Council Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Committee of the Whole
Monday, February 13, 2006 - 7:00 p.m.______________________

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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

Mayor Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
Welcome men and women of F Battery of the 188th Air Defense Artillery Unit back to Grand Forks, and to their families.
There are openings in the Historic Preservation Commission and to contact them if you are interested in serving on this Commission.
A short flood video was shown.

Mayor Brown welcomed UND's community organization class tonight.

2.1 Matter of bids for banking services.
There were no comments.

2.2 Polling sites for the June 13, 2006 election.
There were no changes in polling places from last election.

2.3 Appointment to Events Center Commission.
There were no comments.

2.4 Application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Mark Weber, 1089 Oxbow Court________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.5 Bids for Project No. 5893, Lift Station 17A Forcemain Repair]
There were no comments.

2.6 Engineering services agreement with CPS, Ltd. for Project No. 5881, paving Zavoral's First Addition.____________________________________________
Council Member Christensen asked why City is hiring outside firm rather than doing the
project in-house, small project, $92,000, or when could they do this project., and those benefiting would be the owners of the property. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated because their current workload is so high, they decided it was best to farm this work out to consultant; that the engineering fees are part of the overhead for the special assessment project and costs charged against the property and special assessed.

2.7 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 5849, 2006 TE Shared Use Path, N. 55th Street and University Avenue.________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Request to accept vehicle bids, police department.
Council Member Kerian questioned deviation re. spare tire wheel did not match the other
four. Chief Packett stated the tires are all the same size, but wheel that is different and spare tire is black tire - cosmetic.

2.9 Public Works fleet vehicle bids.
There were no comments.

2.10 Water meter and remote bid summary.
There were no comments.

2.11 Budget amendment to eliminate senior rider accounts.
Council Member Kreun questioned new programming. Todd Feland, public works, stated
he would come back with quarterly updates; that the budget amendment is transferring all the monies into a combined account for the senior riders/dial a ride account. He gave a few statistics for January - this year under combined system gave out approx. 4,000 rides so about 200 rides less than in 2005; that through the combining of these two services saved $6100 in the first month, average ride cost in 2005 about $5.55 and this year cost $4.35 a ride; that quality of service has been good and, received a few calls concerned re. senior rider service because it was raised from $1.00 to $2.50, and decreased the dial-a-ride from $3.00 to $2.50 and equalized. He stated he notified concerned seniors that they could call the Senior Citizens Center for help with subsidizing ride.

2.12 Request from City of Grand Forks on behalf of Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Baltic First Resubdivision (loc. at 202 N. Third Street).________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Southern Estates LLP for preliminary
approval of plat of Southern Estates Fifth Addn (loc. west of S. 20th St.
between Southend Drainway and 43rd Ave.S., also to include approval of
variance to the subdivision regulations Section 18-0907(2)(I) relating to
rights of way width for local streets.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Request for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the text of Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0217 B-4 (Central Business) District, subsection (3) Conditional Uses; Section 18-0218 I-1 (Light Industrial) District, subsection (3) Conditional Uses; and Section 18-0219 I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, subsection (3) Conditional Uses, all relating to indoor shooting galleries and ranges._____________
Council Member Kreun stated that because this issue volatile several years ago Planning
and Zoning Commission asked for public input so can help set policy as how to handle this.
Council Member Gershman stated letter from Glen Thacker acknowledges that downtown is not
the proper place for this, reduce controversy where want to put it, no alcohol, and sound like
responsible person the way they want to do this. Council Member Kerian stated there is some consensus
to put in industrial zone, also B-3 and whether those are appropriate areas, She also noted that a
correction should be made in the staff report (page 82) in the committee motion. Brad Gengler,
interim planner, stated the ordinance will exclude it from the B-4 and original Planning Dept.
recommendation was to allow it as a conditional use permit in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts
and simply consider allowing it the B-3 District.
2.15 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map as it relates to the extension of the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction from two (2) miles to four (4) miles.______________________________
Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, stated that most of the close to town development and
infrastructure is extending south and that time that the City gives citizens of the surrounding areas (farmers, landowners and rural communities) the idea that we are not trying to control every aspect of life in and around Grand Forks city, county, etc.; whether necessary or not are heavy-handed - Manvel landfill issues, airport authority issues, dikes, floodways, assessments and there is consensus in outlying communities that we are only looking out for ourselves, and thinks we should watch that, need to send a message out that we do want to be a part of the greater county and eastern ND community in cooperation with other people's goals and agendas. He stated that if the airport is one of the critical concerns, possibly a way of annexing just the land around that or creating some sort of zone to control growth in the airport perimeter as has been done in the Merrifield Road corridor to prevent people from building or thinking that they might buy and build. He stated that rather than extending our extraterritorial boundaries to the 4-mile line and having unusual chopping lines from some point measure, and stay within the existing dike lines and flood control or English Coulee bypass area could be a good western line for city jurisdiction.

