Council Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
March 20, 2006
The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, March 20, 2006 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen (teleconference), Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.
Mayor Brown announced that anyone wishing to speak to any item may do so by being recognized prior to a vote being taken on the matter, and that the meeting is being televised.
Mayor Brown commented on various events during the past week and upcoming events
He thanked everyone who participated in the Pandemic Flu Tabletop exercise last week, and look into future to develop the best plan possible for the most people.
Congratulations to UND hockey team for a thrilling weekend and the victory of the Boadmore Trophy for the WCHA Tournament and with the win are expecting more outstanding things this weekend.
He thanked crew at REA for getting the NCAA West Regionals and giving us the opportunity to support our team as they play the first round of the NCAA playoffs.
He stated this week is the UND Writers Conference and is a cultural gem and brings international recognition to our community, best wishes to organizers and participants.
Arrowsmith will be at the Alerus Center this weekend.
Remember to welcome everyone to our town whether here for the hockey, concert or writers conference.
There's a lot going on downtown, and more planned, and thanked council members and staff for keeping focused on this task of continuing to revitalize our community center and thanks to private citizens and businesses who are residents and partners of downtown.
Greg Hoover, Urban Development, reported that they have been talking with developers of Elite Brownstones, 27 condos going in on 3rd Street, and they have indicated that they are going to begin work and break ground the first or second week in April and are looking forward to additional projects with them downtown and catalyst for further development downtown. He recognized first catalyst, Metropolitan Opera House, and Lonnie Laffen from JGL Architects is here to tell you about their project.
Lonnie Laffen, JGL Architects, announced that they are getting close to the end of the Opera House, wrapping up construction, and invited all of you and the entire community to an open house on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., will have the entire building open and will be the only chance for the community to see this, not a real estate showing but just an open house to see how it turned out and the weekend after that will be moving residents in; and thanked them for making it happen.
ADD ITEM TO THE AGENDA DELAY IN BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION
Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated that it might be prudent to extend the Board of Equalization from April 11 to possibly the first week in May, that the council would have to take action tonight to accomplish that, and would have to be an added item to the agenda. Council Members Kerian and Kreun moved to amend the agenda to include this item.
Mr. Carsen reported that notices of increase will have to go out later than first thought and would not give the property owners enough time to address their concerns; that the City Board of Equalization is set by statute to be the second Tuesday in April, which is April 11, the County Board of Equalization which is the next date they have to meet is either the first or second Tuesday of June; and from our first meeting in April until the County Board meets is two months time, and is asking for about three weeks of that to handle concerns before there is actually a city Board of Equalization. He also noted that the Board of Equalization is made up of the city council members, and that people who wish to protest their taxes or appraisal have to file that before that time in writing or at that meeting, and refer them to a subcommittee who hears each of the protesters individually, they formally protest in writing or verbally that evening and review in detail at a later date.
Upon call for the question to place this item on tonight's agenda, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4125, TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
ORDINANCE
An ordinance amending Section 8-0201, repealing Section 8-0310, and amending Sections 8-0311, 8-0506, 8-0603, 8-0605 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Traffic and Motor Vehicles; repealing Sections 9-0109 and 9-0113 and adopting Sections 9-0113, 9-0114, 9-0115, 9-0116, 9-0117, 9-0118, 9-0119, 9-0120, 9-0121, 9-0122, 9-0123, 9-0124, 9-0125, 9-0126, 9-0127, and 9-0128 and repealing Sections 9-0202, 9-0204, 9-0205, 9-0206, 9-0209, 9-0210, 9-0212, 9-0213, 9-0301, and 9-0302 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions; adopting Section 11-0128 and amending Section 11-0204, 11-0214, and 11-0305 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Animals and Fowl; amending section 12-0115 and 12-0408 and repealing Sections 12-0301 and 12-0302 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Fire Protection and Prevention; and amending Section 13-1106 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on March 6, 2006, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the hearing was closed.
