City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City of Grand Forks, North Dakota December 17, 2008 1. MEMBERS PRESENT The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Tom Hagness, Dr. Lyle Hall, Bill Hutchison, Curt Kreun, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek and Dana Sande. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown and John Drees. A quorum was present. Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planning Director; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department); and Bruce Melin, representing Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: None. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2008. Lee asked if there were any corrections or changes to the minutes of November 5^th, 2008. There were no corrections or changes to the minutes. Lee said the minutes would stand approved as presented. Gengler explained the reason for the delay of the of the December 3^rd meeting to December 17^th was due to the Herald’s lack of publishing the public hearing notices for the meeting. However, the delay has not caused undue hardship since building at this time of year is not an option. Hagness asked what the problem was with the Herald publishing the notices since it had happened the last two months. Gengler said staff had addressed the issue with the Herald and would continue to do so. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES. 3-1. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM GATEWAY STORAGE LLP, AND BRITTON TRANSPORT, ON BEHALF OF GATEWAY STORAGE, LLP, BRITTON TRANSPORT AND VIOLET KORYNTA, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE I-2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 4^TH RESUBDIVISION AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, KORYNTA-LEMM 2^ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED WEST OF NORTH 48^TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 17^TH AVENUE NORTH. Brooks reviewed the request by showing the location of the property on the map. The request is to rezone the property from B-3 to I-2. There is a small portion that extends to the Gateway frontage road that will remain B-3 but the remainder of the property will be changed to I-2. The entire property will be replatted to reflect the portion that remains B-3 and the properties that will be I-2 zoning. The rezoning is consistent with the 2035 land use plan. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the rezoning request. When asked about annexation of the property, Brooks explained that none of the property would be annexed at this time. When the owner applies for a building permit, annexation will be required. Hagness asked if the property would be annexed lot by lot. Brooks replied yes, because there are different owners of the property. Hagness stated the property should be annexed as a whole. Brooks explained that as each property is annexed, additional property might be taken to make it contiguous to the city limits. He reminded commission members this is the same policy that was used recently when annexing the Coss property on 42^nd Street for the proposed hotel. Christensen asked if talks with the owners had occurred on the annexation issue. Brooks said it was discussed at the preliminary approval commission meeting held in October. This item was held in November and again in December because of the failure by GF Herald to publish the public hearing notice so it had been two months since the commission had reviewed the issue. At that time, there was no problem from commission members on the method of annexation. Gengler stated the phased annexation is the same as what was allowed for the Strata property as well as the hotel on 42^nd Street. However, no guarantees have been made to any owners of the properties. At this time, there have been no requests for a building permit or utilities. This is only a zoning change. Staff is being consistent with the annexation policy but if the commission wants a more aggressive approach, that can be discussed. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY ADAMS TO APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF KEVIN PIERCE AND DR. ABDELHAMID AHMED, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 1, (OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 1) SHADYRIDGE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, AND LOCATED AT 1013 SHADYRIDGE DRIVE. Lee reminded commission members that since the request is a fast track, there is only one meeting before the commission and would be the only meeting for them to ask questions. Durrenberger reviewed the request by indicating on a map the location of the property. One property owner’s driveway is located on a lot line. The request is to change the lot line so the driveway is totally on the property owner’s lot. The westerly lot will be reduced from 454 feet to 438 feet. Staff recommendation is for final approve of the replat subject to the technical changes. Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY: 1. Submit title opinion. 