Robert Drees, representing Brenna Township, which is some of the townships that
would be affected by the extraterritorial zoning going from 2 miles to 4 miles, and it is their belief that in their situation it will make matters worse because it will move the development beyond the 4 mile zone limit, that now they have several developments within that 2 to 4 mile limit, the Township has put a lot of money into bringing the roads up to spec. and if this goes in they believe that the developments will move two miles farther out, and west of County Road No. 5, and if developments are put out there, they won't be able to maintain the roads, the taxation base on the Township is so low that on the average size rural home there is only about $100.00/year that comes back to the Township and those amounts do not buy much gravel, and they would strongly oppose this move to go to 4 miles.

Council Member Glassheim asked how much development is underway and what kinds of 2 to 5 year plans were you envisioning if we didn't go out there. Mr. Drees stated their Township does not have its own zoning ordinance but defer back to the County and the County is now in the process of developing a Land Use Plan and their township is one of the 5 townships that has been working with the County planner to develop that Land Use Program, both close to the city and as it gets farther away and wouldn't be qualified to speak to that plan but they are deferring all questions on planning to the County and that is where they feel it that it should stay because that is where the townships have involvement at that level at County level and not City level.

Council Member Glassheim stated that there is development and have put money into roads, and that future development would move farther out, what kind of development. Mr. Drees stated he didn't know how many residences they have in the township, somewhere in the hundreds, several developments in the township, some started more than 25 years ago, there are currently ones that have been platted that have not been developed as of yet, been a rush on in the last 6 months to get these developments through and platted to precipitate this move - the developments that would be west of County Road 5 aren't there yet but would have to bring better quality gravel roads, all of their minimum maintenance roads are west of County Road 5 and a min. maintenance road for a township official means a road that they don't have to gravel or blade because nobody lives on it - not a mail route, not a bus route but if there is a development there they have a major issue on trying to bring those roads so that they can be traveled by the general public.
Council Member Christensen stated that in Cass County the county commissioners are embracing this concept and in Burleigh County the County/City Planning and Zoning Authority combined embraces this concept, assuming this were to pass and if a person came to our Planning and Zoning Commission where there are 3 county commissioners sitting on that commission, these people would then be required to comply with our zoning rules, and what the County should do which is to preclude the development beyond 4 miles unless the developer builds the road up and maintains them; the County has the power to do that by ordinance and can require the maintenance and probably even have the power to have some sort of special assessments, and these issues really are County issues.

Mr. Drees stated the townships are charged with the responsibility of maintaining their roads which are the section line roads, and when the developments come in they are required to initially build and maintain the roads within those developments but ultimately the charge to the Township to maintain the section line roads; that the County is going through its Land Use Plan that has not been updated for many years but now with a fulltime county planner there are things in that Land Use Plan that have never been in this county before, that what Fargo, West Fargo and Bismarck are doing doesn't know, but his concern is the Township that we're going to put developments out where there isn't any right now and going to cost Township a lot of money to build those roads to those developments and doesn't know how you can tax or special assess a private development to build up a public road that is on a section line.

Council Member Christensen stated that he would assume that the County would have as part of the conditions to approving a plat in the county, that you have to have roads of x quality, and that probably would preclude the development in the 4 miles out, if there were tougher restrictions would cost the developer or landowner more to engage in this hopscotch development, in Fargo saying they are requiring fire hydrants, fire system, paved roads, curb and gutter, and if the County were to do that probably not too many people that are going to develop 2.5 acre lots out there, and it really isn't an issue that can't be solved by good County planning.

Council Member Kerian stated some of the things they have heard from Planning and Zoning and this body that when need to put streets or utilities in after the fact, it is more expensive and people find out that there is a major road by them, and one of the efforts here is to try to set expectations, and is a responsibility to let people know what it is that the City is going to do in terms of where we believe the growth will be, where are the roads and how do you set up the utilities. That they are trying to help with guidance and some planning and that is what makes sense both in terms of cost effectiveness, planning, setting expectations.

2.16 Request on behalf of City of Grand Forks 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 Chapter XVIII as it relates to the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.___________________________________
There were no comments.

2.17 Downtown Development proposal.
Lonnie Winrich, 606 South 4th Street, vice president and representative of Board of
Directors for the Grand Forks Food Coop. which does business as Amazing Grains Natural Food Store in downtown Grand Forks, they have contributed to the growth and development of the downtown area; that they applaud the efforts of the council to improve that growth and not opposing this project but are concerned about the loss of public parking spaces. When they originally leased their store on DeMers Avenue the original lease included 10 parking spaces which the landlord at that time rented from the City, but allocated to tenants in his building. With dike construction that land has been put under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and 10 parking spaces have been reduced to 4 by agreement, don't have a contractual agreement for those 4 parking spaces any more, and depend on public parking for many of their customers, and urged council to examine this proposal very carefully and rethink the parking arrangement so that there is not a 30% loss of public parking spaces in the downtown area because of this housing project and that they maintain the public parking spaces that are available now.