Howard Swanson, city attorney, asked for two minor amendments to the draft ordinance, first amendment to Section 11-0204 which relates to animal cruelty and care of animals, there is a reference in that section to the municipal court maintaining a jury trial, that municipal court has no jurisdiction to hold jury trials under state law and is asking that the sentence that refers to jury trials be deleted; and second minor amendment amends Section 12-0408 which relates to the transportation of flammable or hazardous materials through the city, the present fine is established as a flat fine of $50.00 and the municipal judge has asked to establish that fine up to a maximum of $500.00, and with those two amendments the ordinance is in order for consideration and final approval.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kerian to amend the ordinance as requested. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance, as amended, and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
APPROVE FINAL PLAT; ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4126,
AMENDING STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE
PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON THE PLAT
OF SOUTHERN ESTATES 5TH ADDITION
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the Street and Highway Plan of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to include the public rights of way shown as dedicated on the plat of Southern Estates 5th Addition, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading on February 21, 2006, and upon which public hearing was scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing this evening, and further that to date he had received no written protests on this matter.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing there were no comments, and the public hearing was closed.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Southern Estates LLP for final approval of the plat of Southern Estates Fifth Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located west of South 20th Street between the Southend Drainway and 43rd Avenue South), and to include approval of a variance to the subdivision regulations Section 18-0907 (2)(I) relating to rights of way width for local streets, with recommendation to give final approval to the plat, to include approval of a variance to the subdivision regulations Section 18-0907(2)(I) relating to rights of way width for local streets, subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and to give final approval of an ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan (Note: Approval of this plat will supercede the previously approved, but not recorded, plat of the same name, which received final approval by the city council in November, 2005.)
It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of this ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4127, AMENDING CHAPTER
XVIII, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 2, ZONING,
SECTIONS 18-0217, 18-0216, 18-0218, AND 18-0219,
RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USES FOR INDOOR
SHOOTING GALLERIES AND RANGES
An ordinance amending the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, Chapter XVIII, Land Development Code, Article 2, Zoning; Section 18-0217 B-4 (Central Business) District, Subsection (3) Conditional Uses; Section 18-0216 B-3 (General 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", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on February 21, 2006, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening, and further to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from the Planning Department for final 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 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, with recommendation to grant final approval to the ordinance.
It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question of adoption of this ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
ADJUST AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Swanson stated that agenda items 3-5 and 3-4 should be reversed because logically you cannot amend the zoning map until you have extended your jurisdiction to include the area that you are attempting to rezone. He also noted that item 3-4 would require 5 affirmative votes to pass, and item 3-5 which is an amendment to text would require 4 votes. He stated have to have the jurisdiction before you can amend the map and the jurisdiction does not create any particular zone but gives you the authority to establish a zone within the area of the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
It was moved by Council Member Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Gershman to consider item 3.5, which amends the text of the City Code. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4128, AMENDING SECTIONS
OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF EXTRA-
TERRITORIAL ZONING AND SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION
AND THE EXERCISE OF THE CITY'S AUTHORITY
An ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Sections 18-0101, 18-0201, 18-0202, 18-0801, and 18-0902 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to the designation of extraterritorial zoning and subdivision jurisdiction and the exercise of the City's authority therein", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on February 21, 2006, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening, and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Beau Bateman, 6500 32nd Avenue South, appeared on behalf of Brenna Township, that they are in charge of large area, 19 sq. miles, but with far fewer people - little over 700 on last census, and asked if the zoning would be A-2 as recommended at the Planning & Zoning meeting or if remain A-1 on the 2 to 4. Council Member Kreun stated they would recommend that it would change to A-2 as in the Land Use Subcommittee; and thinks they are in agreement that that is what they were trying to accomplish. Mr. Bateman stated he sees conflict in item 3.4 where it says to rezone to the A-1 and questioned when A-2 would be brought in. Brad Gengler, interim city planner, stated the Land Use Subcommittee met on March 7 so it was post planning and zoning action, and originally the idea was to extend the boundary and go A-1 and then attempt to rezone the individual subdivisions, then realized it would be easier to call the area between 2 and 4 miles as A-2 and abide by our existing zoning rules that are in place, esp. regarding the non-farm single family dwellings; that with the moratorium that they are proposing that would call a time out on all new subdivisions and new rezonings until we can formalize the required code amendments; and that we are now talking strictly A-2 (Ag Reserve) zoning for that area.
Council Member Kreun stated he, Mr. Gengler and Mr. Bateman are understanding with the Land Use Subcommittee is that they have three separate issues and moratorium was confused in the beginning at the Planning and Zoning meeting with the ET extension and one of the reasons you need the ET (extraterritorial) extension is so they can complete their Land Use Plan which would include the code revisions over the period of time that they have the moratorium, and need three separate motions and they are in the packet so they can accomplish what they agreed to at the subcommittee level.
Council Member Glassheim stated before they go forward with discussion he would like to have a vote on tabling, that he doesn't like to preclude discussion but that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended on a 10 to 5 vote that we do table this, that it would go back to Planning and Zoning Commission and there would first be discussion and negotiation in the broader body of Planning and Zoning as to how it would be carried out and what it would mean, the Land Use subcommittee is a committee of Planning and Zoning which reports back to Planning and Zoning. He stated we are going to be adopting regulations or zoning authority that probably covers 200 years of development, and wrong way to proceed by passing it before there is full understanding of what it means.
Council Member Brooks stated he believes in planning but feels more strongly about partnerships in the region and importance of them, long term planning is good but delay on this certainly isn't going to mess long term planning up, and that when Glassheim makes motion, would need some timeframe or motion with effective date.
Council Member Hamerlik stated in materials they received that staff is working with Mr. Swanson's Office and will present any changes to the amended language tonight, and what is status. Mr. Gengler stated after original ordinance presented, looked at some of the details re. farm dwelling definitions, fireworks operations, etc. and that language is included, and discussed some concerns about the language and provisions they were stating, that these are suggested recommended amendments but are not critical to the ordinance as it exists today; that the other text amendment that is in front of you could pass without this language, but this was the language that was reflected in lot of the concerns presented to both staff and subcommittee re. how does one further subdivide an existing farmstead, etc. and pending that not sure if Mr. Swanson had any suggested revisions to this language, and if pursue approval tonight then we are left with the option of essentially not addressing the second part of these amended motions and direct staff to fine-tune and bring back at subsequent meeting. He stated these last minute amendments came out of discussion at Planning and Zoning as well as the subcommittee and attempt to address many of the concerns that were submitted to them regarding farm operations, definition of a farm, sales of fireworks.
Mr. Swanson stated as he reviewed those materials they seemed to be more consistent with the work activity that the staff and subcommittee wants to do during the period of the moratorium as opposed to being directly related to the extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and understood the intention behind the proposed language and the sections being proposed to be amended are not the same sections that would be amended in the consideration of adopting extraterritorial jurisdiction of up to 4 miles.
Mr. Swanson stated he thinks there is some misconception with the intention of the jurisdiction and the effect of that, by present Code any new land coming within the city's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction will be automatically zoned A-2, those rules are in place and if you were to approve an extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction from two miles to four miles, that new land will be zoned A-2 and those properties within that extraterritorial jurisdiction would be governed by your existing A-2 regulations, but anyone to be affected by that can identify what the impact is, and what he understands and goes back to earlier comments the suggestions that have been made by the subcommittee don't change the impact of the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction unless you change the particular provisions contained within each individual zone, in particular those being addressed here would be A-2 and A-1 and the third possibility that he is going to suggest at some point in time is more likely to be looked at is the section on non-conforming properties and non-conforming uses, that has not been discussed, that in the transitional meeting he raised the issue then that that is the area they should be focusing on, and so what really needs to be done, whether do it in the context of a moratorium or general study or otherwise outside of the 2 to 4 mile debate is a discussion on the particular changes to individual zones or the non-conforming use section.
Council Member Glassheim moved to table consideration of this ordinance until after the April Planning and Zoning meeting. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Glassheim, Brooks, Hamerlik - 3; voting "nay": Council Members Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 4. Mayor Brown declared the motion failed.
Beau Bateman stated the reason there are not a lot of people at tonight's meeting as were at the meeting of the Planning and Zoning is that their understanding was that a moratorium would be in effect, that there would be gentleman's agreement between the County who currently controls that area and said that there will be no development until we resolve these issues and that the fact that the City would do the same. He stated if you vote to take your 2 to 4 tonight you become the zoning body and the County's position is moot and the people no longer have any say in it. The issue of A-2 was important to the homeowners in their township and sounds like that is resolved. He stated that Mr. Swanson had said there are other issues of non-conformance and they exist beyond those that are addressed by going to A-2. The second group of people that called him are the landowners and they feel the restriction from the County's recommendation of 16 houses on a quarter to the City's recommendation which will be 1 unit per 40 acres or 4 houses on a quarter section, and that is an economic hardship for the landowners. He noted there is concern that the farmers have, an issue that they are protecting farmland is in conflict with their experience, the farmland has been within the city's zoning and within the city's limits and have annexed with protest, and the annual cost to farmland that has been annexed into the city of Grand Forks against its will, that doesn't have services, and not a need for fire department or police protection as there are no buildings and paying a carrying cost of $325.00 an acre annually, which tends to make those people sell their land because the return is not there agriculturally. He stated in their discussions with the city of Fargo who has had the ET since 1998 and the city of Bismarck who has had it since 2003, they both indicate a very tight relationship with their counties, Cass and Burleigh, and would encourage the city of Grand Forks' city council to explore that same kind of relationship, the County seems to be intent on controlling some of the growth as well, similar to what the city of Grand Forks is trying to do, and if could work together you would see more harmony on the rural side, and more support for the overall effort if get a conjoined effort in that regard.
