study and would hope the group would table it at the next meeting to allow time for exploration.

Council Member Kerian reminded that there is nothing in the ordinance that states where the parking is only that there is sufficient parking for whatever the development is and that our parking rules are enforced.

2.22 Budget Amendment – office of Urban Development.
No comments were made.

2.23 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-12.
No comments were made.

2.24 Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the 2004 CDBG Annual Action Plan for the Affordable Housing Program.
No comments were made.

2.25 2005 CBDG Program.
Council Member Kreun stated that he had received a request from Community Violence Intervention Center inquiring if the list for the uses of additional program income dollars could be amended to include the remainder of funding for their project before being allocated to the other listed users. He continued that in their project bid they stripped it down to be as basic as possible to get to the amount they originally requested and any additional help that they could get would be very helpful to them in completing the project.

Council Member Kerian inquired whether $170,000 was from the 2004 carryover. Keith Lund, Community Development Manager, stated that was correct; $79,000 was from unspent program income received in 2004 and $95,000 was from deobligated funds previously tagged for the 2004 Promenade Infrastructure Program.


INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

No comments.


CITIZEN REQUESTS

No comments.


ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

No comments.


MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS