Print VersionStay Informed
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
December 19, 2005

The city council of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota met in the council chambers in City Hall on Monday, December 19, 2005 at the hour of 7:00 o’clock p.m. with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: none; Council Member Hamerlik reported present later in the meeting through teleconference.

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:

That Council Members Gershman, Brooks, Glassheim, he and Mr. Duquette went to a fundraiser in Warren, MN this evening for the mayor of Warren, Dick Nelson. who is battling cancer, to show their support for Mayor Nelson and our best to him and his family during this trying time.

He attended the Socks for Kids this past Saturday at K-Mart and they had raised $47,000 locally for 403 children and Lions Club of Arvilla gave $1,000 and all the rest was raised by small contributions, and thanked organizers
That on Saturday night there were 1300 Scouts from places as far away as Williston, Dickinson at the Ralph Engelstad Arena who attended a camp-over and sleep-over at The Betty and thanks to scout leaders and The Ralph for their help.
This weekend he competed with Mayor Stauss for Salvation Army and thanked the people who gave $169 to his bucket versus $149 for Mayor Stauss' bucket, and thanked everyone who contributed and everyone in this community for their giving during this Christmas holiday.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE APPLICATION
BY RICHARD P. STADTER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, LLC
FOR FIVE YEAR PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

The city auditor reported that pursuant to the provisions of Section 40-57.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, notice had been given to the public that the city council would meet this evening to consider the application of Richard P. Stadter Psychiatric Center, LLC, 1451 44th Avenue South, for a five-year declining property tax exemption of the property taxes to the Richard P. Stadter psychiatric Center, L.L.C. expansion consisting of a 30,000 sq.ft., single story hospital building built according to state codes and requirements to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Stadter Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, which the applicant will use in the operation of his business, and further that no protests or grievances had been filed with his office.

Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and asked anyone present who had comments to make on this matter. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun that the City of Grand Forks grant the request for an abatement of the real property taxes to be levied and assessed against the Richard P. Stadter Psychiatric Center, L.L.C project for a period of five years on a declining exemption on the property expansion; 100% for the first year, 80% for the second year, 60% for the third year, 40% for the fourth year and 20% for the fifth year.

Upon roll call vote the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4105, RELATING TO SIGNS
AND NON-CONFORMING SIGNS

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending sections 18-0301 and 18-0410 of the city of Grand Forks City Code relating to signs and non-conforming signs", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on October 17, 2005, and public hearing had been continued until this evening.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from the Planning Department on behalf of the sign subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval of an ordinance amending Sections 18-0301 and 18-0410 of the Grand Forks Land Development Code relating to signs and non-conforming signs, with recommendation to give final approval to the ordinance.

Mayor Brown opened the public hearing, there were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Gengler and Mr. Swanson walked through the ordinance to summarize all the changes that have been made since the last time it went through the Planning and Zoning Commission process.

Mr. Gengler stated one question that remains re. discussing the matter with other staff may need to change some of the language "upon approval by the city engineer and upon written affirmation", would like to change that to reflect approval by the sign subcommittee and that can be in conjunction with the city engineer or not. Mr. Swanson recommended against that as this particular provision deals with right of way, the intent of why the city engineer is being consulted is so the city engineer can determine whether that structure will interfere with any utilities, either above ground or below ground, and that is a standard we've used throughout a number of different places, this has been redrafted to incorporate comments made by Council Members Christensen and Kreun and also from the Planning and Zoning committee to identify that they cannot extend into a street or an alley but the intent and reason why it was chosen to be the public engineer was to make an engineering determination as to whether there is interference, otherwise the presumption is that it will be allowed in there unless the city engineer finds some type of inconsistency.

Mr. Gengler stated some changes since the last version may have been received under Special Education Signs, (3) (CC) one point referred to the specific number of 90 signs, which has been eliminated because the 90 signs is already being referred to in a couple paragraphs prior to that.

Mr. Gengler stated the last change of significance that they need to address is the non-conforming section starting on pages 24-25 and is a last minute revision, that they did clarify the intent of the entire non-conforming section and previous version indicated that all signs to be listed in code as non-conforming can either be reconstructed and/or relocated by the year 2016, and that language was included but was not the intent of the sign subcommittee to do that, therefore, they have taken that sentence out; and that if there is an existing sign somewhere that would otherwise be non-conforming, this ordinance would not cause the removal of that particular sign. He stated they will be listing in Code, that at first thought they would itemize each and every sign in the Code that is non-conforming, that they did the inventory and came up with some numbers, presently there are 86 signs total within the city and city's actual territorial zoning jurisdiction, of which approximately 72 of them would be considered non-conforming for one reason or another or multiple reasons, and that they are going to create a map, official outdoor advertising map to be held and maintained by the Planning Department, and having a physical representation of the sign locations based off of GPS coordinates into GIS system and think that will be much more efficient tool to use, especially for the longevity of it, and would recommend having that particular section changed.

Mr. Swanson pointed out several other changes on page 20, subdivision [C] has been clarified, there was confusion, now signs in an I-1 or I-2 zone are 672 sq. ft. and that was a correction that was recommended following the Planning and Zoning committee meeting. On page 21 (G)(2) has been modified from an earlier draft - signs located adjacent to the Interstate 29 in a PUD have to be no farther than 100 feet from the edge of that right of way; earlier the draft measured from the center of the right of way. On page 24, subsection (H) now specifically authorizes that signs are allowed in an A-1 or A-2 (Agricultural Zone) on unplatted property. On page 26, section 18-0301.1 previously was established as a variance provision, that recommendation following Planning and Zoning has been changed to an appeal process and that appeal will actually be heard by the city council following recommendation by the Planning and Zoning.

Mr. Swanson stated if inclined to adopt this draft with the language on the non-conforming signs and to incorporate the map created by the planning or engineering department, the appropriate motion would be to move final approval adopting draft 8 dated December 19, 2005 with the modification of including the sign for non-conforming signs.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun to move final approval adopting draft 8 dated December 19, 2005 with the modification of including the sign for non-conforming signs.

Council Member Glassheim stated the former version of the ordinance stated that "..off-premise signs" going from 1,000 ft. to 500 ft. and asked if that allows more signs or more clutter and why not retain the 1,000 feet.

Mr. Gengler stated they have to look at different ways of spacing vs. number, this ordinance establishes a cap of 90 signs to be located within the city and the city's extra-territorial jurisdiction, there are now 86 and if talking quantity overall only 4 are to be allowed to reach that max, and what the 500 ft. spacing is doing would be to allow the sign company or owner to perhaps relocate an existing sign, that there are several in the intersection of DeMers and Washington and the way the ordinance is now written, one could take a particular sign from there and perhaps either move it out of the area or to a different location, and would be what your version is of clutter vs. non-clutter. Council Member Glassheim stated you could take signs away from low traffic areas and put them close together in high traffic areas and a sign every 1,000 ft.is less dense and cluttered than a sign every 500 ft.

