Council Minutes

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

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Vice President Hamerlik presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim(teleconference), Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Hamerlik - 6; absent: Council Member Gershman - 1.

Vice President Hamerlik 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.

Vice President Hamerlik comments on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
That over the weekend we had a lot of competitors in the city and local competitors helped make this a big sports city and congratulations to some of the local teams for successful season, boys and girls basketball teams, and Thief River Falls hockey team.
The Alerus Center and REA staff deserve plaudits for putting on very well organized events and community did wonderful job with hospitality extended to visitors.
Good luck to teams that will be going on - UND men's hockey team whose season is not yet over and wish them well.
Special thank you to the street crews, not an easy winter and this past weekend very difficult for them to try to keep the streets open and clear - between rain, snow, sleet and freezing they have done a good job in keeping streets open.

2.1 Refunding Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2006A.
The city auditor reported they will be refunding bond issues of 1996B and 1997C, issued
those bonds at a 5.2% and 4.8% interest rate and believe we can refinance those for about 3.8% interest rate and save net present value savings of $183,260 or future value savings of about $693,000 and shorten maturity of those bonds from 2016 to 2013, and Monday night will be asking for recommendation to refund and call for sale of those bonds.

2.2 Application for transfer of Class 4 (Food & Beverage Establishment to a Class 1 (General On/Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license by Joe Black's, Inc. dba Joe Black's Bar & Grill, 118 N. 3rd Street._________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Application for abatement for 2004 taxes by Leon and Romelle Thielman,
3802 Cherry St. Unit #40.__________________________________________
There were no comments. (This has to do according to State law the taxes abated for
someone who has a physical disability).

2.4 Ordinance amending Section 2-0301, 6-0304, and 7-0101 relating to change of title from Administrative Coordinator to City Administrator._____________
There were no comments.

2.5 Application to utilize berm for parking purposes at 1322 1/2 Dyke Ave.
Council Member Brooks asked if we have granted any requests for parking on berm. Al
Grasser, city engineer, stated he didn't remember seeing any applications nor granting a request, rare. Rod Olson, property owner, and Joel Arnason, his attorney, were present to answer specific questions. Council Member Kerian stated that in reading staff report there were some neighbors who were concerned, and asked if have heard anything more from them; Mr. Grasser stated he had not heard anything more. Council Member Kreun stated several years ago at committee meeting when parking came up, this was discussed and put into ordinance form and gave ability to make an exemption in a situation similar to this. It was noted there is very little traffic in front of the repair shop. Chairman Hamerlik stated recent ordinance changes have impacted this particular business and that is why this has come forward.

2.6 Three-way construction engineering services agreement for Project No. 5702, Dist. No. 607, paving 40th Ave.S. (Reummele Road to S. 20th St.)__________
There were no comments.

2.7 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5829. Dist. N. 617, paving Southern
Estates 4th Addn. (4300 blk. of S. 25th St. and 43rd Ave.S. from S. 20th St. to
S.25th St.) and Project No. 5940, Dist. No. 620, paving S. 20th St. (40th Ave.S.
to 44th Ave.S.)_____________________________________________________
2.8 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5702, Dist. No. 607, paving 40th Ave.S. (Reummele Rd. to S. 20th St.) and Project No. 5890, Dist. No. 287,
watermain on 40th Ave.S. (2500-2700 Blks.)____________________________
2.9 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5903, 2006 Concrete Street Repairs.__________________________________________________
2.10 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5908, 2006 Sanitary Sewer Repairs and Project No. 5909 - 2006 Storm Sewer Repairs.__________________________
2.11 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5899, seal coat of US 81 from Gateway Drive to I-29._________________________________________
Council Member Brooks noted on Project No. 5899, bid was 26% above the engineer's estimate and asked if any concerns from staff. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated our share of the project is small relative to overall bids, our share went up from $11,149.00 to $12,570.00 because we only pay 10% of our share of urban project; that NDDoT did estimate 3 years ago and is off.

