Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, December 12, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.
The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kreun. Present - 5; absent: Hamerlik, Kerian - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please complete a speaker card and give it to the staff at the control panel and when called upon to come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown stated that the Air Force Tops in Blue had performed to an audience of 2,500 and thanked them for am impressive performance. He added that this just another example of the strong relationship between the community and the Air Base.

Mayor Brown stated that he had attended the National League of Cities in Charlotte, NC last week and that there were 20 other leaders from North Dakota also in attendance, including some from Fargo. He stated that the conference gave him an opportunity to interact with leaders from throughout the nation and share ideas of things that are being done in other cities. While in attendance he joined a university city caucus and learned that some of the same concerns we have been addressing in our community have also been noted in these other communities and that some of the items that will be discussed tonight have been put in place in these other communities and have proven to be very effective and that he will be sharing those thoughts once we get to the discussion on those items.

2.1 Amendment to the Canad lease.
Gershman stated that the change in this item is only to substitute the words “destination amenity” for the words “cinema” in the existing agreement. Taras Sokolyk of CanAd stated that without the amendment to the lease the group is specifically required to build a cinema on the tract and that given the current industry lag they have not been able to secure an agreement with a firm, even though discussions remain ongoing. He stated that the change will give them the flexibility to look at other types of developments that could be done in place of a cinema.

John Foster, attorney with Zimney, Foster law firm stated that he represents the financial institutions involved in this project which includes Stearns Bank, N.A. from St. Cloud, 4 local Grand Forks financial institutions, and 6 other North Dakota financial institutions including the Bank of North Dakota and the ND Development Corp. He stated that his clients have some concerns based on some quotes from Mr. Christensen that appeared in the GF Herald several days ago in regards to the tax abatements for the three tracts of land. He continued that the quote stated that the abatement for all tracts would begin at the same time, once the entire development was completed, and that their prior understanding was that the abatement would kick in on each phase as it is completed. He continued that he has a letter from Mel Carsen, City Assessor, which states the abatement would come into effect per phase and just wants clarity from the Council that will be the case. Sokolyk stated that the hotel and water park are both scheduled to be completed and open at the same time and as such they will both kick in together, but their concern is that the other tract will be developed later and that the whole abatement not be delayed. Foster reiterated that even though they have the letter from Carsen that coincides with their earlier understanding, just wanted a clarification from the Council.

Christensen apologized for any misquote or comments that were attributed to him that could have caused concern, but noted that he did not see the article prior to its being published. He continued that he agrees with the change that is being proposed tonight and if there are any other concerns that should be addressed or an amendment to the earlier abatement that needs to be done that perhaps that should be taken up at another time. Foster responded that he just wants confirmation that the earlier documents on the abatement are still as stated and that there is no misunderstanding between the Council and their financial group. Sokolyk stated that perhaps they could talk with Duquette and request a formal letter confirming the arrangement or if it is necessary to come back to Council can get that arranged.

Swanson reviewed the document changes for the Council. Glassheim inquired if there is a significant change in that it sounds like there will no longer be a requirement to develop anything on the site. Swanson responded that there is a change, as the original agreement listed a “cinema” to be developed by a date certain, whereas the amendment will change this to be a “destination amenity” which they must use their best efforts to develop, but with no timeline for development. Sokolyk stated that the original incentive had been discussed in regard to having a water park and hotel and that the cinema had always been viewed as just one additional attraction to the development and that they will be working hard to develop an amenity even though there is no longer a firm timeline to meet.

2.2 Application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Dudley and Corinne Benson, 1609 2nd Avenue North.
Mel Carsen, City Assessor, stated that due to some health problems the applicant is not able to be here this evening and that he was presenting this item on their behalf. He added that the applicant had inquired whether a special City Council meeting could be scheduled during the day in order to allow him to attend.

Brooks stated that he is reluctant to schedule a special council meeting for this item and that perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to a standing committee or a group or representative of Council that could meet with him during the day to hear his concerns in person. Kreun commented that this item has been heard by the group before at the Board of Equalization and that he doesn’t see any new information from that time and that there have also been other appeals made and that they all sided with the valuation set by the City as being appropriate and fair and not sure what there is to justify us hearing it again.