COUNCIL MEMBER HAMERLIK PRESENT

Council Member Gershman questioned Terms of Permit and Revocation, and asked length of time for permit. Mr. Swanson stated no change from existing Code, and Mr. Gershman stated he would like that looked at; and questioned Proof of Insurance and Hold Harmless agreement for signs on public right of way, and asked why so stringent - $500,000 for bodily injury and $100,000 property damage. Mr. Swanson stated there is no change from existing Code and believes these numbers are consistent with what is required for other types of insurance, etc. He stated $500,000 bodily injury is not an excessive amount.

After further discussion it was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman to amend insurance requirement for bodily injury to $250,000.

Mr. Swanson stated that he would not recommend that they reduce the personal injury coverage, property coverage may be high at $100,000, but that the loss of an eye will be at or above $500,000 to settle the case, the loss of a limb, etc. but no problem reducing the property damage but has concerns on personal injury.

Council Member Brooks and Gershman withdrew their motion.

Council Member Gershman moved an amendment to lower the property damage to $50,000; Council Member Glassheim seconded the motion.

Upon call for the question on the amendment and upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 4; voting "nay": Council Members Christiansen, Kerian, Kreun - 3. Mayor Brown declared the amendment approved.

Council Member Glassheim stated to lower distance between signs from 1,000 ft. to 500 ft. will create density of signage along our most used corridors, and moved to return that to 1,000 ft. Council Member Kerian seconded the amendment.

After discussion and upon voice vote the motion failed, Council Member Glassheim voted for the amendment and 6 voted against the motion.

Upon call for the question on adoption of the ordinance as amended, and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND STREET & HIGHWAY PLAN
TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W SHOWN AS DEDICATED ON
PLAT OF HIGHLAND POINT FIRST ADDITION TO
JANUARY 17, 2006

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 Highland Point First addition, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on November 21, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration.

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; there were no comments.
The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development for final approval of the plat of Highland Point First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located in the northeast corner of 40th avenue South and South 19th Street), with recommendation to table final approval to the plat and the ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan and continue the public hearing until January 17, 2006.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the recommendation and continue until January 17, 2006. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO REZONE AND INCLUDE WITHIN
HIGHLAND POINT PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALL OF HIGHLAND POINT \ FIRST ADDITION UNTIL JANUARY 17, 2006

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the Highland Point PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, all of Highland Point First Addition", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on November 21, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read for consideration.

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; there were no comments.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District the A-2 (Agricultural Reserve) District and the B-3 (General Business) District and to include within the Highland Point PUD (Planned Unit Development), concept Development Plan, all of Highland Point First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and also to include unplatted lands lying in Section 21, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian (all located between South Washington Street and South 20th Street, and between 36th Avenue South and 40th Avenue South), with recommendation to table the ordinance and continue the public hearing until January 17, 2006.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Kreun to approve the recommendation and continue the public hearing until January 17, 2006. Carried 7 votes affirmative. .

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4106, TO AMEND ZONING
MAP TO INCLUDE WITHIN DANKS PUD, CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL OF
DANKS ADDITION AND DANKS 2ND RESUBDIVSION,
AND UNPLATTED LAND

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota to rezone and exclude from the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1 and to include within the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Danks Addition and Danks 2nd Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota and also include unplatted land lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on November 21, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening.

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; there were no comments.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from the Grand Forks Planning Department for final approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development0, Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, and to include within the Danks PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 2, all of Danks Addition and Danks 2nd Resubdivision to the city of Grand Forks, ND and also to include unplatted land lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, (all located between DeMers Avenue and 17th Avenue South extended and between South 42nd Street and I-29 right of way), with recommendation to give final approval to the ordinance, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Kreun and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question of adoption of the 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. 4107, AMENDING STREET
AND HIGHWAY PLAN TO INCLUDE PUBLIC R/W
SHOW AS DEDICATED ON THE REPLAT OF LOT 1,
BLOCK 2, COLUMBIA PARK 22ND 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 Replat of Lot 1, Block 2, Columbia Park 22nd Addition, Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on October 17, 2005, and upon which public hearing had been continued until this evening, was presented and read.

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 the request from Steve Adams on behalf of Art Greenberg for the approval of an ordinance amending the Street and Highway Plan for the Replat of Lot 1, Block 2, Columbia Park 22nd Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located in the 3500 block of South 42nd Street), with recommendation to give final approval of the ordinance.
It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun 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.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING
OF ORDINANCE TO ANNEX ALL THAT PART OF THE SW
QUARTER OF NE QUARTER OF SECTION 21, T151N, R50W
OF THE 5TH P.M. UNTIL JANUARY 17, 2006

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to annex all that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of section 21, Township 151 North, Range 50 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, city of Grand Forks, North Dakota", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on November 21, 2005 and upon which public hearing had been scheduled for this evening, was presented and read.

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; there were no comments.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that public hearing and second reading of the ordinance be continued until January 17, 2006. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4108, RELATING TO
GENERAL CONTRACTORS

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance adopting Article 29 of Chapter XXI of the Grand Forks City Code relating to general contractors", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on December 5, 2005, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown asked if there were any comments; there were none.

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. 4109, RELATING TO
PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENT

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 19-0103 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to performance bond required", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on December 5, 2005, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown asked if there were any comments; there were none.

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. 4110, RELATING TO STORM
SEWER, FLOOD PROTECTION, AND GREENWAY
SERVICE CHARGES

An ordinance entitled "An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Section 15-0117.1 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to storm sewer, flood protection, and greenway service charges", which had been introduced and passed on its first reading on December 5, 2005, was presented and read for consideration on second reading and final passage.

Mayor Brown asked if there were any comments; there were none.

Upon call for the question of adoption of the 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.

DENY APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF 2005 TAXES
AT 1609 2ND AVENUE NORTH

The staff report from the city assessor relating to application for abatement for 2005 taxes by Dudley and Corinne Benson, 1609 2nd Avenue North, with recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that application be denied and the value of $120,600 be upheld.

Council Member Gershman stated that based on the information that we have had and this has gone through the normal process, moved to deny this request; and that we adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations as prepared by the city attorney; seconded by Council Member Christensen. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE APPLICATION FROM THE TOASTED FROG, LLC
FOR CLASS 1 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE AT 124
NORTH 3RD STREET

The staff report from the city auditor relating to application for Class 1 (General On and Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) license from the Toasted Frog, LLC, 124 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 Glassheim and seconded by Council Member Brooks 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 Glassheim 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 AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, PROJECT NO. 5703, PAVING DISTRICT NO. 608.1

The staff report from the engineering department relating to amendment of special assessment district for Project No. 5703, District No. 608.1, with recommendation to approve amendment to the special assessment district to include area from Cherry Street to Belmont Road.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that the recommendation be approved and the resolution creating the special assessment district be amended and adopted - Document No. 8788 - Resolution. Upon roll call the following voted "ay": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; voting "nay": none. Mayor Brown declared the motion carried and the resolution adopted.