Gershman stated parking is a concern and were told in finance/development committee that there are spaces on the public parking lot that will be for the development, 57 spaces, and on 1st Street between the Dacotah Hotel and that piece of property will enlarge the street, move curbs back and put in diagonal parking and have 44 spaces added, and along the dike 12 spaces added, and a net loss of 11 spaces of public parking downtown. He stated there is a parking study going on that is looking at the parking ramp by Central High School (beautification, better lighting and security cameras) to try to get people to use that facility; and that they are in discussion with the School District to use the parking lot on the west side of the dike (207 spaces) and get as many of the students to park there, that will pull some parking off the streets. He stated they will be talking to Amazing Grains and other property owners to try to mitigate these issues.

Greg Hoover, urban development, stated they are concerned about the parking and want to make sure that the businesses downtown have adequate space for their customers. He stated the planning study of parking usage and have put together a draft document and are working with the MPO to go through their office to get that done and that probably start sometime in April, and with respect to the parking spots near Amazing Grains, and in talking with engineering, there will be 6 public parking spaces that are next to the building, 2 of those will be handicapped accessible, and across the driveway that will go between DeMers and the pump station will be another 6 public spots. He stated they will be talking with Amazing Grains.

Lonnie Laffen made a presentation of the MetroPlains proposal at North 3rd Street and 1st Avenue North showing the new site plan and an update on the parking - that they had 61 stalls and new plan parks 57 stalls within the property that the apartment complex would need; and on top of that have 63 additional stalls for public parking which would be a net increase overall of 2. He stated this is the first concept plan and these numbers could change

Rob McCready, MetroPlains, reviewed the project; that they are proposing is a rental community which will attract younger and older adults, not providing subsidized housing and not be rental assistance based on people's income, not providing fulltime student housing, not providing assisted living or other housing options, but providing housing for specific demographic where there is a market need in this community, rents range from $500 to $750. He stated they had originally envisioned this as a 52 unit building but have reduced that to 40 units because the funding that they needed to provide underground parking wasn't feasible and by going to 40 units their impact on parking needs lessened; and people living downtown have less cars and have 25% elderly and they need less parking, and more individual renters, and anticipate the parking need between 1 and 1.25 spaces per unit. He stated the main benefit to the community is the continued investment in the health of the downtown, and in addition are creating a tax base, providing construction jobs, providing housing that is available to expanding workforce and putting building downtown that is costing $92,000/per unit.

Mr. McCready stated in 1986 Congress and President created a system where the private market was able to have a tax incentive to provide housing that isn't being provided, the target market was workforce and elderly and they provided a block grant in the form of tax credit to the states and the states decide where the funds go, and along with getting these funds they have some minimum requirements and that at least 40% of the units need to be provided to households that are making no more than 60% of the median income and for a family of 2, limit of $27,000/year; after that point with higher income they can stay in the property as long as pay rent. He stated they will target 6 units at 50% of the median income or less for 1 bedrooms; 10 units at 60% or less for 1 bedrooms; 10 2-bedroom units at 50% or less; and 14 2-bedroom units at 60% or less; and by doing that create the highest amount of equity and serve the largest market.

Council Member Glassheim stated there will be a 5-year tax abatement but from year 6 the City will be receiving between $60,000 and $70,000/year city-wide on the property tax.

Mark Ziegelmann, 1309 Ryder Road, asked if Ryan House and Dacotah building have ample parking and this won't be any cramping to their parking. Council Member Christensen stated that might have to find some additional parking, and may have to create diagonal parking on 3rd and 4th, that they are studying their parking ramps.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that the staff report did not include a sunset clause and that they agreed at the committee that there would be one and by next Monday should have that included in the staff report, and that the sunset clause is allowing them to secure other funding and a timetable set up so that it doesn't go on for a number of years. Council Member Christensen stated that they have to make application for their tax increment financing by the end of April of this year or first part of May, and assuming they achieve that and are successful and their tax increment financing the project goes forward, if not successful then the project may not go forward because without the tax increment financing they can't do it.

Betsy Perkins, 111 Cottonwood Street, manager of Amazing Grains at 214 DeMers, presented
petition signed by a few of their member-owners of the Coop requesting that you make sure you work out the parking situation before going ahead with the project. She asked if there will be access for someone to drive from DeMers to 1st Avenue. Mr. Hoover stated there would be. Council Member Gershman stated they are addressing that and also looking at that for the new Toasted Frog and DiMaggio's. The petition was given to Mr. Hoover.