Carsen stated that there is one other venue left for the applicant and that is to appeal in District Court and they will review the information and make a determination. Gershman asked if there has been any new information brought in by the applicant since the original abatement request was filed that would support lowering the value. Carsen stated that the only additional information supplied by the applicant was a three year old private valuation that supports the value set by the City.

Glassheim inquired if perhaps it was more appropriate to receive and file or if a vote was needed. Swanson stated that there is a requirement for a vote as this is an official abatement request and that if the council wished they could refer it to a committee for further discussion or they could act on the item on Monday. Glassheim commented that by referring to committee would give the applicant an opportunity to appear and voice his concerns in person.

2.3 Application for Class I (General On/Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) License from Toasted Frog, LLC at 124 N 3rd Street.
Gershman stated that this is the former Lola’s location and that he is excited about these gentlemen stepping forward in this business venture. He stated that because this is liquor related he will be asking to recuse himself from voting on this item. The group also noted that this is a Class 1 application meaning that there will be no minors allowed and that they have the option to allow smoking.

2.4 Amend special assessment district for Project No. 5703, paving 47th Avenue South (S. Washington St. to Belmont Road).
Glassheim inquired that the staff report states that the costs “may” be special assessed and inquired if they would be or not. Voigt explained that until the project is selected there is no exact information concerning the amount that would be special assessed, but that there will be some how much depends on the actual project design that is selected.

Christensen noted that there is an information meeting scheduled for tomorrow night on this project and that more would be known after that.

2.5 2006-2011 Urban and Regional Program Project request to NDDoT.
Kreun commented that the projects listed are those that were put in place during discussions at the Mayor Council Work Session last week and noted that the 42nd Street Underpass project had been moved back to a future year.

2.6 2006 Salary Plan update.
Daryl Hovland, HR Director, stated that the 2006 salary plan is completed. He continued that all departments have continued to review the positions in their department and made changes where they felt they could to become as efficient and productive as possible. He reviewed some of the position changes that have been made and noted that the result is a $63,000 saving for the City. He continued that there are 38 positions that need to be brought to the minimum, with a cost of $39,626 which is included in the 2006 budget.

Gershman expressed thanks for the work that is done both by the HR department and also be other departments in trying to work as smart as possible for the City.

Glassheim inquired if all the positions below the minimum will be moved up to minimum. Hovland stated that they would. Christensen inquired whether there was a way for those below the midpoint to move up. Hovland stated that if the market stayed constant that those people would move up to midpoint within a few years, but as the market is always changing they are looking at putting together a committee that can look at ways to make movement between the minimum and midpoint more stable for employees irregardless of changes in the market.

Christensen commented that another thing to keep in mind is that 25% of city employees are nearing retirement age and that we need to start looking at ways to deal with that and maybe need to look at rehires or consolidations of positions.

2.7 Budget Amendments:
a) Police Department
b) Police Department
c) Police Department
d) Central Garage, Public Works
e) Planning Department
f) Urban Development
g) Waterworks Fund
There were no comments.

2.8 2006 Chemical Bid approval for water treatment plant.
Hazel Fetters-Sletten, Superintendent of the Water Treatment Plant, stated that there was one bid from Stiles Chemical which arrived late for this year’s proposals due to a UPS problem that was not the fault of the vendor and that she would like to request that Council waive the late arrival as a minor irregularity and allow the bid to be opened. She continued that the low bidder thus far, Nalco, has in the past been a problem for them to use in that the bags are polylined and in the chemical feeding process the polyliner often separated from the bag and caused jamming problems with the equipment at the plant. She stated that the next low bidder, Calciquest also lists a poly-lined bag, but in visiting with them their polyliner is sown in so shouldn’t pose a problem with the plant operations.

Gershman stated that as long as there is documentation to show that the problem was due to UPS he was in favor of opening the bid and inquired what would need to be done to accomplish this. Swanson stated that at the Council meeting a motion would need to be made and passed authorizing the minor irregularity to be waived and the bid be opened. Brooks also concurred that as long as documentation was available to show the reason for the lateness then should not be an issue. Christensen requested a legal opinion for the meeting that the lateness should be considered a minor irregularity.