APPROVE 2006-2011 URBAN AND REGIONAL PROGRAM
PROJECT REQUEST TO NDDoT

The staff report from the engineering department relating to 2006-2011 Urban and Regional Program Project request to ND Department of Transportation, with recommendation to approve funding request revisions for construction year 2006, and approve federal aid projects for construction years 2007 to 2011.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. 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.

APPROVE 2006 SALARY PLAN UPDATE

The staff report from the director of human resources relating to 2006 salary plan update, with recommendation to approve the 2006 Salary Plan as annually updated per Section 6-0302(1) Salary Plan Adoption.

Daryl Hovland, HR Director, stated he would like to add one more correction to the proposal he made last week to the salary plan, has met with Mr. Duquette and the city auditor regarding the renewed emphasis for our budget process and would like to propose to eliminate an accountant from finance and add one accountant senior, this will cost about $4,700.00 of the $63,000.00 that was saved in the proposals he brought forward last week, still savings of 2006 salary plan of about $59,000.

It was moved by Council Member Kerian to approve the 2006 salary plan update, Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment, with recommendation to bring unused Department of Justice Block Grant #8 funds into the 2005 budget from cash carryover and add interest earned in 2005 in the total amount of $32,652.83.

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment in the amount of 406,652.76 to recognize additional Department of Justice Weapons of Mass Destruction grant revenue awarded after budget process.

The staff report from the police department relating to budget amendment in the amount of $100,000.00 recognizing Department of Homeland Security Buffer Zone Protection Plan grant award A04057-001-2005 BZPP funds into the 2005 budget.

The staff report from the director of public works relating to Central Garage budget amendment, with recommendation to approve the budget amendment in the amount of $105,870.00.

The staff report from the administrative coordinator relating to budget amendment for Planning Department, to approve contract in the amount of $60,183.00.

The staff report from the director of urban development relating to budget amendment request re. Cirrus expansion loan proceeds and corresponding expenses, $3,550,000.00.

The staff report from the engineering department relating to budget amendment request to Waterworks Fund in the amount of $142,680.00 to transfer water share of watermain special assessment projects.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that the budget amendment request be approved. 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.

APPROVE CHEMICAL BIDS FOR WATER TREATMENT
PLANT

The staff report from the water utility superintendent relating to 2006 chemical bid approval for water treatment plant, with recommendation to approve recommended bids per summary.

The bid of Stiles Chemical was late due to a UPS bid delivery error.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated if they were inclined to open the bid they would need to adopt the findings identified in his memorandum, act upon the findings and the motion to open the bid, the bid would have to be opened, read, compared to other bids and would have to act either tonight or at a later date on which bid to accept; and it is his opinion that the City has the discretion to find that the late submittal of the bid is a minor irregularity and to waive the same.

Council Member Gershman moved the motion to open the bid based upon those findings:
1) That the specifications for the bid reserved the City's right and discretion to waive informalities and
minor irregularities;
2) That the bid was provided to a courier in sufficient time for the timely delivery of the bid to the City;
3) That the courier failed to make timely delivery of the bid due to no fault of the bidder;
4) That during the time the bid was in the possession of the courier the bidder had no opportunity to alter
its bid;
5) That the bidder is a responsible bidder capable of meeting the specifications of the bid;
6) That the late delivery of the bid was not a product of fraud, bad faith or other impropriety on the part
of the bidder;
7) That the bidder has no other deviations from the specifications and the bid is otherwise valid;
8) That the bidder received no competitive advantage or other benefit by the result of the late bid;
9) That no prejudice or competitive disadvantage was suffered by any other bidder due to the late receipt
of the bid;
10) That the opening of the bid is in the best interest of the City by opening and considering multiple bids
and the determination of the lowest and best bid from all responsible submitting bidders.
11) That the receipt and consideration of the late bid will not relieve the bidder of any obligations under
the bid or contract if awarded to the late bidder nor does it deprive the City of any assurances of the
bid, bid security or assurances of contract performance.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Kerian.

Council Member Christensen asked if the specifications say that the City reserves the right and has the discretion to waive informalities and minor irregularities. Ms. Sletten, water utility superintendent, stated to the best of her knowledge that is included in the bid specifications but did not bring a copy with her.

Council Member Christensen moved an amendment to the motion that we incorporate findings 2) through 11) from the city attorney and if the specifications say what stated in 1), that will become our last finding. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the motion as amended and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

The city auditor opened the bid of Pristine Hydro Chemical and read the bid as follows: the bid on the polyphosphate is $0.6050/per lb.

Ms. Sletten stated that at the committee of the whole meeting she presented information from Calciquest that they did meet the criteria because their plastic liner was sewed into the bag and did not have the buffer compound that is in the Nalco product and could defer to Calciquest which is then the lower bid of $0.565

Council Member Gershman moved that the City accept all the bids including the bid of Calciquest for polyphosphate at $0.565 per lb.; Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.

Council Member Brooks stated he would like staff to come back and bring answers to this; and moved to hold the bid of polyphosphate until the next meeting of the council. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the motion for acceptance of all the bids for chemicals with the exception of the bid for polyphosphate. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

HOLD APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

The staff report from Mayor Brown relating to appointment to Grand Forks City Planning & Zoning Commission with recommendation to confirm reappointment of Sheryl Smith, Tom Hagness and Paula Lee, at large representatives; and Curt Kreun, city council representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission for five-year terms.
Mayor Brown asked for a motion to hold general public representatives until January 24, 2006, and asked for letters of interest by or on behalf of citizens, and needs names, letters and some type of resume to the mayor's office by January 10, and also for the Downtown Design Review Board, the Events Center Commission and the Special Assessment Commission. The motion was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun to hold the appointments. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING POLICE
DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCES

The staff report from the city attorney relating to ordinance authorizing police department enforcement of ordinances, with recommendation for consideration of preliminary and final approval of ordinance authorizing police department enforcement of adopted ordinances.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance adopting Section 5-0108 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to authority to enforce ordinances", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ENACTING ARTICLE 6 OF
CHAPTER XXI OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSES

The staff report from the city attorney relating to ordinance enacting residential rental licenses, with recommendation to give preliminary approval and introduce ordinance establishing residential rental licenses.

The following individuals appeared and spoke in opposition to the licensing of rental units:

Robert Maxon, 1117 29th Avenue South
Phil Vanyo, 18553 440th Avenue SW, East Grand Forks
Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street
Mike Grzadzieleski, 821 Cherry Street

Council Member Christensen stated that proposed annual fee is $20 per unit for single family and duplexes to cover the administrative cost but have learned as result of this process that maybe we are understaffed, that there is a section of the Code 19-0116 which deals with certificate of occupancy for leased premises required, and perhaps the time has come so that we have to have our certificates of occupancies renewed within a certain period and require them paying a little more so have staff to make sure these properties are inspected and comply with our Code. He stated that the certificate of occupancy doesn't get the information that this licensing requirement is after. He stated it might be a staffing problem for inspections and have been told we have 10,000 rental units in Grand Forks ands each unit at $20.00 would be reasonable and generate sufficient revenue to cover the administration of this license.

Council Member Kreun stated in answer to question why duplexes at this time - that there are regulations for the larger complexes - parking regulations, etc. and not regulations for duplexes.

Council Member Gershman stated this goes over the whole community and don't have a lot of problems with owner occupied in other areas of the community, and moved to include under Exemptions, 21-0604, to put owner occupied homes under the exemptions. Council Member Christensen seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen stated that as this is an extensive ordinance suggested that they go through the ordinance article by article because didn't have the opportunity to go through it as a committee and also have some drafting issues.

Council Member Hamerlik stated concerns about interpretation of owner occupied - that owner on title not actually living there but his son/daughter living there and bring in friends of theirs and same problem. Mr. Swanson stated by terms of the draft ordinance the definition of owner is the individual(s) in possession of lawful title and the records as maintained by the Grand Forks County Recorder's Office is conclusive evidence, and under examples if the owner lives in another area but has a son or daughter residing in the house, that would not be owner occupied; if there are multiple owners on the title and one of the multiple owners is residing there, that would be an owner occupied premise.

Bev Collings, Inspections, stated when they certify an owner occupied duplex, they don't go into the owner's unit nor certify owner's unit, and not going to charge the individual living in their own home a license fee but only for the rented unit and that was to get the information in place; and only way would be is if they share any services for the safety of the tenant. She also noted that if an owner has a child living in a place, the only way they would consider it owner occupied if it is just that child living there; that if have anybody living with them they have to get unit certified.

Upon call for the question on the motion relating to 21-0604 exemption for owner occupied properties and upon roll call vote the following voted "aye": Council Member Gershman; voting "nay": Council Members Christensen, Kerian, Kreun, Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim - 6. Mayor Brown declared the motion defeated.

In reviewing the ordinance enacting Article 6 of Chapter XXI of the Grand Forks City Code relating to residential rental licenses:

Section 21-0605 Application for License. There were no comments

Section 21-0606 Agent/Local Property Manager Required.
Mr. Swanson stated that last week it was suggested that this might violate State law, specifically Chapter 43-23, that he has reviewed that and in his opinion it does not, that State law Chapter 43-23 identifies a property manager as one who has the authority to list and rent premises as well as to collect and hold monies, that under this provision the only authority that this agent/local property manager has is to receive notice, and is of the opinion that there is no concern with State law under this provision.

Section 21-0607 Fees
Council Member Brooks moved that the annual for the license be $20.00 per unit. Council Member Kreun seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated that whatever fee is determined will only be applied to those rental units that are one or two units; that it does not apply to those that are exempt from the licensing requirement. Council Member Christensen asked that "per rental unit" be included after $20.00 per unit; and Council Members Brooks and Kreun accepted that as part of the motion.
Mr. Grasser stated they tried to quantify some of the costs that might be anticipated to deliver a level of service on this program, that they are doing about 1,000 inspections on an annual basis per inspector; have about 2,000 units that enter into the single and duplex type load they would be looking at, and if they hired one inspector to do the field work and a half time clerical person to do the processing of the licensing, phone calls, etc.; that the inspector's total cost, including mileage, etc., about $52,000 and a clerical person at about $14,000 annually, and when take those costs and divide over the 2,000 units these licenses would apply to, come up with a cost of about $33.00 annually and that would provide an average inspection once every 2 years with one new inspector.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 6 votes affirmative; Council Member Gershman voting against the motion.

Section 21-0608. License Term
Mr. Swanson commented on this section, that the effective date is left blank, however, the way this is drafted it is intended to be based on an annual basis starting January 1, this ordinance even if adopted could not be adopted and acted upon until January 2, and if your intent is to have this effective the beginning of the year in 2006, you may need to modify Section 21-0608 to provide a provision for that first year and thereafter it would fall into line; or if you were to select some other date would come back to this term depending on when you would want it effective and will need to coordinate the license term with the effective date of the ordinance; and address when they get to the effective date section.

Section 21-0609. Transfer
Mr. Swanson stated that if there is a sale of the unit, the new buyer will have to supply that information by showing the number of units, same application, but no additional fee under the new charge. He stated he would work provision in to provide 60-day requirement into that section. Council Member Kerian moved to include 60-day requirement for new owner to complete transfer with Inspections to get information. The motion was seconded by Council Member Christensen. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Section 21-0610 Maintenance of Units; Conduct on Licensed Premises.
Council Member Christensen moved that in paragraph (1) they delete the words "and standards" and insert therein "or ordinances" so that they would have all applicable codes and any ordinances. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Section 21-0610(2) Public Nuisance.
Council Member Christensen stated this section says ".every rental unit shall be maintained in such a manner so as not to create a public nuisance" and that he likes the term "public nuisance" and has put before the members the definition found under Title 42-01 of the North Dakota Century Code and in the NDCC a nuisance is defined so we don't have to add it to our definition and it says, "a nuisance consists in unlawfully doing an act or permitting a duty which act or omission annoys, injures, endangers the comfort, repose health or safety of others, offends decency or in any way renders another person's insecure in life or use of the property"; and goes on under 41-01-01.2 Disorderly House, Public Nuisance, an owner or lessee or both of a house or building that is used in a manner that habitually disturbs the peace, comfort or decency of the immediate neighborhood is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance". and suggested that we say "in a manner so as not to create a public nuisance as defined under the provisions of NDCC Chapter 42-01", that we gather all that law and have it as a reference and also have the case law that goes with it. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Section 21-0610(3)
Council Member Christensen stated that rather than have the words on the second line where it says "every rental unit licensed shall be maintained and occupied in such a manner so as not to cause the unit to be disorderly", and moved to delete the words "to be disorderly" out and insert "to be a public nuisance". Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson spoke against the motion because if you look at the Century Code under the definition of disorderly house, have to prove habitually, and habitual would be something more than one, two or three violations, and is concerned that we are creating a very broad definition for specific revocation purposes that may not give sufficient notice to a tenant or owner as to what is required of them. Council Member Christensen stated he would also move to delete the word "habitual" in the definition section of 41-01. Mr. Swanson stated they would need to include in the ordinance the definition of public nuisance and will hold comments as he is not sure what they are intending to do with the rest of this section. He pointed out that in Section 21-0610, subdivision (1) is a general standard saying they have to apply with all codes and ordinances, and that goes without saying and wouldn't need to have that in there; subsection (2) states you can't have a public nuisance and that is a general statement, don't necessarily need to have that in there; under neither subsection (1) or (2) does that grant the authority to revoke or suspend the license, the way this is crafted, the only findings that will substantiate a suspension of a license are those under subdivision (3). He stated in subsection (2) they define disorderly by reading it this way, "a rental unit shall be deemed disorderly if any of the following activities occur on, within or adjacent to the rental unit or dwelling", and he is defining the term right in the section.

Council Members Christensen and Kerian withdrew their motion and second.