Jason Schaefer, 36 Parkview Circle, produce manager at Amazing Grains, stated that they have had 20% growth in the past year, and to make sure that parking is addressed, and hopes they can have input in this process.

Sondre Loberg, 2 North 3rd Street, rep. owners of St. John's Block and the annex square where Amazing Grains is located, stated the only concern he would like to raise is for their tenants, that they rent quite a few of the parking spots that are north of the St. John's Block where the new building will be, and they need to see a satisfactory replacement strategy so they have somewhere to put their tenants and would like to continue working with Mr. Hoover and the council to make sure it is all satisfactory. Upon purchasing the St. John's Block and the annex, money was set aside to improve that building, and a part of their concern is that if they should lose a lot of the parking spots or if pointed towards the parking ramp which is several blocks away, would have a problem making this attractive to tenants and would have a problem justifying the investment that is at hand right now to improving the building.

3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary as of January 31, 2006.
Informational item.

4. CITIZEN REQUEST
Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, stated one issue he was unable to address because out of town was the new ordinance re. front yard parking, and asked why this ordinance which affects every citizen's right to park in their own front yard could be decided in 3 weeks, and that it is primarily to address the tenant issue in near neighborhood of UND, thinks the ordinance would have been better designed if it had not allowed parking in front yards of non-owner occupied rental properties, not every yard in town or every home site has large parking areas, lots have long driveways to a rear garage and if park in the driveway, cannot get a car in or out of the garage, and if moving vehicles in or out of the garage, then park a car on your front lawn. He stated the other issue is when a citizen comes and fills out a request and if have to sit here all night waiting for their time to talk and even if tabled, it would be fairer to the people to speak on something that concerns them. Council Member Hamerlik stated you can park in the front yard but it has to be surfaced and that is based on the sq. footage and impervious portion of the lot.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS


6. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated they had received a copy of the letter that Info. sent out to the School Board, the County and the Park re. the new city channel and extending use to those groups for either advertising or putting their meetings on; would like to see this sent to Airport Authority, PSAP Board, Event Center Commission, Library, etc. or whoever might want to use that and might want to look at it ourselves for work sessions, committee meetings and other meetings we have, and if serious about being available and accessible to the public, let's put all of our other meetings on that we are scheduling and opening it up to those other groups.

Council Member Brooks stated he received mail re. input for mayor's speech to the city, and has his input on that in terms of the main issues that he sees for this year.

2) Council Member Glassheim stated it is an advantage if both the audience and the council starts from a factual basis and moves to opinion, often we have opinions or comments before information is presented, and would like to see staff go first to present information and then discuss.

He stated there is still the issue of Riverside Pool and asked to refer that to the finance/ development committee and get it resolved.

3) Council Member Christensen stated he enjoyed the conversation tonight on the parking downtown - had good staff participation, reasonable people, good reports and trying to solve a common problem; and great to see two projects coming forward and soon to be a third with Brownstone II next fall. He thanked council and mayor for allowing them to put together that committee two years ago that started this process and great staff participation.

3) Council Member Kerian stated that she wrote a letter announcing that she would not be running for re-election to this office, that it occurred to her that it would be a couple weeks before this meeting where she could make the announcement and wanted to give people in her ward an opportunity to think about their interest in running for that office, and is open to any questions anyone has as well as mayor's office and staff to know what is involved with that She stated there is a presentation that is being developed in cooperation with School District, Park District, County Commission and City Council to give more information about what it takes to run and some of the work that is involved in these various boards.
She congratulated Steve Light and Catherine Rand who were on C Span 2, talking about their book, The Indian Gaming & Tribal Sovereignty, moment of pride to see Grand Forks represented and did an excellent job and had good and useful information.

5) Council Member Kreun stated many items have been long range planning issues, the parking issue near Amazing Grains and moved the pump station in the design stage for the dike to accommodate some of that area; and other long range planning issues were the Events Commission appointment, the senior rider issue, the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the downtown area, have to sit back and take a good look at some of theses issues to see if it benefits the community, the county and the state; and take open minded look to make our community grow and develop the way it should.

6) Council Member Gershman stated we had a wonderful article in the New York Times on Friday, very positive and pictures great, and on Sunday the Times did the same type of article about Minneapolis by same reporter and proud that he chose Grand Forks in the upper Midwest.

He stated that 7 years ago the conversation in Grand Forks was walk away from downtown and don't put any money in, Urban Development Committee took a great amount of hits as well as John O'Leary who took plan to redevelop downtown Grand Forks, and very controversial, and took tremendous fortitude to do that; and the things that council did after the flood which were so difficult and this was one of the most important things that council did and respect them and this community owes them a big thank you.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor