Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held




Скачать 245.05 Kb.
НазваниеOf the meeting of the board of city commissioners held
страница2/4
Дата конвертации11.02.2013
Размер245.05 Kb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4

MOTION BY BEKKEDAHL, 2ND BY CYMBALUK, to accept the consent agenda as presented to the Commission.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0


3. Bid Openings

A. Granite Peaks – District 10-6


Meiers states this is for Phase I and II and there were four bidders and the low bidder is Keller Paving at $647,329 which Meiers states is approximately 6% over the engineers estimate. Meiers said this had been discussed with the representatives of Granite Peaks and they concur to award the bid to Keller Paving. The other bidders were Century Companies bid $717,472.52, Northern Improvements bid $696,325.85 and CMG Construction bid $738,666.


MOTION BY CYMBALUK, 2ND BY KLUG, to award the bid to Keller Paving in the amount of $647,329.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0


  1. Plot 5 – Homecroft Addition


Lalim stated there was one bid in the amount of $20,500 from Redland, LLC and it was the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to accept the bid of $20,500 and to disclose to the bidder that there is no City water stubbed into the property and it would be at their expense to stub that in.


Cymbaluk asked if the developer would have to build within one year, Koeser commented that could be put in the motion.


Klug asked if the representatives from Redland, LLC knows that the water isn’t stubbed in, Lalim replied he didn’t know. Meiers commented that if it’s the same person that gave the proposal the last time it was indicated that the City couldn’t find any water there but there is a sewer stub.


MOTION BY KLUG, 2ND BY CYMBALUK, to accept the bid from Redland LLC in the amount of $20,500 with the stipulation that there has to be a building permit holder or construction started within one year.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0


4. Public Hearings

A. Zone Change to R-2: Single-Family and Two-family Residential to R-3: Lowrise, Multi-Family and Townhouse Residential for Block(s) 1-6 & 8, Timbers Subdivision. – Leadership Circle, LLC.


President Koeser opened the hearing and asked Kent Jarcik to give an overview of the request.


Jarcik states the zone change request is in the Timber Subdivision 19th Avenue West & 26th Street West to allow for some flexibility in developing some additional multi-family and townhouse units.


Jarcik stated that on Blocks 13, 5 & 6 that they would be contingent upon a plat. The rearrangement would merge Block 5, and Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 Block 6 into Block 13 for future apartments. The remainder of Block 6 would be reconfigured for townhouses. The rearrangement would also include the vacation of a portion of 25th Avenue West, north of 24th Street West.


Jarcik said during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting there were discussions regarding maintaining the residential neighborhood to the east across Pheasant Run Parkway. The applicant and Planning Commission further discussed the existence of the large right-of-way for Pheasant Run Parkway and future development as a collector street.


Jarcik said it is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the rezone request for Blocks 5 & 6 to R-3; Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential contingent upon a plat, rezone Blocks 1 & 4 to R-3: Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential contingent upon a plat to rearrange for townhouse development and rezone Blocks 2, 3 & 8 to R-3; Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential for additional apartment development in the Timber Subdivision.


Koeser asked for any public input.


Koeser asked for a second time for public input.


Koeser asked for a third and final time for public input. Hearing none the hearing was closed.


Cymbaluk asked when rezoning the properties what has been the process of getting the lots rearranged at the same time and doesn’t it need to be subject to plat approval, Koeser replied Blocks 5 & 6 and Blocks 1 & 4 are subject to plat approval. Jarcik commented that Blocks 2, 3 & 8 are not necessarily contingent on a plat.


Matt Miles, Leadership Circle, LLC, commented that Blocks 2, 3 & 8 are for maximum flexibility purposes and it will be decides at a later date what direction to take this area in to single family, twin home or townhome presentations or multi-family building. Miles states that on Blocks 2, 3 & 8 there is flexibility and is left to their discretion but on the other three lots Miles will have to go to the Planning department and City Council for permission to rearrange those lots lines.


MOTION BY BEKKEDAHL, 2ND BY KLUG, to approve the rezone request for Blocks 5 & 6 to R-3; Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential contingent upon a plat, rezone Blocks 1 & 4 to R-3: Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential contingent upon a plat to rearrange for townhouse development and rezone Blocks 2, 3 & 8 to R-3; Lowrise-multifamily and Townhouse Residential for additional apartment development in the Timber Subdivision as well as all the conditional recommendations for Block 1, Block 6 and Block 4.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0

  1. Board of Adjustments on October 26, 2010 to hear a request for Variance to allow lot coverage (40%) for garage on Lot 4 & South 25’ of Lot 5, Block 2, Gauthier 2nd Subdivision – Reinholdt


President Koeser opened the hearing and asked Kent Jarcik to give an overview of this request.