Council Member Christensen stated that his next motion would be under Section 21-0610 (3) and moved (a) and (k) and moved to delete items (b) through (j) inclusive, Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson reported at the committee meeting when he asked the question how broad do you want to draft it, he was asked to draft it broadly to include all possible offenses to give the police department flexibility, and stated that one concern he would have specifically is subsection (c), this committee heard over and over that one of the problems was "large parties, consumption of alcoholic, minor and if remove (c) thinks you've got it big time. Council Member Christensen amended his motion to include items (a) (c) and (k). Council Member Brooks agreed.

Mr. Swanson stated the other subsection he wanted to comment on was (b), that they heard that there are often times police officers that are disrespected in the field, that their directions weren't being heeded, etc. and that is why subdivision (b) was put in. Council Member Christensen stated that under (1) that they have to comply with all applicable codes or ordinances, hence, his definition "all" means all and have included these ordinances that you referred to in (b). Mr. Swanson stated he disagreed, that subsections (1) and (2) do not provide a basis to revoke the license unless you get back the revocation section and redefine what doing, sections (1) and (2) re general statements of law and not providing specific guidance as to what is violation. Council Member Christensen stated he cannot support the situation where you're asking property owners to warrant the conduct of their tenants, and only going with (a) (c) and (k). Mr. Swanson stated what he heard and read in the minutes was description very specifically from the UND neighborhood of concerns that encompass (a) (b) and (c), and if look at the list of items (d) (e) (f) (g)(h)(i), those quite frankly come out of a broader ordinance that deals with termination from public housing type ordinances but would draw your attention to subsection (j) and the reason that was included was to address issues related to manufacture of meth in rental units, it has occurred in Grand Forks and if that is an issue you don't think that the property owner has any responsibility for, he wouldn't have any problem, but if asking for their recommendation, he thinks have to include (a), (b), (c) nd (k) based on what the subcommittee is doing. the rest of it takes much broader than what was contemplated or discussed but at the committee's direction he was asked to give you as much as he could.

Council Member Christensen moved (a), (b), (c) and (k) and eliminate items (d) through (j); Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Council Member Glassheim moved an amendment to restore (j) if this is aimed at meth production in rental properties. Council Member Hamerlik seconded the motion. Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, Council Glassheim voted for the motion, and Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian and Kreun voted against the motion. Mayor Brown stated the amendment failed.

Upon call for the motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen stated on Section 21-0610(4) that (4) is redundant and do we need it. Mr. Swanson stated the real intent was the last part of subdivision 4, where targeting not only the rental unit itself but any common space or in the yard, and doesn't disagree with those comments on the first part but the real focus has to be the latter part, but may have a conflict and would like to have some time to look at it, that if look at subsection (3) in the prior page, the last sentence before getting to (a), (b) or (c) , talk about activities occurring on, within or adjacent to rental units and would like to have opportunity to review that as to whether that is a conflict to those provisions.

Council Member Christensen stated (4) under 21-0611, item (1), that under the second sentence where it says used in a disorderly manner as defined or as set forth in section 21-0610 and then pick up everything in (1), (2) and (3).

Mr. Swanson stated he doesn't have any concerns with that, and may end up drafting that slightly different but your intent would be to pick up (1), (2) and (3). Council Member Christensen moved (1) "used in a disorderly manner as set forth in 21-0610". Council Member Kerian seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen stated that under Section 6-0611(1) the last sentence where it says, "takes steps to prevent further violations", could we add "of this article". Mr. Swanson stated that would be appropriate.

Council Member Christensen stated that under (2), Section 21-0611, the last sentence should we include in "further disorderly use of the licensed premise of rental units" and third sentence where it says "occupants of the unit" say "occupants of the rental unit" and make last word consistent also. He stated in 21-0611 (3), second sentence where you have "six (6) months after any two previous instances" and include "or written notice of disorderly use" so they cannot say they didn't know, Mr. Swanson stated that would be fine. Council Member Christensen stated he was not going to move this as it would be included in the draft.

Council Member Christensen stated in Section 21-0612 Inspections and Investigations, and moved to delete item (2) because he doesn't want people coming into people's homes; Council Member Kreun seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen stated in Section 21-0613, item (4), that Mr. Swanson prepared some language and suggested that we use the language he had drafted on December 14, but delete (4) and include the language Mr. Swanson has suggested, and moved that motion. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion.

Mr. Swanson stated the language he drafted essentially limits the appeal to only those instances in which there has been a suspension, revocation, removal or non-renewal of a license.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen moved to delete Section 21-0616 where we would actually turn off your water if you violate a license. Council Member Gershman seconded the motion. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Christensen moved under Section 2-0618 Penalty to delete the penalty as we have an administrative situation, not a judicial situation, no criminal issues here; Council Member Kreun seconded the motion. Mr. Swanson stated the reason that is in the ordinance is to enforce the license itself, and if you remove that then we have no penalty for a property owner that has no license. Council Members Christensen and Kreun withdrew their motion.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Christensen to introduce the ordinance as amended. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance enacting Article 6 of Chapter XXI of the Grand Forks City Code relating to residential rental licenses", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS
9-0110 AND 9-0503 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
NOISY PARTY OR GATHERING AND PENALTIES, FEES
OR FINES

The staff report from the city attorney relating to 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, with recommendation to give preliminary approval and introduce the ordinance.

Robert Maxon, 1117 29th Avenue South, stated they have taken out requirement for loud party to be conducted between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and have opened it up so that if you have a loud party at any time, and thinks it should be put back to the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Council Member Gershman stated he had the same concern, that if remove the time limit, and should go back to the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and made a motion that the ordinance go back to the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Council Member Glassheim seconded the motion.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that our enforcers and the people of Grand Forks are reasonable and most of the cities that he had heard about had a 24 hour code and shouldn't keep the 10:00 to 6:00 as it is.

Mr. Swanson suggested that the last ordinance that you acted on only applied to rental units of one or two units whereas the noisy party ordinance applies regardless of what type of structure it is and as far as the hour limitation some cities have them and some don't, but should be aware that our noise control ordinance which is different than a noisy party, has different hours depending upon what type of activity is involved and they range from as short as 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. He stated we have a noise ordinance that would not apply to a noisy party, a noise ordinance is intended to control such things as operation of equipment, machinery, broadcast equipment or things of that nature. He stated if you did not have an ordinance regulating noisy party or gathering the police department can be called, they would have no basis for the issuance of citation unless they found other illegal activity at that event.

Capt. Kjelstrom stated that his department does support the 24-hours and removing the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. gives them another tool, that the officers try to use as much common sense and discretion, and there are times when it just doesn't work esp. with regards to large parties with alcohol, etc. and that is the reason they would ask for it.

Council Members Gershman and Glassheim withdrew their motion.