2.9 Appointment to Grand Forks City Planning & Zoning Commission.
Gershman stated that he had forwarded to the Mayor a resume from a citizen interested in serving on the Commission and that perhaps this matter should be held for two weeks to see if there are any other interested citizens. Christensen stated that perhaps the Council should look at putting some term limits on some of the appointments that are made thereby generating opportunities for new citizens to become involved and maybe tap Chamber of Commerce Leadership program grads to see if any of them would be interested in increasing their community involvement and maybe more interest would be shown if applicants knew the commitment was for “x” number of years.

Brooks noted that all of the individuals up for reappointment have a lot of experience on committees and if not reappointed to this one, perhaps ask them to serve on a different board where there is an opening.

Glassheim expressed that he is cautious about change, as people with history and knowledge are valuable and maybe this is not the best committee to start with, but maybe start with a less complicated committee and work their way up as their knowledge increases.

Mayor Brown stated that he has visited with the Planning staff and there is a learning curve for this committee with lots of information to become familiar with in dealing with the matters that come to the committee.

2.10 Ordinance authorizing police department enforcement of ordinances.
Swanson stated that the ordinance that had been included in the packets is actually the one that the Park District will be passing and that he had distributed the correct copy that will need to be passed on Monday. He stated that it is already implicitly stated in the code that police officers have the authority to enforce park district rules, but passing this ordinance will codify the authority. The group noted that while some have referred to this as being passed only due to Springfest, that there have been other problems noted throughout the year and this ordinance will also assist enforcement in those cases.

2.11 Ordinance enacting residential rental licenses.
Christensen stated that there are some minor wording corrections that he would like to work with Swanson on changing and will talk with him later on those.

Gershman commented that he still feels that having this license may work to solve a problem in one area of town and will affect the whole city and that he has strong concerns with having a fee if the license is enacted. He continued that his concern is that the increased revenue will lead to new positions being created that will then lead to an increased effort for inspections even with properties that may not need the increased enforcement.

Brooks responded that he has received photos and calls from people reporting problems in other areas of town than just the UND area and that the properties are not always rented to students and all have agreed that increased enforcement will help in mitigating these situations and in order to get this will need to have revenue to pay for the costs associated. He commented that other licenses that we have are set at a fee level to cover the costs associated with inspecting and enforcing those licenses. He added that it would be helpful in setting an appropriate fee if they could receive some information on the enforcement costs.

Gershman commented that all city staff that are out in the community on a daily basis such as refuse collectors, police officers and even neighbors should be watching for areas that are not in compliance and reporting those problems to the Inspection Department and that people have a civic responsibility to report these problems.

Kreun commented that when this was discussed at committee there were some cost estimates provided and if maybe need to look back at that information and to the committee’s recommendation to help in setting the fee and that the intent was not to charge a fee for excess revenue, but just to cover the costs. Kreun asked for clarification on hearings with the Mayor and if that is only for revocation or if they could come in for every violation that they get and appeal it. Swanson clarified that they can appeal the nonissuance of a license, a remedial plan or a revocation, but not individual violations and that he would see potentially not the Mayor, but perhaps a hearing judge or designee hearing these appeals. Kreun commented that he would like to see that there is no appeal for individual violations. Swanson commented that he has a concern with no appeal, but it could be narrowed from the current draft if that is the wishes of Council.

Christensen stated that he has a concern with cost and that there is already $35,000 in 2006 for the CSO and just wants to clarify what we want to accomplish, as right now we are discussing imposing additional costs only on single family and duplex rentals when there is not a similar charge for larger rentals. He also commented that he still believes that the list of items for violations should be more generalized, as landlords can not warrant that there tenants will not do all of these. He continued that section 21-0612 he has a problem with giving all power to enter at any time as well as 21-0614, which if it’s elsewhere in code, why we need it here. In regards to section 21-0616, Christensen commented that he feels it should be the same for 4, 6, or 8 plexes as for single family and duplex.