Council Member Kreun stated it is organized development between the County and the City, the City has the jurisdiction to do that and the responsibility overall in the long run and that is why trying to do it so there is one person that they go to or answer to rather than two; have the A-2 situation taken care of - that everybody in those areas is not going to be affected because already grandfathered in, it is the new developments that will be affected but the people that have already platted and have existing plats are going to be able to develop under the old scenario. Mr. Bateman stated their concern was that there are some non-conforming uses that aren't covered by A-2. Council Member Kreun stated they need to know the distance so they know what areas to plan for and part of the non-conforming issue will know where have to plan for and trying to get to the 4 mile limit so know what have to do. Mr. Bateman stated that hopefully let the County be the zoning body from 3 to 4 and recommend that the City take the 2 to 3 miles.
Robert Drees, Brenna Township, pleaded with council not to take the 4 miles all the way in every direction, that it will literally stop the development in their township and their township depends on development for its tax base and if go beyond County Road 5 or in Walle Township much more south of County Road 6 or Merrifield Road, you will be going a long ways past your 2035 Land Use Plan and the possibility of development that far, and they suggested a plan of just taking the corridors, and if your concern is the development along the corridors, take the major corridors, leave the rest of it alone, and let the County do that, the County now requires a plat and the surveyor goes out there and they know whether they are under County jurisdiction or City jurisdiction , and he doesn't know if the consultant was asked to look at a corridor system or not as wasn't involved in the earlier meetings. According to Mr. Bateman's statistics on population, their township would be the third most populated area in the county of Grand Forks, there are a lot of people with a lot of concerns in their township and many of those concerns have been heard, and most of the people in the township would like to know what the rules are first, and is here pleading with council not to take the whole 4 miles in every direction, take it where feel you need it, take the corridors but leave the land out there as farmland and now with the expertise that the county planner has, the rest of that will get figured out even though you don't have the zoning in addition to what the corridors are.
Council Member Kreun stated from the beginning that they were not going to change the individuals that were already there and that was part of the A-2 scenario, that it has never been their intention to disrupt the existing people that are already there. Mr. Drees stated it is best for the city and probably not for the township. Council Member Kreun thinks in the long run it will be, and only for new developments.
Council Member Christensen stated that all the people that have platted and plats in place, not being changed for them, all the people that own lots whether built on or intend to build on them, not changed, and if it moves forward with the 4 mile jurisdiction, that there will be no more approval of. 2.5 acre lots until the details have been worked out; that there won’t be more lots in Brenna Township and people that want to develop their land will probably be smaller lots which will consider more agricultural land, and if a person wants to develop out there not subject to our taxes or special assessments, just planning and zoning. Mr. Drees stated it was his understanding that whether it was under the County Code or City Code the developments would be limited to 4 houses, 1 per 40 on a quarter section, and that the number of houses that would be allowed to be built would be 4. Council Member Christensen stated his understanding that they don't have proposal for discussion from land use development. Council Member Kreun stated there are some variations that do take place and that is why they need the 4-mile limit so they know how to plan for it.
Council Member Hamerlik asked about the areas that are in the process. Mr. Gengler stated the moratorium as stated in the staff report will essentially exclude existing platted lots of record subdivision, those will be allowed to be continued to be developed as is if they are vacant, and will also place the moratorium on rezoning requests because that would be tied in with the same issues, and the moratorium would affect the further subdivision of existing plats, and if owned a 5-acre lot today, the moratorium would say you have to hold off on further subdividing until done with the study of the rules, but the base lot, 5 aces, could be constructed upon. Council Member Hamerlik asked if that was fair to those who have things in process now. Mr. Gengler stated he thinks that is fair to the process, and at that point it becomes a matter of procedure and perhaps a matter of law whether or not an application is submitted during the planning process and that if any subdivision plat within the jurisdiction that will receive final approval prior to the adoption of the moratorium would be in effect, however, those in mid-stream or haven't been submitted yet for new subdivisions, would have to be put on hold.