Council Member Glassheim moved to restore the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. restriction because he feels police department will be enforcing selectively, have an ordinance on the books that will sometimes be enforced and sometimes not, judge lot more calls about whether neighbor's complaint is reasonable; the motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Kerian and Council Member Christensen moved approval of the recommendation. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Sections 9-0110 and 9-0503 of the Grand Forks City Code relating to noisy party or gathering and penalties, fees, or fines", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION 8-0801(1)(O)
OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKING
PROHIBITIONS IN FRONT YARDS AND AMENDING SECTION
8-1503(12) RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR SPECIFIED OFFENSES

The staff report from the city attorney relating to ordinance adopting Section 8-0801(1)(O) prohibiting parking in front yards and Section 8-1503(12) establishing a penalty, with recommendation to give preliminary approval and introduce ordinance adopting Section 8-0801(1)(O) prohibiting parking in front yards and Section 8-1503(12) establishing a penalty for violation.

Ross Weiler, 701 North 3rd Street, asked if this pertains to every front yard or only in R-1 and R-2 zones. Mr. Swanson stated that it applies to yards in any residential and University districts, and when said it isn't city-wide is to exclude from that are industrial zones, business zones, etc.; and the purpose of this particular ordinance is not change where you can or cannot park, the purpose of this ordinance is to allow the police department to issue a citation as opposed to having it prosecuted through Chapter 18 and the Land Development Code. He stated that this ordinance doesn't impose a different parking requirement or standard, it only allows the police department to issue citations.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Kreun that the recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance adopting Section 8-0801(1)(O) of the Grand Forks City Code relating to parking prohibition in front yards and amending Section 8-1503(12) of the grand Forks City Code relating to penalties for specified offenses", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF REPLAT OF MOLSTAD'S
ADDITION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of MLD Land Company for final approval (fast track) of the Replat of Molstad's Addition to the city of Grand Forks, ND (located at 4403 16th Avenue North), with recommendation to give final approval to the request, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WEEKLEY'S
AUTO PARTS

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from the Grand Forks Planning Department for consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) for Weekley's Auto Parts for the operation of a junk yard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard located at 7600 Gateway Drive, with recommendation to approve the Weekley's Auto Parts conditional use permit subject to the conditions and direct the city attorney to prepare the final conditional use permit.

Council Member Kreun stated he was in favor of the conditional use permit under the conditions listed in the permit except for the operating of a used car sales facility upon the conditions, No. 10, and moved that we pass this conditional use permit without used car sales and condition No. 10 under the proposed conditions for this item. Council Member Kerian seconded the motion.

Council Member Christensen stated that item No. 4 where it states, "a violation not mitigated within this time period may be mitigated by the City of Grand Forks and billed to the appropriate auto salvage yard.", should be deleted, and asked why would they do something because last time Mr. Swanson pointed out that they should have in this conditional use permit a violation of the conditions imposed upon the person in the permit, could lead to revocation of the permit, and why take the cars that are in front and move them someplace and then charge the fee back, why baby-sit the permittee and if they don't know the rules that govern your condition, then we're not going to take your cars away, just that they will lose their permit.

Council Member Brooks stated when vehicle are parked out front, that's outside their property, that people drop them off during the night, and if it is sitting out there, they will take them inside into their properties, but if they say they don't want it, and need to notify City and we will haul it away, and not charge them for that.

Council Member Christensen stated on item No. 6, second line where "any vehicle parking shall be limited to overflow temporary customer parking or as provided in Condition 8", and not sure we have this included in the permit as trying to get everything behind the wall and why have an exception when they could come in and say, that was temporary overflow of customer parking, and go with the motion, we will not be dealing with used cars. Mr. Swanson stated subsection 6 refers to condition 8 and if go to condition 8, doesn't think that has anything to do with condition 6. Council Member Christensen stated that they should delete the second sentence in item 6, and would move to delete the second sentence in paragraph 6 of the permit and amend Council Member Kreun's motion as a friendly amendment. Council Member Christensen stated that based on Mr. Kreun's proposal , he would move to delete paragraph 10 of the conditional use permit because won't need it; noted that was part of the motion already.

Scott Weekley stated the discussion tonight as not being able to have any used cars in front of the wall is getting to the point where he has a business where he cannot display any of his product, granted in the past there has been some overflow of retired cars that have gotten out there and a lot of times they don't get put away immediately, that they have been trying to remedy that problem and have spent substantial amounts of money creating a spot where he can put it, although this summer he has used that very extensively to the point where it was full and every year he is trying to expand it farther and farther. He stated that the City has already built in conditions in the conditional use permit that specifically prohibit that and if he doesn't take care of the problem you have something built in there that would penalize him for doing that, and that is why they are making new conditions this time. He stated the reason they want to delete Item 10 is because you don't want to have an area for used cars; and he reminded council that they have been a used car dealer for over 50 years and conformed with all the State laws and regulations for those years, and have been inspected every year for the last 5 years but is getting to where he doesn't have any opportunity to display any product at all and that people go by and don't know what kind of business is even there without some availability to display used cars, but most of those he does sell are good reliable vehicles even if don't look like a new vehicle, but where he cannot show any product thinks is an unfair choice.

Council Member Kerian stated she believes in recycling of cars and is important benefit to the community and needs to be somewhere, but not every business gets to display their product upfront but use signage or other creative means, that she is supportive of Council Member Kreun's action and explicitly stated that they will not be a used car lot as part of this conditional use permit, just won't have any cars in front, and can use advertising of some kind within the signage that is allowed anywhere else to bring that attention to your business as other do, but have had too many cases of that difference between what's a used car and what's a salvaged car in front of there and it has created an environment that has caused concerns for other businesses along Highway 2 who have a different expectation for their appearance for themselves and their customers - and is in favor of that change and would add to that, to state that this conditional use permit does not allow used cars as an amendment. Council Member Kreun stated that would be a friendly amendment, that no used car sales are permitted.

Brad Gengler, city planner, asked if they were as concerned about the used car lot being in front of the wall or are we as concerned about not allowing them to have a used car lot, or what if had a used car lot behind the wall, as all the other vehicles are behind the wall.

Council Member Christensen stated this area is zoned I-2 and cannot have a used car lot in an I-2 zone as a permitted use, that this is a conditional use and they can continue to have a reclamation point but cannot have a used car sales lot - want to get the cars behind the wall, don't want to have any reason for an excuse as to why there is a car out in front unless it is a customer or unless someone dropped it off. and Mr. Weekley hasn't had a chance to get it behind the wall and want to do as much as we can to clean up the appearance.

Council Member Christensen also noted that in the conditional use permit proposal that paragraph 3 is identical to paragraph 12, and should delete either 3 or 12. The mover and second agreed to delete paragraph 12 as a friendly amendment to the motion.

Council Member Gershman asked if they completed the wall and if had used car sales behind the wall, and if able to sell auto parts behind the wall, why wouldn't they be able to put all the parts together and sell a car behind the wall and what do we care if everything happens behind the fence; the issue he has with the salvage yards are the cars in front of the fence - and moved an amendment to the motion that we allow used car sales behind the fence. Council Member Brooks seconded the motion.