2. Show current 100-year flood line. 3. Include current 100-year flood line. 4. Show limits of existing L.O.M.A.’s on both Lots A and B. 5. Add the following general notes to the plat: a. A site plan with current elevations shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Some or all of the property on this plat may be located in a flood hazard zone, floodplain of floodway and the city of Grand Forks makes no representations of warranties regarding the construction upon said lots, or the construction of flood protection to serve the platted area, or the provision of any utility service to the platted areas. In addition, the city of Grand Forks makes no representations or warranties regarding the uninterrupted supply of any utility service to the property within the platted area that may ultimately be developed without the protection of flood protection. c. Based on F.E.M.A., F.I.R.M. 3835680015d dated 9/27/1985, and revised to reflect L.O.M.A. effective August 2, 2007, the 100-Year floodplain elevation in the vicinity of this plat is 834.0. However, the best available information is that F.E.M.A will be implementing a new FIRM Map in the near future with a base flood elevation of approximately 836.00. There is an existing L.O.M.A. of record for lots A and B, Block 1, dated 4/17/2008. d. Any dwelling to be constructed on land platted herein shall have a finished ground elevation around the entire perimeter of the structure of 837.00 which is 1 foot higher than the best available base flood elevation at the time of platting. Portions of the area platted herein is within the 100-year floodplain. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ICON ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF JKV INVESTMENTS LLC (BOBCAT OF GRAND FORKS), FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, JORDANS ADDITION AND AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 22 TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 3903 GATEWAY DRIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MACHINERY SALES AND SERVICE (SECTION 18-0216(3)(G)). Gengler reviewed the conditional use permit (CUP) by giving some background information. In 2003, the owner of Bobcat requested a CUP for machinery sales and service for the property fronting onto Gateway Drive. A CUP is required by code because of exterior storage of equipment. A CUP was granted for the property and the request will be an extension of that CUP for the south lot. There have been many issues and concerns for the neighborhood such as drainage and controversy over whether the subject property should be commercial or residential. A year ago, the property was rezoned from R-4 (restricted to 16 residential units) to B-3 (commercial). As part of the approval process for the rezoning, the owner was required to install a fence, hiding the property to the residential properties located south of 13^th Avenue North. That requirement has been completed. The owner had a vinyl fence installed that runs the entire length of the south and east lot lines. Landscaping is also a requirement and that will be accomplished in the future. Because of a desire by the owner to extend the business, he requested the CUP to cover the additional property (located off 13^th Avenue North). Gengler showed a map of the location of the property in relationship to adjoining commercial properties as well as residential properties. Since drainage is one of the primary issues for the entire neighborhood, the site plan shows a holding pond design similar to the one at the apartment building located east of the Bobcat property. Post-development runoff cannot exceed pre-development amounts. Gengler noted the Magellan pipeline easement cuts through the lot adjacent to 13^th Avenue North. The owner is requesting the use of crushed concrete surface rather than an impervious surface. Installing an impervious surface (85%) on the area would have an adverse effect on the overall drainage in the area. Planning and engineering staff will review the matter. Regardless of the material used, the drainage has to be addressed. Lee opened the public hearing. Lyle Nelson, 1218 Shakespeare Road, said his picture window looks onto 13^th Avenue North and the Bobcat business is what he views. Over the years, the hope was that single family or patio homes would be built on the other side of 13^th Avenue North, but they have been told by contractors that it is not feasible to do so. The owners agreed to a compromise in January, 2007, that the Bobcat owner be allowed exterior storage of the equipment as long as a fence was installed as a barrier. He noted the Bobcat owner put up a nice fence. His concern is the wording of the CUP that states “that the expanded area will be utilized for equipment storage, potential future buildings and other uses.” He is against any storage buildings being built on the property as well as access onto 13^TH Avenue North. At one time, there was a plan to build a three-story 48 bed apartment building and it was determined not to be compatible with single-family residences. The neighbors have been willing to compromise, but this is not fair for the homeowners in the area. He also talked about the 12-plex apartment building being built in the area and the fact that there are 48 bedrooms but only 32 parking spaces. Dr. Hall asked if the owner could sell the back lot. Gengler answered that he could since the properties are separate and there were no buildings on the back lot. However, access would be an issue for the lot. Sande said the property is zoned B-3 for general business and wanted to know if Mr. Nelson would prefer the multi-family zoning. Mr. Nelson replied he would. Gengler said there is always a need to look out for property owners’ rights in residential areas, but often one sides’ rights are protected to the extent that hardship is created on others’ rights. The property has been zoned B-3 for many years and has remained vacant because of the difficulties in