The question was asked that if the moratorium passes tonight, when would it go into effect. Mr. Swanson stated the moratorium is presented in the form of an ordinance, which would require two readings, and believes final would be April 3 that it could be before you. Council Member Gershman stated his understanding was the same as Mr. Hamerlik's, that anything in the pipeline and that if they have started the process it is only fair that they go through with that. Mr. Gengler stated that the course that the moratorium is on, would go to the Planning & Zoning Commission the first Wednesday in April and would follow with second reading on April 17; and it is his understanding that anything that would be given final approval on the same effective date as the moratorium April 17, and any plat on that agenda would have to be honored and approved, however, anything that has yet to receive final approval would fall under the jurisdiction of the moratorium.
Mr. Swanson stated that Mr. Gengler explained it correctly and that the draft of the moratorium ordinance if it came back to whatever date, that it need not go back to Planning & Zoning if you chose not to, if it goes back to Planning and Zoning it would be before you on the 17th, if you would like to have an exemption that would allow the council to act on matters, whether rezoning requests or subdivision matters that had been submitted prior to a certain date that can be accommodated, and without an amendment to that effect in the language, it will go based upon final adoption, anything adopted on the same day or same meeting will be considered to be effective, and will not depend upon the order of the agenda.
Mr. Swanson stated the draft of the moratorium is intended to preclude a race to an application, and if the council is of the opinion that there should be some allowance for matters that have been submitted, that can be accommodated, and all you need to do is determine by what date you wish to have - could pick today's date, or earlier date.
Mr. Gengler stated that if they choose to take that route, keep in mind that we have in code the standard submittal timelines for plats, and if a major subdivision that requires dedication, etc. applications are due 14 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, if a fast track replat that involves no dedications, those plats are typically required to be submitted 21 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, knowing that the intent is the next Planning and Zoning Commission would be the earliest opportunity for anything to get on the agenda. He stated there could be county plats within the 2 to 4 that are in some preliminary stage of approval.
Tom Thompson, Walle Township, stated that once this process is through, is there still going to be an A-1 zone or has that been eliminated, or A-2. Mr. Swanson stated he didn't think anyone can tell you that it will be permanently A-2, under our current code it would come in as A-2 and as either development occurs or need occurs, it could be rezoned, and that is no different than any district presently existing in the middle of the city of Grand Forks, know what the zone is today but at some future time or some future council it could be potentially rezoned or a new zone created.
Mr. Gengler stated our existing A-1 and A-2 zoning regulations are completely out of date, things have changed and it is time to take a serious look at, there are required changes that benefit both parties, the City as well as those out in the County, and with the moratorium aspect involved, that gives us opportunity to talk about some of the things addressed in the subcommittee as far as sending out surveys, forming various study groups and getting people in to talk about what existing conditions are vs. what the current A-1 and A-2 regulations are. Council Member Kreun stated it doesn't mean that it is going to change, that they are going to go through a study process to see what it should be, your particular area may stay A-2, it potentially could and County could change your zoning at that point in time, within the city certain things change as development takes place and could change - that is part of development that takes place throughout the whole county, but in the beginning it is going to be A-2 and stay that way unless there is another reason and goes along with how the land is developed.
Jim Dubois, Walle Township, asked what the difference is between A-1 and A-2 Districts. Mr. Gengler stated that A-1 is Limited Development District and is intended to be your ag district where just farms, farm dwellings and farm operations and few other permitted uses, and A-2 is Agricultural Reserve District, allows standard non-farm subdivisions and includes all uses covered in the A-1 District. Mr. Dubois stated that Thompson gives them fire protection and police by the County and if the City goes out to the 4 mile limit, and what will happen there. Mayor Brown stated no change.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Mr. Swanson stated if attempting to give final approval to 18-0101, 18-0201, 18-0202, 18-0801 and 18-0902 no amendments are needed, but if seeking to amend the other provisions identified you would need to amend the ordinance as it was originally introduced.
Council Member Kreun moved to adopt the ordinance as introduced. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.
Council Member Glassheim stated would like to vote again on putting this off, and asked if anybody has looked at 3 miles, 3.5 miles, certain directions that they want to grow, his concern is that we are over reaching and taking too much and no rationale for it except that we are allowed to or if any report about other ways of doing this. Mr. Gengler stated the only other options that he is aware of was when they discussed corridor preservations and identifying specific corridors and excluding others, not aware of anything that was in detail that did discuss a 3 mile or 3.5 or 4.