Mr. Gengler stated that as far as used car lots are involved, the records in the Planning department from early days of the conditional use, one document from 1981 made specific reference to the provision of allowing a used car lot and prior to that it was under some other rule and throughout the years with all the CUP expansions and modifications, that has always been a part of it, but it has never been discussed of removing it from the front and putting it behind the walls, and that is part of the problem over the years, and therefore, the Planning Department would certainly suggest allowing the continuing of the used sales of the car lot so long as it is completely behind the wall, with no visual impact from the street, and that would be a compromise to accomplish our goal of cleaning up the clutter and also to accomplish the owner's goal of still maintaining the used car lot, and the issue of a permitted use with this conditional use permit would be irrelevant and CUP is the overriding document.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there something wrong with having a used car lot in an I-2 zone; Mr. Gengler stated as permitted uses, there would be a problem, the I-2 is Heavy Industrial which does not permit retail sales, however, that is in pure conventional terms, when we go to a conditional use permit, would assume that has been treated as an incidental or accessory use to the principal use which is a salvage yard, and doesn't think that is the argument here to determine what is a permitted use and not so long as it was covered and agreed to in the conditional use. He stated to define a used car, that would be an operable vehicle which would require retail sales, however, the sales of the car parts themselves was handled when they adopted the ordinance that allowed for a conditional use permit for salvage yards and at that time was assumed and anticipated that it would involve the sales of parts. He stated part 5 on Weekley's CUP, indicates that the City reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit for any violation of the permit and/or a violation of city code so that is blunt statement to cover violations, and would put them out of business; and when it is appropriate he needs to introduce some language that he and Mr. Swanson previously discussed regarding the wording within the conditional use permit and is actually something they are going to carry on with other conditional use permits, and is a simple sentence that would be added to each list and reads, "The City of Grand Forks further expressly reserves the right to not renew or extend the term of this permit upon the expiration thereof." and just standard language to cover some aspects.

Council Member Gershman stated that was acceptable to his amended motion.

Jerry Swangler, 2122 11th Avenue North, stated re. the used car lot that this is something that has been permitted since they were there in 1969, and he has a license, Mr. Weekley has a license, been inspected and have some new provisions that they have agreed to on the task force this year and the reason why he hasn't done anything is because he's not sure what they have to do yet, the things they agreed to is fine. He stated pertaining to the car lot behind the wall, you can't find one law that would let you close off a car lot, any car lot, any place, as an expressed right to display their cars. He stated this is a conditional use permit that they have had since 1969, when they were asked by the city council of Grand Forks to move out west where they have been on rural route 2, they moved 6,000 cars at their own expense to get out of the city limits and it has been following them every year, and this is task force they tried to get them to finalize it and be done with it, that they have been dealers and are dealers.

Upon call for the question on the amendment to the motion by Council Member Gershman and Council Member Brooks before the council, to allow used cars sales behind the fence. Upon roll call the following voted "aye": Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman - 4; and the following voted "nay": Council Members Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 3; Mayor Brown declared the amendment passed.

Upon call for the question on the original motion as amended (by approving conditional use permit and by allowing used car sales behind the fence, deleting condition 10, deleting sentence two of condition 6 and deleting 12), and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SWANGLER'S
AUTO WRECKING

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to the request from the Grand Forks Planning Department for consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) for Swangler Auto Wrecking conditional use permit for the operation of a junk yard, wrecking yard or auto salvage yard located at 7696 Gateway Drive, with recommendation to approve the conditional use permit subject to the enclosing conditions and direct the city attorney to prepare the final conditional use permit.

Council Member Kreun moved the same recommendation as for Weekley's and seconded by Council Member Kerian to approve the conditional use permit and by allowing used car sales behind the fence, deleting condition 10, deleting sentence two of condition 6 and deleting 12),.

Mr. Swanson stated there is a difference, there is no on-premise residence here, and exception but no duplication

Mr. Gengler asked if it was appropriate to add the language that he previously read, Mayor Brown stated noted.

Jerry Swangler stated he has an opening in the front of his yard and that will have to be filled in at his expense, and asked how do they do that, because now it is all cement and that he cannot afford to do that, that you cannot keep a person from selling used cars, and you have to have a spot where they can be displayed. He stated that over 10 years ago they agreed upon an open space for his used car lot, now they are changing it again and this is what he has fought for years and years, they come in and agree to things, and then it gets changed again, they put up that wall to begin with and all it does is cover up the cars with snow, that they have done a lot over the years and will do more, and were going to put down a cement pad that was agreed to and have cars displayed there.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.


INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING MAP TO
INCLUDE WITHIN MEADOW RIDGE PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT), CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT
NO. 1, ALL OF MEADOW RIDGE FIRST ADDITION AND TO
INCLUDE UNPLATTED LANDS LYING BETWEEN 47TH AVENUE
SOUTH AND 51ST AVENUE SOUTH AND BETWEEN SOUTH
WASHINGTON STREET AND WESTERLY PLATTED BOUNDARIES
OF NORTH PINES RESUBDIVISION AND SOUTH PINES ADDN.

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from Tim Crary on behalf of Crary Development, Inc. for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Meadow Ridge First Addition to the city of Grand forks, ND and also to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Avenue South and 51st Avenue South and between South Washington Street and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdivision and South Pines Addition, with recommendation to give preliminary approval to the ordinance, subject to the conditions shown on or attached to the review copy, and set a public hearing for January 17, 2005.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development) Concept Development Plan, and to include within the Meadow Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of Meadow Ridge First Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota and also to include unplatted lands lying between 47th Avenue South and 51st Avenue South and between South Washington Street and the westerly platted boundaries of North Pines Resubdivision and South Pines Addition", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING MAP
TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE R-2 (ONE AND TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN
THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT AREAS
BOUNDED BY NORTH 20TH STREET AND COLUMBIA ROAD
AND 1ST AVENUE NORTH AND ALLEYWAY BETWEEN 10TH
AND 11TH AVENUE NORTH

The staff reports from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from the Planning Department on behalf of the city of Grand Forks for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from the R-2 9one and Two Family Residence) District and to include within the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, described as all of Blocks 1 through 18, excluding Lots 6-11, Block 2 and the replat of Lots 14 and 23 through 29, Block 2, Swangler's Subdivision; all of Blocks 1 and 2 in Westwood Subdivision; Lots 21 through 40, Block 2 and Block 3 in Kelsey's 3rd Addition; Lots 1 through 9, University Place; street (right of way) east of and adjacent to Lots 5, Block 16 and Lots 13 through 24, Block 17, Westacott's Subdivision, with recommendation to deny preliminary approval of the ordinance.
Kim Novak, 2103 9th Avenue North, stated the council is well aware of concerns of homeowners in that area have; asked that they take the next final step to rezone the area and focus on enforcement; and thanked then for understanding and addressing their concerns and preserving their neighborhood.