2.12 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5881, Dist. 621, paving and street lighting for Zavoral's First Addn.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5958, Dist. 159, street lighting - Adams Drive._________________________________________________
2.14 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5957, Dist. 158, street lighting for Prairiewood 1st Addn.___________________________________________
2.15 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5959, Dist. 160, street lighting in Countryview 3rd Addn._________________________________________
2.16 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5960, Dist. 161, street lighting on 44th Avenue S._________________________________________________
2.17 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5981, Dist. 162, walkway lighting, Sertoma Park.__________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.18 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5961, Dist. 442, sanitary sewer for Highland Point 1st Addn._________________________________________
2.19 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5962, Dist. 290, watermain for Highland Point 1st Addn.______________________________________
2.20 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5963, Dist. 443, storm sewer for Highland Point 1st Addn._______________________________________
2.21 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5964, Dist. 619, paving Highland Point 1st Addn.________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.22 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5948, Dist. 440, sanitary sewer for Promenade 3rd Resubdiv._________________________________________
2.23 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5949, Dist. 289, watermain for Promenade 3rd Resubdiv.______________________________________
2.24 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5950, Dist. 441, storm sewer for Promenade 3rd Resubdiv._______________________________________
2.25 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5951, Dist. 618, paving for Promenade 3rd Resubdiv.__________________________________
There were no comments.

2.26 Health Department vehicle award bid recommendations.
There were no comments.

2.27 City of Grand Forks grant match for Grand Forks Narcotics Task Force Grant 05-201.__________________________________________________
Chief Packett stated each year they have to estimate what the grant allocation may be
when they set the budget, and that with the supporting documents, the money they received this year was less that what projects and council approved the match previously for this year's budget so the Task Force Board members authorized for their jurisdiction was to go ahead and roll that money back into the task force since it was in excess on match, so will stay within the task force utilized by the 6 agencies in the task force. A city employee actually monitors the books on behalf of the City so we have the books for all 6 entities within our control.

2.28 Request for bids - C.O.P.S. Interoperative Communications Grant Funded Project._________________________________________________________
Information only. (This is setting up of specifications, is a funded project and doesn't
require council action to approve specifications but wanted to make you aware of what they were doing.). .

2.29 Matter of petition from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for approval of an ordinance to annex the south 495feet of the north 685 feet of the east 420 feet of the west 690 feet of the NW Quarter of NW Quarter of Section 27, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (containing 4.77 acres)____________
There were no comments.



2.30 Matter of request from ICON Architectural Group on behalf of ICON-McEnroe Land Development for approval of an ordinance to annex the northerly 762.72 feet of the N Half of SW Quarter of NW Quarter of Section 8, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (also known as McEnroe First Addn.) (containing 21.69 acres more or less)._________________________________
There were no comments.

2.31 Matter of request on behalf of City of Grand Forks for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Lots A and B, Block 4, Hubert's Addn. (loc. at 701 S. 5th Street)__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.32 Request from Steven L. Adams on behalf of Arthur Greenberg, Jr. for approval of an ordinance to annex all property platted as Columbia Park 28th Addn., not currently annexed, including 140 ft. south of the proposed R/W for 38th Ave.S. (loc. in S Half of NW Quarter, Section 8, T151N, R50W of Fifth P.M.)­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.33 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Arthur Greenberg for preliminary approval of an ordinance to rezone and exclude from the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) Dist. and the Columbia Park West PUD (Planned Unit Dev.) Concept Dev. Plan Amendment No. 2, and to include within the Columbia Park West PUD (Planned Unit Dev.), Concept Dev. Plan Amendment No. 3, including Johnson's West First Addn., Columbia Park 22nd Addn., the Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Columbia Park 22nd Addn., Columbia Park 23rd Addn., and Columbia Park 28th Resubdiv. (loc. in 4300 block of 36th Ave.S.)______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.34 Request from Joe Sierra for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the B-3 (General Business) Dist. and to include within R-4 (Multiple Family Residence, High Density) Dist. Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 58, Alexander and Ives Addn. (loc.at 901 N. 6th Street).___
There were no comments.

2.35 Request from Pribula Engineering & Surveying on behalf of Lavonne Adams for preliminary approval of plat of Ridgeview Addn. (loc. at 8th Street NE and one-half mile south of County Road 6).____________________________
Kirk Tingum, attorney representing Lavonne Adams, that Jerry Pribula, surveyor was
present, reported that all requirements have been complied with and approved by Planning and Zoning, that this application was in and processed prior to the enactment of the proposed 2-mile moratorium; that Ms. Adams has paid fees and expended money toward survey and the plat and has relied upon the law and zoning requirements as they exist, the perspective character of this development is similar to the developments in the surrounding area, property is located south of the Country Club golf course and there are other developments in that area , Ms. Adams has developed properties in the past and request that they consider approval of this.