Upon call for the question on the motion to approve the ordinance and upon roll call vote, the following voted "aye": Council Member Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 4; voting "nay": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 3. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4129, EXTENDING THE
EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION TO FOUR
MILES BEYOND CORPORATE LIMITS SHOWN ON MAP
ENTITLED "EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTION MAP"
An ordinance entitled "an ordinance to extend the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to four (4) miles beyond corporate limits and to rezone to the A-1 Limited Development District all those lands lying between two (2) miles and four (4) miles of the corporate limits as shown on the map attached hereto", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on February 21, 2006, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.
The city auditor reported that the required legal notice had been published calling for a public hearing to be held on this matter this evening and further that to date no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gengler stated the actual ordinance that has been submitted back to council does not make reference to the A-1 District, that language was taken out, and the ordinance now is strictly taking the two (2) mile line and extending it to four (4).
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gengler stated they have looked at A-1 and realized that A-2 would be a much more accommodating district for both the City's purposes as well as the County's to address those existing subdivisions, what is being proposed to be taken out is the reference to A-1 because the existing code now states that any extension of our boundary line automatically converts these properties to A-2
Council Member Glassheim asked what would be the effect of not passing this ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated it would be moot and have no effect, that is assuming you are not trying to change to A-1, by operation of your code it will come in as A-2.
Council Member Kerian moved, seconded by Council Member Kreun, to amend the ordinance which would include the A-2 designation rather than the A-1. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Member Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman - 6; voting "nay": Council Member Hamerlik - 1.
Upon call for the question of adoption of the ordinance, as amended, and upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Kerian, Kreun, Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen - 7; voting 'nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the ordinance adopted.
DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 620, PROJECT NO. 5940
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Paving District No. 620, Project No. 5940, construction of paving on South 20th Street from 40th Avenue South to 44th Avenue South, had expired on March 20, 2006, and that he had received no written protests.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Gershman introduced the following resolution as to protests which was presented and read: Document No. 8847 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Paving District No. 620, Project No 5940, as no protests were filed, and further that the resolution be adopted. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
DETERMINE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST ON PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 617, PROJECT NO. 5829
The city auditor reported that the period for filing protests on the resolution of necessity for the improvements in and for Paving District No. 617, Project No. 5829, construction of paving in Southern Estates 4th Addition, 4300 block of South 25th Street and on 43rd Avenue South from South 20th Street to South 25th Street, had expired on March 20, 2006, and that he had received no written protests.
Mayor Brown called upon the audience to see if there was anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were none.
Council Member Gershman introduced the following resolution as to protests which was presented and read: Document No. 8848 - Resolution.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we find and determine an insufficiency of protest against Paving District No. 617, Project No 5829, as no protests were filed, and further that the resolution be adopted. Carried 7 votes affirmative.
ADOPT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SALE OF REFUNDING
IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2006A
The staff report from the finance department relating to Refunding Improvement Refunding bonds, Series 2006A, with recommendation to approve the refunding of Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 1996B and 1997C and adopt Resolution relating to Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A, calling for the sale thereof.
Council Member Kerian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Document No. 8849 - Resolution relating to Refunding Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2006A.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Kreun and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the city auditor.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR
LICENSE FROM JOE DIMAGGIO'S SPORTS CAFÉ TO
JOE BLACK'S, INC.
The application for transfer of Class 4 (Food and Beverage Establishment) to a Class 1 (General On/Off Sale Alcoholic Beverages) from J & M Restaurant, Inc. dba Joe DiMaggio's Sports Café, by Joe Black's, Inc. dba Joe Black's Bar & Grill, 118 North 3rd Street, with recommendation to approve issuance of the license contingent upon the approval of the city attorney and the police department and sign off by appropriate departments.
It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved.
Council Member Gershman asked to be recused from voting on this matter, and it was so moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Brooks. Carried 6 votes affirmative.
Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Gershman recused.
APPROVE ABATEMENT OF 2004 TAXES ON PROPERTY
AT 3802 CHERRY STREET, UNIT #40
The staff report from the city assessor relating to application for abatement for 2004 taxes by Leon and Romelle Thielman, 3802 Cherry Street, Unit #40, with recommendation to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that application be approved as submitted.
It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that this recommendation be approved, and further that we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the city attorney. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO CHANGE
OF TITLE TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR
The staff report from the city attorney relating to ordinance amending Sections 2-0301, 6-0304, and 7-0101 relating to change of title from administrative coordinator to city administrator, with recommendation to give preliminary and final approval to ordinance.