working with the neighborhood. Several developers have proposed developments but finally had to walk away from it because of failing to come to some agreement with the surrounding residential property owners. There have always been issues with congestion and drainage. The property is not in a PUD where specific designations of land use are allowed. A conventional rezoning just changes from one land use to another. In rezoning the property, extra steps were considered such as the bufferyard and the fence. The owner of the Bobcat business has compromised much more than others. The vinyl fence was not required but it is a very nice fence. The property is zoned B-3 and is subject to B-3 uses. Hagness asked if a business could have access across from a residential area. Gengler replied that commercial zoning could not access across from R-1 or R-2 zoned areas, but the direct access requested by the owner on the westerly edge of the property is located across from R-4 zoning and that is allowed. The code does not specify whether it’s the driveway or the whole property or the whole zoning district. A discussion followed regarding the 12-plex apartment building being constructed and the number of parking stalls for the entire building. Gengler explained that the parking ratio was based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. Hagness asked if the code had been changed in regard to parking ratios and Gengler answered there had been no changes made in the parking ratios for many years that he was aware of. Mr. Nelson said it was not an apartment building; it was really a dormitory. Lee asked about the wording used for the CUP regarding future potential building. Gengler said the zoning was in place to allow the owner to park equipment on the lot but the ordinance does not make any promises or guarantees for certain land uses. It is a conventional zoning. Christensen said Mr. Hagness had been on the commission a long time. He noted this was conditional use permit creep. If the owner wants to build a building on the lot and not have ingress or egress to the lot from 13^th Avenue North, he should be allowed to do so. He would have to access onto Gateway Drive. There have been many instances of various developments in that area and the people have spoken against it. Whatever is in the code is an interpretation or opinion. The people in the area around 13^th Avenue North want the traffic to be minimized and the city has tried to accommodate the people in that area. Hutchison said the last time there was a discussion on the area was when the three apartment buildings were being proposed. At that discussion, there were many people at the meeting. He asked if there were other people concerned about the project beside Mr. Nelson since no one else was present to speak on the issue. He remembered the objections being traffic and drainage, with drainage being the major concern. The plan to use crushed concrete would probably help in that regard but he agreed that there should be no access onto 13^th Avenue North. There will still be a drainage problem in that area no matter what was constructed. Has there been any plans to address the drainage issue in the future? Gengler stated Terry Bjerke, councilman for the area, had two neighborhood meetings to discuss zoning and drainage issues. Options were discussed for the drainage. The engineering department presented options based on cost, one being a storm sewer pipe that would run from the area to the coulee. That option was very expensive. There were other options presented about ponding to control the issue. Every option would require some buy-in from the homeowners through an assessment district. In absence of a formal request from the neighborhood to do something for the entire area, the city is dealing with each individual site. Hutchison asked what type of building is being contemplated for the Bobcat lot. Jason Vasichek, Bobcat owner, stated he was not intending to create a lot of traffic on the lot. His concern is that if he ever decided to sell the lot in back, how would access for the lot occur? He noted there is not a gate in the fence that was installed. The lot is for future use and his intention is to have a structure for cold storage. It will not be a building to do business. He would gain nothing to have traffic back there. For his business, the best access is off Gateway Drive. However, he does not want property that does not include access and the property becomes useless. He said he had the fence installed to appease the neighborhood. Hagness asked if Mr. Vasichek would agree to an access agreement if he sold off the lot to allow the new owner access through his property? He does not agree with the CUP if access is to be allowed on 13^th Avenue North. Mr. Vasichek said the zoning has gone back and forth between R-4 and B-3 and if multi-family was allowed on the lot, there would be much more traffic going onto 13^th Avenue North than there would be with his business. He wants to make sure access can be on the lot for the future so he does not have to keep coming back to the city. Hagness said Mr. Vasichek would have to provide access for that property through his business onto Gateway Drive. He wants to appease the neighborhood. Grasser suggested the CUP should tie the access to Gateway Drive and not include the building. If in the future, there is a specific need for a building, then Mr. Vasichek would have to come back to the city for an additional CUP. Kreun said the zoning issue for