Council Member Christensen stated as this is for first reading of an ordinance and if pass the moratorium on the 20th where would this item come in. Brad Gengler, interim city planner, stated that the council would not have second reading of the ordinance for the moratorium until April 17 which is tracked in same timeline for this plat and would appear on the same agenda,
that he spoke with Mr. Swanson regarding the matter and he indicated that since the plat had been submitted, application received, that it would be processed accordingly.

Mr. Gengler stated there is a ring road in the center of the plat and identified as an 80 ft. private roadway and public utility easement, the only dedicated right of way shown on the plat is a strip of land to the east adjacent to the plat identifying a street northeast as being dedicated, otherwise everything internally will be private. Council Member Christensen asked how this fits in with our overall plan assuming this would be granted, and asked if Planning has latitude of saying what type of roads will have and if can set standards even though private roads handled by the developer. Mr. Gengler stated they could to the extent that it is shown as 80 ft. of roadway easement rather than public right of way, they do have some reference in our Code that all private streets must be constructed to city specifications as if it were a public street and that is what they essentially rely on in code review that the ordinance does state that they need to be constructed appropriately, and over time since this isn't a dedicated roadway the city doesn't assume maintenance nor construction costs, and could look into that to see what specifically may need to put as a plat requirement if that is going to be a concern.

Council Member Christensen stated that recognizing this will come at the same time as the moratorium is considered, that we have some appropriate standards applied so that when this comes into the city we're going to have dedicated and some appropriate streets within this interior and also behooves those that are going to purchase the lots and we should begin the creation of the standards that we require in these type of subdivisions or at least have a common thread of types of streets we expect.

Mr. Gengler stated a standard right of way for local streets is 80 ft. and that does in today's terms essentially holds that in reserve for some day in the future if they are to be dedicated to the public and are already established at 80 ft. and there won't be any development on them.

Council Member Christensen stated that if it is within your purview to say will approve it but within a certain point in time the streets will be blacktopped, not gravel, and should put that on the plat so that the purchasers of the properties realize that they will have an enforcement mechanism to get the developer to put in paved streets, otherwise it will be gravel. Mr. Gengler stated they could look into the appropriate place for the language.

Council Member Kerian asked if this plat is coming in differently or using any other standards than you would have used 6 months ago when this came up and what were those standards in terms of streets. Mr. Gengler stated that they are standard subdivision regulations which have been in place for many years and that this is treated as an A-2 development and those are the development rules they look to so there is nothing different about this than any other non-formed single family subdivision that they have dealt with for a number of years, is the standard 2 1/2 acre lot concept. Council Member Kerian stated we have some lots in the city that have internal streets and how do we treat those differently, do we have curb and gutter standards, etc. when they want internal streets within a division in town. Mr. Gengler stated that over time we have had many condominium-style, townhome-style developments that are platted but only have private roadways and those private roadways are usually constructed according to - drainage is good thing to look at, have to have proper drainage in order to do that, most often curb and gutter because the water has to be channeled to the appropriate places, maybe not a 6" curb but it’s a ways of dealing with drainage and those types of things. Council Member Kerian stated that going forward we may want to change something but not sure why we would hold this particular property to a different standard until we have made some changes, and would be in favor of pursuing this as have in the past.

Mr. Tingum stated that Mr. Gengler has a copy of the survey and does address in the notes Mr. Christensen's questions and indicates that the streets would become dedicated streets at the time the property was to be annexed.

Council Member Christensen stated he wasn't concerned about the streets being dedicated, but more concerned that the standards of the construction of the streets be noted on the plat so that the individuals who will own these lots know what their threshold is, and thinks they have the power to do that as far as the type of private streets that they would permit within this type of subdivision, that is what he is speaking to, otherwise there is nothing on this plat.

2.36 Request from Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance relating to the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan; Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to Year 2035 Land Use Plan.__________________________________________________________
Earl Haugen, Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization,
made a brief presentation of the 2035 Land Use Plan, that included in the staff report was a copy of Chapter 3 which is the goal objectives and policies, and available on the website grandforksgov.com\landuse is this material for anyone to get into a more detailed depth than he can cover in his presentation. He stated Land Use Planning has been engaged in 50+ years and this latest effort is trying to build upon the past efforts, not trying to re-create or create anything outstandingly new but re-emphasize what is already there.