Swanson replied that if the Council wishes it to be narrowed that could be done. He recommended that item b be left in, as it often relates to disorderly conduct in party situations and that item c be left in as minors consuming alcohol has been a concern in many of the prior meetings. He stated that items d, e, f, g, and h are broad and though we do not currently have a lot of problems they were put in at the request of the Police Department and could be removed at their discretion. Christensen stated that the owners can not warrant conduct and shouldn’t ask them to. He stated that as long as we have in place what is necessary so that the Police can respond to a complaint and deal with the situation shouldn’t go further. Swanson stated that he has taken this list from the minutes and that it is broader issues involved than just noisy parties. He stated that the having the offenses here ties them to the notice that is given to the landlord of problems that are occurring with their property. He stated that 21-0614 is being included here as it had been requested that all applicable ordinances be able to be found in one place to make it easier for users to find. He stated that he will also need a recommendation on a fee amount prior to the passage of the ordinance. Christensen commented that he would rather see the list scaled back to only a & k and that he is not in favor of the termination of utilities section being left in. Gershman commented that the $35,000 for the CSO is already included in the 2006 budget.

Brooks stated that the Council had asked the attorney to research ordinances that are in use in similar communities and draft one that is comparable for us and he did that but if we now feel that we would like to amend that then we can do so. He added that the solution to the problem comes back to enforcement and being able to cover the cost of the proper level of enforcement needed.

Glassheim stated that the committee had recommended one additional inspector so that the inspections could be done more frequently than the current 7-10 years and if we are going to have that then need a way to pay for it and there are only two options with one being the general fund budget which means all taxpayers foot the bill or the other is fees to those that are causing the problem. He recalled that the average estimated cost was $50-90,000 and should be considered a cost of doing business just like all other licensed businesses have to pay a fee to cover the cost of their inspections. In regards to the authority to inspect, he inquired whether they already have this elsewhere in code. Swanson stated that section 21-0612 could be deleted without affecting the ordinance. He commented that section 21-0612 is included in two other ordinances and its inclusion in this section is optional and could be deleted with no enforcement affect. He stated that subsection 1 should not pose any concern, but if there is concern with subsection 2 it could be deleted.

Kreun commented that he has also received calls from constituents in his ward with similar concerns to those being expressed by the residents in the UND area and that this problem is not limited to just one area but problems are throughout the community. He stated this pertains to not only the party problems, but also parking concerns and may just be more concentrated in the UND area. In regards to the comments about why not impose anything additional on larger units like 24-plex, it is because they are units built for multi-family dwelling and are not conversions and that the intent was to try and preserve some of our entry-level homes and at the same time realize that there are some single family rentals needed and to provide those also.

Mayor Brown commented that at the caucus he participated in the most effective means of dealing with problems like we have been dealing with was through licensing, enforcement and rezoning. He added that in some communities they had passed ordinances that did not permit rentals within 1,000 feet of each other. Mayor Brown opened the floor to comments from the public.

Phil Vanyo, 18553 440th Ave SW, East Grand Forks, stated that he is a landlord and that he agrees that enforcement needs to improve but has a concern that landlords will have to pay city-wide even if they do not have a problem and seems that they are only paying to raise the response priority for complaint calls such as parking. He commented that in some cases the city utility department already knows more about his tenants than he does and maybe tap into that database if needed rather than increasing the admin costs. In regards to the increased inspections, he questioned whether there was a real need for increasing the frequency of these city-wide or if that would occur because the revenue was there to cover it. He continued that he could provide photos of several properties that are owner occupied that are just as run-down as some of the rentals they have talked about and these new ordinances will not have any effect on them and further that many times privately owned properties have parties that become loud or bothersome for neighbors too and there are no new controls being put in place to deal with that. He stated that his rentals are relatively small in size and the cost of the fees if passed as previously discussed seem too high and more like a way to penalize rental owners like him than anything else.