Jarcik stated the Planning and Zoning Commission met regarding this request and asked that the Ad Hoc Committee give their recommendations. During the Ad Hoc meeting she presented a drawing and was told by staff and Commissioner’s that they were not in favor of her request. A letter dated September 22, 2010 was sent to Mrs. Reinholdt regarding the specific criteria necessary for approval of a variance request.


Jarcik commented that the property currently has a residence with an attached garage 16.5’ x 26’ and a detached garage 36’ x 36’. The lot, which is 122’ x 75’ zone R-1 already exceeds the 32% lot coverage by 3% and at the time Mrs. Reinholdt was told the proposal would exceed the standard lot coverage.


Jarcik said Mrs. Reinholdt discussed this with the neighbors and they signed a statement saying they had no objections to the variance.


Jarcik stated the Planning and Zoning Commission addressed the concerns but felt none of the four criteria for a variance would be met and it’s their recommendation to deny the variance request.


The Review Criteria for a Variance is as follows:


  1. A variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the Board of Adjustments unless and until a written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating:




    1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or building in the same district.

Staff Findings: The request is to exceed the lot coverage requirement. There are not special conditions due topography or structurally that would limit the property owners ability to develop this property as would other similar properties in the area.

    1. That literal interpretation of the provision of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.

Staff Findings: The request is to exceed the development standards which would result in overbuilding the property. There are not special circumstances that would deprive the owner from developing the property under the standards of the ordinance for R-1: Single-family neighborhoods.

    1. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

Staff Findings: An overbuilding of the property would occur beyond what is permitted by the development standards of the R-1: Single-family neighborhood.

    1. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.

Staff Findings: Allowing the variance would allow the applicant to build beyond the standards of the ordinance for this district which would create a special privilege.


Koeser asked for any public input.


Audrey Reinholdt handed out a paper with her neighbor’s signatures and a list of residences that looked to be overbuilt. Reinholdt states that with the new building they will store their equipment in to keep it out of the weather.


Koeser commented that Doug Lalim, Building Department, looked at the properties on the list and the greatest coverage was 32%, 30.9%, 26%, 28.5%, 30.9%, 27.3%, 28.4% and 28%.


Koeser asked Lalim how these percentages were determined; Lalim replied they call the Assessor’s office and get the existing square footage of the buildings on the property and square footage of the lot and the new addition and calculated them together. Lalim said none of the properties on the list are out of compliance.


Koeser asked for a second time for public input.


Reinholdt asked the Board to look at them and come to their own decision prior to their vote and asked if that is acceptable, Koeser replied that can be done.


Koeser asked for a third and final time for public input. Hearing none the hearing was closed.


Koeser commented that if the Board allows a 40% coverage that becomes the “new rule”.


Klug commented that looking at those properties the Board relies on staff and the staff measured the properties and brought their findings to the Board and Klug states he will go along with the findings of the Building Department. Reinholdt asked what about her neighbor’s attitude in that they don’t care of this is done, Klug replied they won’t always be your neighbors.


Lalim said five years ago he requested the percentage be raised from 30% to 35% and states the Planning Department and the Board came back with 32%.


MOTION BY KLUG, 2ND BY CYMBALUK, to follow the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request.


Bekkedahl commented that the only way the percentage can be changed is through the Zoning Ordinance that the number be changed. Reinholdt asked how this can be done; Koeser replied after the vote they will give her some recommendations.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0


Koeser asked Lalim how this would be done, Lalim replied it’s a zoning ordinance that is dated back to 1983 and needs to be updated and he states he isn’t sure what other Cities are doing, which would part of the research process.


Koeser recommended Reinholdt call Kent Jarcik and find out what the process is.


5. Accounts, Claims and Bills Not Approved in the Consent Agenda


6. Ordinances

7. Petitions, Communications and Remonstrance’s

A. Letter from Heather & Kyle Hass – Ordinance re: Bull Terrier Dogs


Koeser asked the Hass’s to give them an overview of their request.


Heather Hass handed out some information on AKC History of the Bull Terrier.


Kyle Hass said the bull terrier dog had been purchased before finding out about the Ordinance. Hass said he isn’t looking at changing the section on dogs but just the part of the bull terrier section of the Ordinance. Hass read the bull terrier section of the Ordinance. Hass said they’ve contacted several organizations asking how they classify the bull terrier dog as; they said they are not considered part of the pit bull breed.


Captain Ladwig commented that he has spoke with Tom Glenn, Animal Control Officer, and he lives near the Hass’s and states that the puppy is very nice; however, the Ordinance states bull terrier dogs but he isn’t sure why they are in there except there were a lot of attacks on children from bull dogs and that is what came out of those situations in 1987.