Council Member Glassheim stated one of his concerns has to do with the amount of land and the length of time to take over zoning regulations, that he had a map and did some rough calculations and his sense is that in 1950 the city of Grand Forks had 8 sections, that took 50 years to grow out from 13th Avenue South, and now have 20 sections for the city of Grand Forks, that the 2-mile area contains about 49 sections and using growth rate that we have had in the past and four times as much land as to get from 1950 to 2000 and seems that we're taking zoning regulations over 200 years of growth, that he favors zoning ands orderly development, but if he is close to right that's a lot for us to deal with, and asked if anybody can speak to the amount of time it would take us to fill in the two-mile zone and then within the two to four miles zones in years.

Chairman Hamerlik questioned whether those comments are under item 2.39 rather than under this one. Council Member Glassheim stated that 2.39 was relating to the moratorium.

Council Member Christensen stated Mr. Haugen and his group have pretty well preserved most of the two to four mile corridor as A-1 and nothing is going to change, the farmers are going to farm, etc , the idea is to preserve the area for the future of this community. He stated that Mr. Haugen and Mr. Gengler and those involved in the 2035 process have listened to all the people that have concerns and incorporated their concerns as part of the development of their districts, and really not going to be changing that much; we just passed at the MPO on Friday a resolution to put out an RFP to continue the process so that we have a good set of regulations and ordinances developed after we extend the jurisdiction and that's why he hopes this moratorium is put into effect so that this council along with the consultants that will be retained or continue to use, assist us in developing a good set of planning and zoning documents, that he believes the last set of documents that governed 2.5 acres were done in the early 1980's, about the same time as they changed the Land Use Code, and is probably is time to readdress the issue.

Council Member Glassheim stated that really didn't address the question but how much do we really need, and his understanding is that 2035 Plan really is Tier 1, and that holding Tier 2 in reserve to 2050 or 2060 and then Tier 3 which we're holding in further reserve and this estimate is that it will take 200 years to populate that. He stated that certain areas shouldn't be taken or put into the 2 to 4 mile reserve, but his question is do we need to zone for 200 years, if there are certain places outside DeMers where we feel there might be development that we want to reserve, but this is a very large part around the city and his estimate that it will take 200 years at present growth rate and that is too long, but there is a lot of square acreage where we are and where realistically proceed for 100 years or more.

Earl Haugen stated Mr. Glassheim was at the Planning and Zoning Commission but for the benefit of others, there is a difference in jurisdictional area and growth area, part of the success the city has had in growth management in the past has been utilizing the jurisdictional area to the fullest extent that it can, jurisdictional area is different than the area than the area that you want growth to occur in, and through the tiered system the city has always controlled that. That in the Year 2000 Plan that was adopted 20 years ago the ET area was a two-mile arc at that time but all of the growth that the city planned to the year 2000 was contiguous and pertained to the city so as they talk about how the city hasn't physically expanded out two miles, four miles and won't for several hundred years, the reason for that has been the good planning that has taken place in the past of focusing all that growth into the compact contiguous area of Grand Forks. The Year 2015 Plan also addressed it as the same, again there is more jurisdictional area that the city has but the actual growth area the city wants growth to occur in is a lot smaller square footage than the two mile or four mile area would be and there is a distinction between jurisdictional area and growth area, and tried to display on several maps; and in the 2035 Land Use Plan again with the tier system with only showing growth occurring in Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas. The Tier 1 area if they are able to achieve the compact contiguous development that they are seeking that would last them to the year 2035, if they don't achieve that compact contiguous development they will be taking up more land that is more inefficient and ineffective for the citizens of the future.

Council Member Glassheim stated another question that in discussions with County staff, what is the difference between what we want to do and what the County wants and could we change our goals through further negotiations with the County for some of the 2 to 4 mile area.