The following individuals addressed the council opposing the rezoning issue:

Michael Nowacki, 618 Schroeder Drive, off campus student senator from the University of North Dakota
John Colter, 2015 Chestnut Street, Assn. Executive for the Board of Realtors.
Phil Vanyo, 18553 440th Avenue SW, East Grand Forks. MN
Marvin Hodny, 2001 2nd Avenue North, presented petition with 19 names objecting to the rezoning.

Council Member Christensen stated we have two ordinances, Areas A and B, and moved the ordinance for Area A be amended to include the legal description that is encompassed by Area B, and that ordinance be rezoned to R-1 with the carve-out that Council Member Hamerlik suggested.

Mr. Swanson stated procedurally it is appropriate to have both items on the floor and the motion would be to consider them together and introduce one ordinance and give preliminary approval.

The city auditor read the staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from the Planning Department on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, ND for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from the R-2 (One and Two Family residence) District and to include within the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, described as unplatted parts of Grand Forks Township (151N, R50W): NE Quarter of the SE Quarter of section 4 and University Park; Kelsey's 2nd Addition, Blocks 4, 5 and 6; University Park Addition: lots 1 - 13, Block 1; and Dakota Place Addition, Blocks 3 through 6; with recommendation to deny preliminary approval of the ordinance.

The city auditor presented Mr. Hodny's petition protesting rezoning on this item by 19 residents of that area.

Council Member Christensen moved that Areas A and B be combined as one ordinance and rezoned from R-2 to R-1 with minor carve out, and introduced the ordinance for first reading and preliminary approval.

Mr. Hodny and Mr. Vanyo both addressed the council objecting to the rezoning.

Mr. Swanson stated that it should be understood that a four-plex in an R-2 is non-conforming today so that the change that might be made here from an R-2 to an R-1 does not affect that already non-conforming four-plex; that he has been asked to draft language that would provide an exemption for a presently conforming property to be allowed to be rebuilt under certain circumstances or conditions, that they have done their research on that but not completed with that and that he will have a report prior to final approval; and that what he is working on would require you to be conforming today to qualify.

Council Member Glassheim stated that if this should pass it will go back to Planning and Zoning and then back to council and hopes that Mr. Gengler and Mr. Swanson can look at exploring whether we can exempt two kinds of properties or not, if can exempt basements with owner-occupants, and many of us have started our home ownership by having some help with the basement, and buildings originally built as duplexes and is a side by side duplex that he doesn't know that he really wants it to be turned into a single family, and that they would look at those two situations to see if anything is possible.

After further discussion and upon call for the question by Council Members Christensen and Gershman, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Upon call for the question on the motion and upon voice vote, the motion carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, to rezone and exclude from the R-2 (One and Two-Family Residence) District and to include within the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, all of Blocks 1 through 18, excluding Lots 6-11, Block 12 and excluding Lots C and D of the Replat of Lots 14 and 23 through 29, Block 17, Swangler's Subdivision; all of Westwood Subdivision; Lots 21 through 40, Block 2 and all of Blocks 3 and 4, Kelsey's 3rd Addition; all of University Park Place Addition; Lots 15 trough 24, Block 17, Westacott's Subdivision; also to include unplatted parts of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 151 North, Range 50 West; all those public lands described as University Park; all of Kelsey's 2nd Addition; Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, University Park Addition; and all of Blocks 3 through 6, Dacotah Place Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota'", which was presented, read and passed on first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
18-0302(5) OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE RELATING
TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning commission relating to request from the Planning Department on behalf of the city of Grand Forks, ND for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 3, Rules and Regulations, Section 18-0302 Off-Street Parking and Loading; subsection (5) Yards; all relating to off-street parking and loading, with recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the ordinance and schedule a public hearing for January 17, 2006.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending Section 18-0302(5) of the Grand Forks City Code relating to off-street parking and loading", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION
18-0302(14)(b)(12) RELATING OF OFF-STREET PARKING

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request from the Planning Department on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, ND for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks city Code of 1987, as amended, amending 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, with recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the ordinance and schedule a public hearing for January 17, 2006.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. carried 7 votes affirmative.
Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance adopting Section 18-0302(14)(B)(12) of the Grand Forks City Code relating to off-street parking", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND GRNDS FORKS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE GRAND
FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS 2030 TRANSPORTATION
PLAN UPDATE

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission, on behalf of the Grand Forks Engineering Department, relating to request from the Engineering Department on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, ND for preliminary approval of an 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, with recommendation to give preliminary approval to the ordinance, set a public hearing for January 17; and recommend the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization amend its Bike Section of its 2004 Alternative Transportation Modes Element of its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Council Member Gershman introduced an ordinance entitled "An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chapter XVIII, Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, Elements of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, pertaining to the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 2030 Transportation Plan Update", which was presented, read and passed on its first reading.

APPROVE FINAL PLAT OF AUDITOR'S 37TH
RESUBDIVISION

The staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to request on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, ND, Garry A. Pearson, and Leslie A. Soine, for final approval of the plat of Auditor's 37th Resubdivision, being a replat of all of Lots 4 through 11 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 6 and part of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lots 3 through 7 and previously platted alley in Block 2 and Lots 1 through 4, Block3 and parts of vacated River Street all in Iddings Addition to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota (located south of Fourth Avenue South and east of River Street), with recommendation to give final approval of the plat, subject to conditions shown on or attached to the review copy.

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Gershman that this recommendation be approved. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

INFORMATIONAL ITEM

The Statement of Changes in Cash Balances as of November 30, 2005, was presented to the council for their information.

APPROVE BILL LISTING

Vendor Payment Listing No. 05-24, dated December 16, 2005, totaling $1,782,838.77, was presented and read.

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Brooks that these bills be approved and the city auditor be authorized to issue warrants in payment of the same. 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 and the bills ordered paid.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks thanked the mayor and those from the city who were able to go to the benefit in Warren, MN for Mayor Nelson, and also noted that reps. from East Grand Forks, MN, Mayor Stauss and Council Member Grassel, and the mayor of Oslo attended and good to do because we are a region and not just a city.

2) Council Member Glassheim stated that he had talked with several UND students after one of their meetings, and question brought up of where do you want us to live, question was sensible and hope we can start meeting with some of the more active students and the planning office to discuss what might we have in mind re. student type housing, and if having several initiatives downtown which is an area students are interested in so that out of this will come an understanding that we are not anti-student and want to do what we can to accommodate them and have some discussions after the new year.

3) Council Member Kerian stated there were a number of people besides Mr. Kreun who worked on the sign ordinance for quite some time and recognize all the work that was done and thanked them for that.

4) Council Member Hamerlik thanked people in the area and those investors, realtors, etc., that might have had some differences of opinion but that everybody had a chance to voice their opinion and appreciates the patience the people and council have had, not finished yet and thanked those in his ward.

5) Council Member Gershman asked that staff look into the train blowing its whistle in the middle of the night downtown, that Fargo does have an exclusion on that and while getting more apartments coming in downtown. On behalf of all of us here - Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukah, Happy Quanta.

ADJOURN

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

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek
City Auditor

Approved:
______________________________________
Michael R. Brown, Mayor