Hass commented the way the pit bull dogs are classified is that they tend to lump a couple of breeds together and creates a bias.


Ladwig commented that it is difficult to look at a dog and try to determine whether it is a bull terrier or pit bull. Ladwig states that Tom Glenn, Animal Control Officer, has no problem with the dog.


Koeser asked how this Ordinance came about and thought the information may have come from another City and how they handle these situations, Hass replied that the Minot and Williston Ordinances are similar word for word.


Koeser suggested setting up a Committee to look at this and what other communities are doing and make a recommendation. Koeser recommends Tom Glenn, Heather and Kyle Hass and Tate Cymbaluk for the Committee and bring their recommendations back at the next Commission meeting.


Cymbaluk asked if the family will be penalized for having the bull terrier, Koeser replied that in the motion to allow such time to report.


MOTION BY CYMBALUK, 2ND BY BEKKEDAHL, to approve putting the Committee together to consist of Tate Cymbaluk, Tom Glenn and Heather and Kyle Hass to allow this family the opportunity to keep their pet until such time as seen fit and approved by the Board.

AYE: Cymbaluk, Bekkedahl, Klug, Koeser

NAY: None

ABSENT & NOT VOTING: Bogar

CARRIED: 4-0


8. Report of Commissioners

A. President of the Board

1. Proclamation – Declare November as “Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month”


Koeser read the Proclamation.



  1. Lobbyist Hiring Recommendation


Koeser commented that there were funds set aside in the budget for the hiring of the Lobbyist.


Koeser contacted Connie Sprynczynatyk of the ND League of Cities for names to consider for this position. Sprynczynatyk gave three names: 1) Joel Gilbertson, 2) John Olson and 3) Keith Magnusson.


Koeser said a Committee; John Kautzman, Brad Bekkedahl, Ward Koeser and Tom Rolfstad met to discuss the names and have a recommendation that the City of Williston contract with Joel Gilbertson who is with the Vogel Law Firm as an independent contractor to provide professional services to the City of Williston.


Koeser commented that the City of Williston has not had a lobbyist before, but due to the many important issues and financial issues put before the City of Williston and we are looking at the State to assist in that and it would be worth it to contract with Mr. Gilbertson. Koeser said having Mr. Gilbertson in Bismarck to keep track of what’s going on with these issues and notify the Board when they need to be there to possibly put in a good word and have individual contact with other people.


Koeser said the compensation for this is $25,000 plus expenses, but there was only $15,000 budgeted for this and it was felt that having Mr. Gilbertson would represent Williston the best.


Koeser said it is the recommendation of the Committee to enter in with the Service Agreement with Joel Gilbertson.


Listed below are five issues that with time constraints on all of us and the activity levels we are experiencing were important to Williston and they include the following:


  1. Water infrastructure in our area including providing water to Watford City and Ray/Tioga/Stanley along with Crosby area in the northern part of the State. AE2S has hired Dennis Boyd to represent them in getting this project completed and providing water to the aforementioned cities along with oil companies in their respective areas. This would include acquiring State and Federal assistance to complete what is estimated to cost about $150 million.

  2. Highway 85 and highway infrastructure in the western edge of the State and work with lobbyist Cal Klewin on seeing highway 85 four lane and other feeder road concerns that are not being met by current funding formulas.

  3. Oil and gas funding and working with Vicki Steiner or Bonnie Staiger on trying to change the current funding formulas to match the current impact needs that Williston is seeing.

  4. Road construction issues in and around Williston including a newer truck bypass. Current funding formulas will not address our needs unless we find a way to convince the State these energy driven and need added State support outside the normal funding formulas.

  5. Sewer Plant upgrades estimated as much if not more than $27 million or more which is caused by the oil expansion in our area.

1   2   3   4

Похожие:

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners held

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconOf the regular meeting of the board of city commissioners

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconChamber of the board of city commissioners

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconThe Commissioners of the City of Worthing met in regular session on Monday, August 8, 2011 at 7: 00 p m. in the meeting room of the Worthing Civic Center

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconMinutes Board meeting October 25, 2011 Meeting called to order at 1: 00pm

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconMinutes of the meeting of harpole parish council held on

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconA meeting of the University Court was held on 23 April 2007

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconA meeting of the Court was held on Monday 14 June 2010

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconA meeting of the University Court was held on 11 June 2007

Of the meeting of the board of city commissioners held iconA meeting of the University Court was held on Monday 22 February 2010


Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
lib.convdocs.org


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
lib.convdocs.org
Главная страница