Mr. Gengler stated to some degree the two items are interrelated, but what the County is doing, and essentially the county is following the process that the City is, they are doing their Long Range Land Use Plan and looking at the moratorium, but what they have in their Land Use Plan for the area in question would be two options had been laid out for the County as far as development potential, either a one for 40 density requirement or a 1 for 10 cluster environment where is you had a 100 acre parcel you could only put 10 lots on there in a small cluster, 10 one acre lots, the remaining acreage would then remain dormant or undevelopable as it stands, and that is what the County is looking at and that we should all remember that if the City weren't doing this a similar situation would still be occurring through the County as they want to control their development patterns and have their own rural county related issues. He stated the process as they will discuss with the moratorium, when we extend our boundaries everything within that two to four area will automatically convert to A-2, the standard city definition of an A-2, so we have all the zoning, all the regulations in place with the intent then that once the moratorium becomes effective then we go back and take a second look because both are A-1 and A-2 regulations are old as dirt, a lot of it just does not relate to the reality of rural settings now, and that is why we are doing it.

Council Member Glassheim stated his question is do we have to assume control of the entire two to four mile area or does the County retain control of some portions of that and will they have regulations that control growth in a reasonable fashion, or are we going to be severely hurt because the County has jurisdiction.

Mr. Gengler stated that the course of action that we set out starting late December or early January set the schedule for that extension and may have been discussed as far as what if we allowed the County to do their thing and we wouldn't, but the general consensus was to pursue the two mile extension and to follow suit with our Land Use Plan, the County has recognized that although they continue to charge on with their plans, that on March 21 pending other issues will have their moratorium in effect and it will extend out even farther and are going to go with what they refer to as reserve residential area extending beyond the four miles. Council Member Glassheim stated that the County is not too happy with this and doesn't know who made the decision, and trying to find out whether the City has made a reasonable decision or taking the powers they have and why getting so much land under our jurisdiction.

Council Member Brooks stated the two agenda items do tie together and Mr. Glassheim did research and put some good questions before us, that he looks at what is before us and boundaries here and how the city has growth and speaks for planning and that is what we need to do but when looking at the two to four mile area, that puts a new twist to long term planning in terms of when we are going to develop out there as a city, that we're not going to be out there for a long time and we have to be very careful as to how do these things and how we put regulations out there; it is a process we have to go through and staff doing an excellent job and when he looks at this to see if this is really something we should be doing or maybe a decade or two or three or another generation away be looking at that. We're going to come to a vote on this and voted preliminarily once and not seeing that he can go along with this, feels that area from two to four miles is an area we're not going to be in very soon. Not all that long ago Grand Forks County didn't have any kind of a planning function, have one now and looking at those issues and perhaps let them look at that for awhile to see how they develop it.

Council Member Kerian stated there is difference of opinion and Mr. Haugen pointed out the difference between jurisdiction and growth area, we are not concerned about whether we grow into that area but concerned about is how the growth occurs and when you don't manage the land that you have the ability to manage, then take whatever comes and the County may or may not agree with way we want to proceed and that is everybody's right to speak to this but that we need to do what we think is best for the city, taking account and setting those longer term expectations and planning this far in advance is hard but planning shorter in advance is harder.

Council Member Glassheim stated he has more concerns - that heard land prices within the city of Grand Forks are rather high and they attribute to high housing costs and if in a matter of economic policy we wouldn't be better off encouraging competition on cheaper land if that would not help us to bring prices of land within the city limits controlled by not too many individuals and not heard discussion on this but does seem if cheaper farm land devoted to housing you would start housing near the city and bring down land prices as well.

Council Member Christensen stated that the people that develop out there don't have to pay for infrastructure that you have adjacent to our community, for extension of sewer, water, streets, fire protection, etc. and that won't cause the price of the lots to go down very much, in areas in Fargo, Bismarck, etc. if development within the 2 mile area or within 4 mile area they require the developer to bring in subdivisions that have the same design specifications as a subdivision within the city. He stated that when the city grows out there you have the ability to connect, that if have 2.5 acres and don't require standards as to streets, sewer, etc. then have hodge-podge within community as those areas are annexed, when brought into the city should comply with the infrastructure requirements that are internal to the city so have an orderly process, this is jurisdictional, not zoning and all the requirements that go with the A-2 area are yet to be determined, that is the second step in this planning process, just preserving the area, recognizing some of the issues that have been brought up.

Mr. Haugen stated there are several sections besides A-2 of the city land development code that need to be revised, and that is the next step, that once we adopt the plan that shows how we would like the growth to go, then develop the zoning code and subdivision regulations to implement those concepts, and next step will take us to the end of the year.