the property has gone back and forth for years and traffic has been a concern for the neighborhood. He remembered that in February, 2007, there was not to be access from the property onto 13^th Avenue North. After a drainage plan is in place and if a building is constructed, the parking area would have to be hard-surfaced. The building cannot be built on top of the pipeline. There should be a permanent agreement for the back lot to have access through the front property onto Gateway Drive frontage road. This would alleviate the bone of contention with the neighborhood. Gengler said access, future paving, etc. could be addressed through the CUP. Kreun stated more landscaping on the property to enhance the area would be beneficial. He suggested more trees on the berm and on the backside. That would help with the buffering between commercial and residential. Gengler stated the following zoning districts exist on 13^th Avenue North between Stanford and the railroad tracks: R-3, B-3, R-2, and R-4. The zoning is very inconsistent and has created problems in the area. He also noted that the remainder of the parcel that is vacant and zoned B-3, there is access control, but access is provided onto 13^th Avenue North by virtue of the plat. Robert Drees asked if access for the apartment building is on 13^th Avenue North and Gengler said yes. Lee asked if there was anyone else from the audience to speak on the issue. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. The issue was returned to the commission. Malm said that years ago a solution was suggested and still possible. The solution was to build a rear access road from the Valley Dairy and access back off Stanford Road. Malm also expressed the wish that the fence be well cared for in the future. MOTION BY HAGNESS AND SECOND BY HUTCHISON TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CUP WITH NO INGRESS OR EGRESS ONTO 13^TH AVENUE NORTH AND THE PROPERTY IS TO BE HARD SURFACED IF THE BUILDING IS BUILT ON THE EASTERN PORTION. Galloway said the city is hand-cuffing the owner by not allowing access to the back property. Lee reopened the public hearing in order for Mr. Nelson to speak again. Mr. Nelson said he has to look at the apartment building and now will have to look at huge storage buildings. Their agreement with the city was for outside storage, not for a building. Is he going to have to look across at a building? Christensen said yes, because the property is zoned B-3, a commercial zoning. The city has worked and struggled with the area because of the myriad of zoning. The commission is trying to make sure there is no access onto 13^th Avenue North based on comments from homeowners in the past. That was the reason for stopping the developers constructing the three apartment buildings. As long as the Bob Cat owner wants to utilize his property and build a building, he can - as along as it is buffered properly. It is unfortunate that Mr. Nelson’s home is located on the corner. Jason Vasichek said his plan is not to build a huge building. It will be to store equipment during the winter. He noted he could have installed a chain link fence instead of the vinyl fence that cost $24,000, but he did that to appease the homeowners behind his business. Mark Aubol, city street superintendent, stated he could work with park district and plant some evergreens in the area and it would help obscure the building. Matejcek stated that 20 years ago, Charlie’s Bakery wanted to build a bakery and 60 people or more opposed it so it did not get built. He also pointed out that with a B-3 zoning, there could be a heliport, car wash, laundries, etc. on the lot. The Bobcat business is less obtrusive than other things that are allowed under the B-3 zoning. Mr. Vasichek has a right to make a living on the lots he owns. Hutchison said the park district would work with Mr. Aubol in planting the evergreens. Grasser asked if the commission is agreeable to the aggregate base for the property until a building is proposed and once the building is requested, the property must be hard surfaced. Kreun said that was the intent. Christensen asked that the engineering department work up a solution for the drainage issues and also create a special assessment district for the drainage problem. The city might have to find some funds to help the people in that area with the drainage issue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-4. (FINAL APPROVAL) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MATT WINJUM AND AARON HENDRICKS, ON BEHALF OF RHOMBUS GUYS PIZZA, FOR APPROVAL TO VACATE A FOUR (4) FEET BY TWENTY (20) FEET PORTION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 26, TOWN OF GRAND FORKS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT 312 KITTSON AVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A COMMERCIAL COOLER. Gengler reviewed the vacation request from the owners of the Rhombus Guys Pizza by showing a photo of the business located adjacent to an alleyway. The request is to vacate a four (4’) feet by twenty (20’) feet portion of the alley to install a commercial cooler on the exterior southwest side of the building. The doors of the cooler would open to the alleyway. The alleyway is 20 feet from building to building with a sanitary line also running through the alley. Gengler pointed out the existing stairwell that has been attached to the building for many years and is a necessity because there is no other internal access between the first and second floor of the building. The request