Marilyn Bakke, 1314 Cottonwood Street, inquired as to the purpose of the fee and if it is for enforcement that is one thing but if for administration of the registrations then not so sure agree with it. In as far as the inspections, she commented that if they are to ensure livability then maybe that is o.k. She commented that some landlords own only one or two properties and some own many, but it seems unfair to not put anything on the large apartment buildings and more should be done to treat them equally as not all landlords are irresponsible and should be some way to give credit to those who are.

Robert Maxon, 1117 29th Ave S, stated that he has owned rentals for over 25 years and that he wanted to express some concerns also as a landlord. He stated that in general he has no heartburn with registering or paying a reasonable fee, but would like to suggest that perhaps in the registration not include birthdate unless there was a purpose. Swanson responded that is typically used as an identifier when dealing with people of similar name. In regards to the three strikes, not based on three convictions in court of tenants, but if the police are called to a property three times and make a report that is a strike, but seems more like a foul ball. He suggested maybe licensing the renters instead, as if he has a renter that he evicts for problems like loud parties then renter just goes to a different landlord and the problem not solved, just moved. He continued that then if the renter lost his license to rent a single family or duplex then taken care of the problem. He showed photos of some owner occupied problems that are similar to some of the complaints about rentals. He stated that if the owner moves from the area that they are required to have a local manager and that in ND Century Code 43-2306.1 that if you manage for another person then you must have a real estate license with the only exception being that an attorney could handle that, but means that could not just have your neighbor listed.

Kreun responded that having a renters license, it was discussed but it was insurmountable and not economically feasible for us to manage, but the way that Fargo handles that is the rental owners get together and they blackball renters with bad history. Maxon responded that he has been on the board for over 20 years and have absolutely frowned on and cannot do. Kreun stated that perhaps then the Fargo list is unofficial, but that is what they do and could also check references with past landlord. Maxon replied that the last thing that he will do is give a bad reference with a renter that he wants to leave as then he won’t be able to get rid of them.

Bill Graveline, 511 Reeves Dr., stated that he is a landlord and that any fee that is charged to this will get passed on from the landlord to the tenant which will lead to increased rents and most of his units are in northend and rented by working people where an extra $5 or $10 per month is a big deal to them. He also stated that he believes that the CSO position will grow, as soon will need not only 4-Midnight, but add midnight to 8 and then may need during the day and then fee won’t cover and will need to increase. He commented that with the other ordinances that are being passed to help with enforcement and gave police authority to do their job now see if that is enough. He continued that he has small properties on small 25’ lots and the streets on the northend where he has rentals are very narrow compared to some on southend and not fair to say that can’t park on street when owner occupied can put as many cars as want with no control and would like to see more equal treatment.

2.12 Matter of amending Section 9-0110 and 9-0503 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to noisy parties or gatherings and penalties for violations.
Swanson stated that there are three changes accomplished with passage of this ordinance. They are: 1) removing the hour limits from the ordinance so it would now be in effect at all times of day; 2) changes the wording for enforcing agencies so that any law enforcement agency with jurisdiction could respond including the Sheriff’s Office and the University Police Department, not just the City Police Department; and 3) establishes a minimum fine for violation of $250.

2.13 Ordinance adopting Section 8-0801(1)(0) prohibiting parking in front yards and Section 8-1503(2) establishing a penalty.
There were none.

2.14 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of MLD Land Company for final approval (fast track) of Replat of Molstad’s Addition. (loc. at 4403 16th Ave. N.)
There were none.

2.15 Request from Planning Department for consideration of conditional use permit (CUP) for Weekley’s Auto Parts for operation of a junk yard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard. (loc. at 7600 Gateway Dr.)
Kreun stated that the changes recommended to this CUP hope to eliminate the problems that have been sited by the owners on the abandoned cars and set out some guidelines for any vehicles on display for sale.

Christensen stated that his comments pertain to both this item and item 2.16. He continued that the application was for 5 years and suggests that they get periodic reports from Inspections on any violations or enforcement issues that are occurring. He also suggested that perhaps about 2 years prior to the expiration of the permit that they get a report on what the owner plans to do with the property at the end of the 5 years or if this is seen as an indefinite CUP which will just keep getting extended then perhaps it is time to change the code to reflect this as a permitted use in I-2. He stated that in the past it has been stated by the owners that it is a problem to change the use due to a lack of funding and that if that is the only concern with a change then if that is known earlier enough could look into some grant money such as Brownfield that could assist with making the change.