Council Member Glassheim stated his understanding of supply and demand is that if you narrow amount of land on which to build, you're going to have to raise prices of land and increase the supply of land to build and require an equal kind of designs and you would bring more land to compete with the existing and does seem there is some pressure on the price of lots within the planned growth area.

Council Member Glassheim stated if we do adopt this would recommend that we add something to the citizen participation section, which requires P & Z staff to meet once a year with township reps. in the 2 to 4 mile zone and give comments and report back to Planning and Zoning and to the council and that would be a small addition to the citizen participation goal of the 2035 Plan.

Council Member Kreun stated we've blended this between items 2.36 and 2.39 on the moratorium, if recall at the last Planning and Zoning this item (extraterritorial extension to 4 miles) and the Land Use Plan were tabled and since that time have gone to the Land Use subcommittee. He stated that staff gave them 4 options and option that was agreed to by 5 members of the subcommittee - the motion was to extend the ET to 4 miles, allow the automatic conversion of 2 to 4 mile area to the A-2, which is agricultural district, pass a moratorium on all new subdivision plats within the entire 4 mile ET area, the moratorium is anticipated to run through the remainder of this calendar year, that the moratorium is on the code revisions; and it is continued to address all matters relating to the impact within the entire 4 mile area and work on the code revisions and request the County to enact a moratorium around the airport and rural residential districts, that was passed at the subcommittee meeting for Land Use and that will go back and be recommended to Planning and Zoning, and thinks if we want to be consistent we can entertain that portion or include that in this 2.36 or 2.39 item, not sure where that would fit to incorporate that so that we're all basically saying the same thing at the same time. Mr. Gengler stated it would probably be appropriately addressed at item 2.39.

Council Member Kreun stated it is important that we take and pass our preliminary approval of our Land Use Plan because this is all included in that and the issue is a planning document that we are able to use for growth closer to the city and now have agreed in subcommittee to those items and thinks the County will agree with that. There was a county commissioner on there, Mr. Drees is rep. from outside area, Dr. Kweit, Paula Lee and himself were on committee and agreed on that and thinks should bring that forward in item 2.39.

Chairman Hamerlik stated it has been requested that be put in writing so council and others may see it in script form. Council Member Kreun asked that it be e-mailed and also put in their packets for next Monday, and also the attachments were part of that motion and to insure that the definition of farm was included so individuals who have a farmstead that son or daughter could build house on that farmstead. He asked Mr. Haugen to give information that was in the motion and e-mail as quickly as can and put in packets for next Monday. Chairman Hamerlik stated there were others that would like to see that information and hope its available on website or distributed in some way.

Mr. Haugen stated the action that is being mentioned and had it identified at the Land Use Subcommittee last Tuesday as Option C, previously had an Option A and B, and the third option after meeting with the city attorney spelled out that they could extend out four (4) miles and zone that whole area as A-2 and that would be a text amendment that would be required and not a map amendment to the official zoning map, just text amendment; the A-2 is automatically in your text and designated zone as you extend your extraterritorial area out. Again the two to four mile area would show up as an A-2 zone in your zoning books and the A-2 district zoning regulations that you currently have would be applied. The moratorium is on new subdivision plats, building permits in the zero to four mile area would still be available to everybody as long as they have a legal lot of record recorded as of whatever date you designate, March 20 seems to be the appropriate one, on the County moratorium is of more land that just the two to four mile area, there also might be a time gap between the County's imposition of the moratorium, they may be able to achieve that March 21, where the City would not be able to achieve it until April 17, and showed County's area on a map and it encompasses more area around the airport and also down to and passed Hwy. 15 or the community of Thompson to the south; that they asked the County to work cooperatively with the method of going through this process to extend their moratorium not to just the two-four mile area and the airport but in their County Land Use Plan they have designated the extent of this area outside the two to four mile area as their rural residential area where they would allow the old 2.5 acre indiscriminate development, rural, non-farm development, to occur and so even we and the County agreed that from the two to four mile area we should have the one per 40, their offering the option of clustering as soon as we got out of that boundary, the County was going to go back to the 2.5 acre, non-farm development, that we're trying to control within the two to four mile area; and now they are agreeing to revisit that in their plan. Addressing the existing non-farm by going to A-2 there are a permitted use in the A-2 zone, eliminates virtually all of the non-conforming issues that were coming up, they are sharing the same regulations that the rest of the city's ET area has governing them, and all building permits should be issued assuming that the other requirements can be met, and an idea of what the minimal differences there are between the current County's A-1 zone and the City's A-2 zone, both require 2.5 acre lot and some requirements that the County has that are more onus than the City and some that the City has that are less; but for most persons the difference is negligible that they would experience with their development. Farm dwellings - one of the things we were asked to look at is under the clearance city code, farm dwellings are allowed only if connected with the farmers or farm employees, we have text amendments that would allow a total of 3 dwellings to be permitted on a farm, your current text does not have a cap on the number of dwellings and this would allow 3, and allow two of the additional dwellings to be either for farm family members or for their employees, and that once that farm quits operation as a farm, then those lots can be converted to non-farm residential.