for the cooler would extend somewhat beyond the staircase. After reviewing the request with other city departments, planning staff does not support the request for vacation of a portion of the alley. Snow removal is the major problem in the alleyway and staff is concerned about the liability on the part of the city if the cooler is damaged. Gengler also noted that owners are discussing the re-development and renovation of the internal part of the business but that is not part of the request for vacation. Dr. Hall asked if they could get an easement to use the property for their use instead of vacating a portion of the alley. Gengler said the result would still be the same as far as liability to the city. It is uncommon to request a portion of the alley, especially one that is high functioning and includes parking for businesses. Galloway asked if the garbage containers for the various businesses were all located in the alley. Gengler answered there were garbage dumpsters, recycling bins, etc in the alley for the use of the various businesses. Normally there would be just enough room for two vehicles to pass but during wintertime, there is already a undue hardship on the traffic and businesses. Grasser spoke on the deep utilities located in the alley and said it was very tight to get in the alleyway now to do repair work; the garbage dumpsters and recycling bins can be moved. The stairwell is more difficult but it could be moved also, but a structure with footings like the cooler would present a more difficult level of issues to deal with. The doors of the cooler opening into the alleyway would present a safety concern with the traffic zone. Lee asked if the cooler with the doors opening into the alleyway is the only style available. Aaron Hendricks and Matt Winjum, owners/partners of the Rhombus Guys Pizza, spoke to the commission. They said there are other designs that open on the ends but felt the other style better fit their needs. Mr. Hendricks stated business had been very good, however, their kitchen and cooler area has become very cramped and they needed something to alleviate that. The cooler they want outside would fit completely under the staircase. He showed a picture of the cooler. The existing staircase, along with the air-conditioner and gas meter are already grandfathered in. He read a statement that they take full responsibility of maintaining the cleanliness of the area by moving garbage, snow and other debris that might be on site. The street sweeper never makes it within a few feet of the building; they do the maintenance of that throughout the summer and winter. The snowplows actually create more snow close to the building and they shovel that to keep the water from seeping into the basement of their building. The cooler will be relatively lightweight when empty and easy to move in case repairs need to be made to the sanitary line. It will not have a footing, be attached to the building or to the ground. There has not been work done in the alley for the past 20 years. Considering all the other utility equipment and obstructions such as poles, gas meters and guard rails, the cooler/shed will require little power to move. It can be winched on a trailer and moved easily. He noted the garbage dumpster sticks out further in the alleyway than any other object. Cars will be able to pass each other even with the cooler in place. Delivery trucks and beer trucks travel down the center of the alley and they are hard to pass but that is a problem wherever they are. The doors to the cooler will be open when the beer truck is delivering. The previous owner had a fenced in area in the place where they propose to have the cooler. This is the area where he kept his motorcycle and there were no problems with that. Mr. Hendricks noted another structure almost identical to what they are proposing is located under a stairwell also. The owners did not have authorization for the shed, but it has not been a major problem to streets and sanitation. The restaurant has been doing very well and they believe the vacation would remove a burden in the cold storage space. Mr. Winjum stated they are also in talks with city staff about continued growth and the vacation will determine how and what they can do. Lee asked about security. Mr. Hendricks said it was unlikely that someone would try to steal the cooler unit since it would be loaded with kegs of beer and be very heavy. The cooler will be locked and there is currently a security camera system set up in the restaurant. That would be included outside also. Hagness asked who would be liable if someone is hit by a vehicle when the doors are open. Mr. Hendricks said the doors would open flat against the cooler with hooks that would lock the doors back. Hagness said he never remembered vacating an area when utilities are in place. Christensen said the vacation allows ownership of the land to the business owners and he could not support that. He said he was interested in the fact that something similar is attached to the old Meadowbrook building. The city might allow the cooler to be there as a condition for a year and see how it works, but if there were any problems, it would have to be removed. The city will never vacate any portion of the alley but we might permit the use. Mr. Winjum stated the city allows them to use the sidewalk for outdoor seating in the spring and summer as long as insurance liability is in place. He said he would be happy if the city would allow them an easement or conditional use permit. Christensen said it might work as long as the cooler is tucked under the stairs. Hutchison said he was concerned about the traffic and liability with the cooler doors open. Mr. Winjum said there would never be a keg outside; all kegs would be stored in the cooler. The only time the doors would be open is when the beer truck is delivering the beer. They are very limited on space inside the restaurant and this was the method they found to help eliminate the cold storage issue. Only beer in kegs will be stored in the cooler in the alley. That will free up space in the other cold storage for food. There will not be constant opening and closing of the doors. It would only be opened when the beer truck comes by. By putting the cooler outside, it opened up more sale space. Mr. Winjum further stated they were not committed to the vacation; they wanted a forum to openly discuss the possibility of being able to have the cooler outside. Grasser asked if the kegs would be run through a line through the building and then dispensed. Would there be an electrical power hookup? Mr. Winjum said that was correct and also said the condenser would sit on top. It is not hard plumbed through the building. Mr. Hendricks said the connections are very loose and would not be a problem disconnecting. If the city needed to do work in the alley and gave them some notice, they could disconnect the beer lines and electrical connections. Mark Aubol, city street superintendent, suggest commission members go and view the alley. It is very very difficult to maintain it and to run the machinery through it. The alley is very difficult to clean. There is a lot of traffic through the alley. The street department has damaged areas in the alley and would hate to damage the cooler. He would hate to see that type of investment be ruined. Gengler said the vacation obviously would not work. If the city allows it, it would have to be through an encroachment agreement as well as the “hold harmless” agreement. Easements are more or less a permanent easement and are labeled on a plat. The encroachment agreement is a simpler process but still a legally binding document. Normally the engineering department handles the encroachment agreement but this particular one might need to be sent to the city council. The commission could direct staff to develop an encroachment agreement. Christensen suggested the encroachment agreement go through the safety/service committee. Lee asked how long the owners had been in the building. Mr. Winjum said they had been in the building for two years. He did not think the snow plows had hit the dumpsters in the alley. Mr. Aubol stated he had been with the city for 32 years and the dumpsters had been hit as well as the bottom of the staircase. One gas meter was also taken out by the snowplow. He also said there was a safety concern with the pedestrian traffic that crosses the alley on the sidewalk. At one time, there was a sign that read “honk your horn” to let pedestrians know a vehicle was in the alley. The containers in the alley are movable and are changed out periodically. When metal containers were in place, they would have to be moved when the snowplow cleaned the alley. The buildings are old and the roofs are not in the best shape, consequently there is a lot of runoff off the buildings as well as ice on the buildings. This is true of every alley in the downtown. Malm asked if they owned the whole building and was told yes. Mr. Winjum said they live upstairs. The desire is to turn the entire building into a restaurant as well as having a roof top bar in the summertime. Malm asked if they could expand into the other building. Mr. Winjum said they would love to but Mr. Sampson was not receptive to selling them any of the building next to them. Kreun asked about the width of the staircase. Mr. Winjum said the landing at top was four feet but the staircase section was three feet wide. Kreun said the cooler would stick out past the staircase. The commission wants them to succeed and wants to work with them, however, vacating the area is not the thing to do. MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY MALM TO DENY THE VACATION REQUEST. Sande suggested they try to find a place for the cooler inside the restaurant with their renovations. Mr. Winjum said whatever renovations they make to allow more seating, would be impeded by the cooler. Their future plans to renovate the building also would require another staircase going the opposite direction. Hagness asked that Mr. Aubol be included in the discussions for any type of encroachment agreement. Without his okay, it would be hard to approve it. Grasser said they have to be careful about setting a precedent. The more this type of thing is allowed, the harder it is to tell someone else no. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Christensen suggested to the Rhombus Guys owners to be mindful of the entire project and if they come back to the city, they should present their whole plan. Maybe the cooler could be raised up high enough not to interfere with the snowplow. 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Gengler said Steve Adams’ appointment to the GF-EGF MPO expires this month. MOTION BY DR. HALL AND SECOND BY SANDE TO REAPPOINT ADAMS TO THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY KREUN AND SECOND BY HAGNESS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ____________________________ Lyle A. Hall, Secretary ____________________________ Paula H. Lee, President