Swanson stated that he is still working on some wording that will be updated prior to the Council meeting that will include a provision for termination for noncompliance with the agreement terms.

Kreun commented that he wanted to state for the record that the Council knows there is a need for this type of business and that they provide a service to the community and hope that if they adhere to this it will eliminate some of the concerns that have been expressed over the years. He also expressed thanks to those that worked on the committee to come up with these terms.

2.16 Request from Planning Department for consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) for Swangler Auto Wrecking for the operation of a junk yard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard (loc. at 7596 Gateway Drive)
There were none.

2.17 Request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Meadow Ridge First Addn. And to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Ave S and 51st Ave S and between S Washington St. and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdiv and South Pines Addn.
There were None.

2.18 Request from Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from the R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) Dist. And to include within the R-1 excluding Lots 6-11, Block 2, and the Replat of Lots 14 and 23 thru 29, Block 2, Swangler’s Subdivision, all of Blocks 1 and 2, Westwood Subdiv., Lots 21 thru 40, Block 2 and 3 in Kelsey’s 3rd Addn.; Lots 1 thru 9, University Place, Street R/W east of
and adj. to Lot 5, Block 16 and Lots 13 and 24, Block 17, Westacott’s Subdiv.
Christensen inquired which area this ordinance encompassed if it was A or B and whether this item and the next could be consolidated into one ordinance. Gengler responded that this item is for area A and item 2.19 deals with area B and could be consolidated if that is the wish of the Council.

Kreun commented that there was a picture of a four-plex distributed on the Council desks tonight and it was brought to his attention that this is within the bounds of the rezoning area so if it were damaged beyond 60% it would not be able to be rebuilt as a 4-plex as that would be nonconforming and inquired if there was a way to word things so that would not affect properties like this that were not conversions, but had been originally built in that area as multi-family. He continued that he would also like clarification on whether if you buy a duplex, can you use it as an owner occupied main unit with basement apartment and in another scenario if you buy as a single family that you would not be able to then start having a basement apartment. Swanson responded that with a rezoning it could not be rebuild in a nonconforming manner. He continued that in scenario one yes you could continue to rent out the basement as it is a continued nonconforming use and that in scenario two you could not develop a new basement apartment.

Gershman commented that it does not seem fair that a property that was originally built as four-plex couldn’t be rebuilt as such if it was designed and inquired if there was any exception that could be written in. Swanson cautioned against including exemptions as that can create a problem with enforcement and that the idea of a rezoning is that all property will eventually become conforming.

Gershman stated that he could see the need for units like the four-plex in this area and eliminating them is not the intent of the rezoning. He continued that the intent is to stop the conversion of single family homes into multiple unit rentals with 6 or 8 people in the units. Christensen suggested that perhaps the percentage of damage could be changed so that would not be a factor on being able to rebuild.

Brooks inquired whether the photo was from a property that is in the small block that is already zoned R4 and not in the current R2 zone. The owner stated it was not. He continued that based on the intent of the Council perhaps could mark out that area and leave that as R4 and have staff research this for next week’s meeting. Mayor opened the floor to comments.

Connie Osowski, 2405 10th Ave N, stated that she and her husband own a side by side duplex in the area to be rezoned and that they live in one side and rent the other. She inquired whether some type of line could be drawn around their property also, as with the rezoning if their property was damaged they also would not be able to rebuild as duplex is now and when bought had intent to use rental side to supplement retirement income and are responsible landlords and rent out to nice family right now. She continued that she was told by her lender that should the rezoning go through they may have a hard time if they wanted to sell it, as loans couldn’t go through Freddie Mac due to nonconformance. She encouraged the council to go forward with other ordinances that would assist enforcement and maybe even the licensing with a fee, but to not pass a rezoning.