Bob Lizakowski, Route 1, Grand Forks, stated that in pushing zoning out there, if that will tax the farmers and ranchers more out there, that most of the farmers have already been taxed more on their land, and why are taxes going up out there. Several council members stated that zoning does not give taxing authority, and only time there is a tax change is when the land is actually annexed into the city, other than that the County has jurisdiction over the taxing authority; that this body does not tax outside the city limits. Chairman Hamerlik asked that Mr. Gengler speak with Mr. Lizakowski with better explanation.

2.37 Request from engineering department for preliminary approval of an ordinance amending the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Chapter XVIII, Land Development Code, adopting Article 12, Storm Water Management, relating to storm water management rules and regulations.______________________________________________________
Council Member Christensen stated that paragraph 1 of the ordinance, storm
water pollution prevention plans within the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, why is it necessary that we regulate construction on these 2.5 acre lots that are already in existence. Mr. Grasser stated we are required by the Federal Clean Water Act in the State of ND to adopt these ordinances, that we have received an opinion from the Attorney General and their indications are that we need to adopt that within our zoning jurisdiction. He stated the Storm Water Prevention rules are going to be required and in our area there are three permits that the State has written, the University of North Dakota is going to govern the areas they are responsible for, City is going to govern our areas that we are responsible for, and the County will govern their areas, and the questionable area was ET and is an overlap area. The County should be adopting very similar regulations to what we have and these rules before us are the construction site erosion control rules, and there are going to be more onus rules that will be coming down that we have to adopt within the next year, and has to do with post construction management of runoff pollutants which is going to get into some ponds, etc.

Mr. Grasser stated the city permit fee that they are recommending is $10.0; and their plan is to sketch out the erosion control plan for individual homeowners so that when they come in to get the permit, they will have the basics of a plan that they can implement, we are going to try to make that as minimal as possible - that is going to mean that when removing dirt and have excavation activities you put up some berming or seeding so that when it rains your runoff doesn't end up in the ditch, in the rural areas that would be a ditch and into a legal drain or in urban areas that means it would go into our gutter, down storm sewer and into the coulee or the river. He stated they realize that will be difficult for the individual homeowners to figure out what a plan is, and disadvantage in trying to understand where it is that we're going with it. He stated we get caught up in the regulations because they are part of a subdivision that is more than an acre. Council Member Christensen suggested that as part of the approval of future subdivisions that you require the developer do plans, etc. for any future plats. Mr. Grasser stated there is a two-step process - one is review at the subdivision level and when there is an actual site plan when somebody is building a commercial building, there would be a more detailed plan because you have more information to work with; at the platting level you really don't have a lot of detail about where the stockpiles might be, etc. and the two-step process and the subdivision level is basic, only writing permit and second step in on the site plan and those will be newer regulations that we haven't had to deal with on the construction side, and that these are things that the contractors need in order to be compliant so that we don't have EPA and other coming down and enforcing those regulations.

Dennis Hansen, Brenna Township, stated that he has lived there 22 years and about 9 miles from City Hall, that he built a deck and had to get a permit from the City, and now is going to have to shingle his house and has to get a permit, and questioned why he has to get a permit from the City. It was stated because he is within our current two-mile jurisdiction. Mr. Hansen stated that is one of the reasons people are fighting this and when you go to the four mile jurisdiction everybody west of County Road 5 wants to shingle house or build a deck or garage,