Phil Vanyo, 18553 440th Ave SW, EGF, stated that there would be no need to look at spot zoning everything if they just don’t rezone. He inquired why the council would not want to respect the input of the Commission that did not recommend a rezoning and encouraged the Council to implement the other ordinances first and see if they resolve the problems before also implementing this. He continued that if this passes he sees the are to be rezoned expanding as the problem shifts and more petitions come in. He questioned whether this is necessary if enforcement increases.

Greg Krause, 718 N 25th Street, stated that he has spoken with many different insurers and they have all stated that property owners of nonconforming properties would still be able to secure insurance and at the most may have to get a rider for nonconformance but small increased cost if any. He continued that the rise in property values in the neighborhood is due to the ability of landlords coming in and knowing the revenue that they will be getting paying more than the value of the properties because they can get loans at low interest rates. He commented that the other problem they have in the neighborhood and it does get reported, but often takes a few calls before can get inspections to follow-up on it, is that father buys house for son to live in while at UND and then all sons friends move in too and inspections keeps saying it’s owner occupied and can’t do a thing.

Marvin Hodny, 2001 2nd Ave N, stated that he is the owner of the 4-plex that was discussed earlier. He expressed that the neighborhood owners and renters need to find a way to live together and if the other ordinances will take care of problem that should be all that is done. He added that his concern is with improvement and repair issues he would not be able to make on the property if this ordinance passes.

Tim Egeland, 1314 South 38th Street, stated that he is a landlord of a duplex at 2112 9th Ave N and he has a concern as to the intent of this ordinance since it was stated that the Council did not want to impact existing properties, but this ordinance does. He encouraged the Council to look at enforcement first and if they do go forward with a zoning change to look at spot zoning to alleviate effect on existing duplex and four plex properties as 25% of the properties in this area will be nonconforming if this passes. He inquired whether there was another way to deal with conversions and maybe set some restrictions or guidelines that would effect future ones.

Glassheim inquired whether a side by side duplex could be in conformance in an R1 if each side had different owners. Swanson responded that there are some provisions for townhouse development in code, but would need to check with inspections on their interpretation of that. He researched further in code and then commented that the definition of R1 in code specifies single family detached homes and does not provide for zero lot line developments like in R2 where townhomes are allowed.

Glassheim commented that this has been talked about as a mixed use area and that there is a fear by the single family owners that they will be pushed out and will become all rentals. He continued that he believes the rezoning will stabilize the neighborhood and keep the mix the same as it is today and added that there are some properties in town that have been nonconforming for 50 years in their location with no problems. He continued that the existing rentals will all still be able to continue and that the concern over damage is maybe overstated, as we have a very small fire problem in this community. He also was in favor of increasing the frequency of the inspection to more than once every seven years.

Osowski inquired whether the purpose of the parking could also prevent further conversions without the rezoning, as most would not have the availability of land to put in the required parking.

Christensen stated that he agrees with Glassheim that a rezoning will help to stabilize the neighborhood at the mix it is at right now. He added that there is no change being made to the current use that property owners have for their property and that as long as they keep using it as they are today there is no problem. He continued that the insurance information that was gathered and shared tonight shows that there is not a concern with people being unable to obtain insurance as had previously been a concern from some landlords. He suggested that to alleviate the concern for repairing damaged structures he would think a change could be made to the damage percentage listed. He encouraged Council to pass this ordinance so that it will stop the conversion of any more homes to rentals.

2.19 Request from Planning Department for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from the R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) Dist. And to include within the R-1 (Single Family Residence) Dist, described as unplatted parts of G.F. Twp. (151N, R50W), NE Quarter of SE Quarter, Section 4 and University Park, Kelsey’s 2nd Addn., Blocks 4, 5, and 6; University Park Addn. Lots 1-13, Block 1; and Dakota Place Addn, Blocks 3 thru 6.
Deb Hodny, 2001 2nd Avenue N, stated that she and her husband bought their property with the intent that they would eventually move up to another home and then use this as a rental and with the change this would not be possible. Gershman responded that she would still be able to rent, just needs to be rented to one family unit which can be up to 4 unrelated parties.

Hodny continued that she feels this area has been R2 for years and that the Council is selling UND short. She stated that there are only a few bad landlords and problem tenants and that shouldn’t change for everyone just because of those few. She commented that there are many owner occupied premises in town that are in worse shape than many of the rentals that are in town and this rezoning is not necessary at this point.

Chris Braden, 3577 13th Avenue N Apt 107, stated that if nothing will change by rezoning then he doesn’t see what the point is of doing it. He stated that if the student population does grow larger than expected by the university they will need a place to go and the area around the university is where many want to be. He continued that the students are not against increased enforcement but are against the rezoning and are circulating petitions in opposition to it currently.

Gershman responded that there will still be properties available for the students to rent as 4 unrelated parties can rent any property regardless of the zoning. He commented that it is unfortunate that students seem to get all the blame and wanted to state for the record that the council does realize that most students are responsible renters and that some of the problems come from others. Braden responded that the student concern is that once this is passed it will then move to another area such as the Boyd area and behind the University and that will reinforce the feeling that the target is student renters.

Glassheim commented that the university is working on making changes in their housing that will bring more student housing onto the campus and that there are many students who live throughout all sections of the city and not just around the university and there are lots of housing opportunities. Braden responded that currently there is not a shortage of housing but he is thinking into the future and that the new housing being developed by the university is targeted for nontraditional and families, not for average students who do not want residence hall life with its structure and rules, but to have their own place and be able to exercise some independence. Brooks responded that all the university plans are on their web site so people can see them and that Braden makes a good point that neighbors need to work together even with students and city needs to look at other alternatives for student housing and perhaps downtown may be a good option as we are looking to get more people there.

2.20 Request from Planning Department for prelim. approval of an ordinance amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 3, Rules and Regulations, Section 18-0302 Off-Street Parking and Loading; subsection (5) Yards; all relating to off-street parking and loading.
Kreun inquired as to the intent for Section C. Swanson stated that applies in Business & Industrial Zones to keep parking far enough from alleys and berms.

Robert Maxon, 1117 29th Ave S, stated that the ordinance lists specifically that the paved parking spaces need to be asphalt or concrete and wondered if people with pavers for their driveways would now need to remove those and put in the other type of hard surface. He also commented that the one space per bedroom requirement will preclude many single family homes from being rented without installing more hard surface parking and inquired why the ordinance could not say that can’t rent to more than can provide parking spaces for. He continued that he feels the changes that are being made are going to lead to the killing of the economy for real estate and that perhaps ones like the parking should only be applied in areas with alleys. Gengler responded that the requirements as stated in the ordinance do not pertain to driveways, only to other hard surfaces that are put in to be used for parking. Maxon suggested that perhaps the words “other than driveways” should be added so that it would be more easily understood. Gengler continued that there is a blanket clause 20’ in front of the garage is typically not included in the calculation for parking spaces, but this rule is not applied for single and two family homes.

2.21 Request from Planning Department for prelim. approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 3, Rules and Regulations Section 18-0302 Off-Street Parking and Loading; Subsection (14)(B); all relating to off-street parking and loading for single-family and two-family residential rental dwellings.
There were none.

2.22 Request from Engineering Department for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the Grand Forks Comprehensive Plan by amending the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2030 Transportation Plan Update, (2004 Alternative Transportation Modes Element, Bike Section) together with all maps, information, recommendations and data contained therein.
There were none.

Information Items
There were none.

Citizen Requests
There were none.

Administrative Coordinator Comments
There were none.

Mayor and Council Comments
Gershman stated that he had a call from a citizen regarding some individuals circulating a petition against the casino project and they are stating that he (Gershman) is against the project and voted no on it. He wants to clarify that there has not been a vote taken on this project and he is upset that people are implying things that are not true concerning his position on the project and that he wanted to set the record straight.

Christensen stated that it is unfortunate the level of misinformation that is going around on this project and that the only thing the City has agreed to at this point is to listen to further information on the project once it is available. He requested that the resolution passed by Council be posted on the City’s website so that people could have access to the correct information.

Adjournment

Motion to adjourn meeting at 10:25 p.m. by Gershman, second by Brooks. Aye: All. Motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor