HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 03151988 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
100419
Box: 15------------ --- ------------
Folder: PL PACKETS 1988
Document: PL PACKET 03151988
C=TY O F' S T . ANTHONY
P L ANN 2 NG C OMM 2 S S=ON AGENDA
MARL M 1 5 1- 988
7 = 30 P . M .
A. Call to Order.
B. Roll Call.
C. Minutes.
1. Planning Commission - February 16, 1988.
D. Designate Commission Representative to the Council Meeting
on March 29 , 1988.
E. Unfinished Business.
1 . Twin City Federal Variance and Conditional Use.
• F. Public Hearings.
1 . 7: 35 P.M. - Hennepin County Community Development
Block Grant Funds Disposition for 1988.
2 . 8:00 P.M. - Rehab Dynamics Conditional Use Permit
Request.
3 . 8 : 15 P.M. - Kevin Cahill, 2524 Murray Avenue, Setback
Variance Request.
G. Miscellaneous.
1. Discussion of planning fee survey response.
2. Discussion of definition of "shopping center" in
sign ordinance.
H. Adjournment.
r
C =TY O F S T . ANTHONY
P L ANN=N G C OMM 2 S S 2 ON M,�NUT E S
• F E B RUARY 1 6 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Franzese.
3 Present for roll call: London, Brownell, Hansen, Wagner, Franzese,
4 Werenicz, Madden.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 OATH OF OFFICE
7 Secretary Helen Crowe administered oaths of office individually to
8 Edward W. Brownell III , 3205 Skycroft Drive, to fill in John Wingard' s
9 unexpired two year term as well as to John Madden and Steve London,
10 who the Council had reappointed to serve three year terms on the
11 Planning Commission.
12 Blizzard Causes Cancellation of January 19th Commission Meeting
13 The three terms of office were scheduled to commence at the above
14 meeting which had been cancelled when Apache Squares Shopping Center,
15 whose application for signage was the only business requiring
16 Commission action that evening, requested postponement.
17 NOVEMBER 30 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 18 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to approve with the following
19 changes:
20 Page 2 , line 20: Substitute "was" for "were"
21 Page 3 , line 9: Substitute "with" for "within" .
22 Page 3 , line 18 : Correct typo "and" before "said" .
23 Page 3 , line 28: Insert "and" between 1117th" and "who" .
24 Page 12 , line 33 : Delete "and one" between "and one-half" .
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 WERENICZ TO REPRESENT COMMISSION AT FEBRUARY 24TH COUNCIL MEETING
27 When Mr. Childs confirmed that the Council' s February 23rd meeting had
28 been rescheduled to the next evening, Commissioner Hansen said he
29 would have liked to have served as Commission representative at that
30 meeting, but would be unable to do so because there was an important
31 District #282 School Board public hearing scheduled the same evening
32 which he would not want to miss.
33 WAGNER AND HANSEN TO HEAD COMMISSION ' IN 1988
34 The above indicated their willingness to serve as Commission Chair
35 with the latter deferring to Commissioner Wagner during the discus-
• 36 sions which preceded the following:
37 Commission Action
1
1 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to nominate George Wagner to •
2 serve as Chair and Ron Hansen as Chair Pro Tem for the remainder of
3 1988 .
4 Commissioner Brownell moved to close nominations.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 The newly elected Chair proposed that Rosemary Franzese continue to
7 conduct the meeting that evening.
8 NEW BUSINESS
9 New Shopping Center Management Congratulated for Well Designed Signage
10, Which Complies With City Ordinances
11 Mr. Childs reiterated his January 14th memo advice to the Commission
12 including that:
13 *neither a variance nor a public hearing, but only Council
14 approval, was required for the 80 square foot free standing
15 pylon sign which would identify the new retail center just
16 west of Apache Plaza since the City sign code allowed 300
17 square feet of sign surface area for a shopping center;
18 *the 28 square foot of signage each proposed for the four busi- •
19 nesses in the first building would be well under what the Sian
20 Ordinance would allow eight entities ;
21 *EFH Company owned the center but, as indicated in the appli-
22 cation for approval which he had included in the cancelled
23 Commission meeting agenda packet, Gene Happe of Apache Proper-
24 ties, 1601 East Highway 13 , Burnsville, MN had made the appli- ,
25 cation.
26 The City Manager had agreed with Commissioner Wagner' s calculations
27 that the rectangle encompassing the proposed logo and lettering for
28 . each of the wall signs identifying the four businesses in the building
29 would be 14 feet by 2 feet, or 28 square feet of sign surface area,
30 where the Sign Ordinance allowed 88 square feet for the 44 foot
31 frontage each space had.
32 Gene Happe, representing the center owners, told the Commissioners:
33 *the pylon sign would identify this the first of three separate
34 commercial properties owned by Apache Properties with the other
35 two being located north and south of the Firestone building on
36 39th Avenue N.E. ;
37 *the sign was planned to be color coded according to the color
38 theme for each building;
2
f
• 1 *the blue panel would identify the existing building with other
2 colors identifying the buildings planned for the other loca-
3 tions;
4 *the sign would be back lit but could easily be turned off
5 whenever the City wanted because security for the area would be
6 provided by lighting indicated on the site plan in the agenda
7 packet.
8 Hansen Commends Applicant for Seeking_ Approval of Sia_nag_e Before
9 Erection
10 The Commissioner noted that the center owner had . gone without signage
11 even though the building was up and the first tenant, Domino' s Pizza,
12 had been in operation for quite a while. He said he was happy to see
13 signage delayed for City approval- which had not always been the case
14 with businesses in the past. The Commissioner said he perceived the
15 signage had been well represented and told Mr. Happe he considered
16 his proposed center to be a welcome addition to that shopping area.
17 Commission Action
18 Motion by Hansen, seconded by London to recommend the Council approve
19 the request for signage under Section 430 : 40 Subdivision 8b ( 3 ) of the
20 City Sign Code as , presented for the Apache Squares Shopping Center,
•21 2504-2524-39th Avenue N.E. , finding that:
22 1 . Staff had indicated the proposed free-standing center identifi-
23 cation sign and the comprehensive plan for individual business
24 signage would meet all the Sign Ordinance requirements and would
25 provide the type of signage St. Anthony desires for the comm-
26 unity.
27 2 . No public opposition was expressed during the Commission consi-
28 deration of the application.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 PUBLIC HEARINGS
31 Reluctant Approval Given Si nape on Dairy Queen
32 At 7: 55 P.M. Chair Franzese read the notice of the hearing to consider
33 the request from Albert Plaisted, owner of the St. Anthony Dairy
34 Queen, 2612 Highway 88 , for a sign variance to allow the business to
35 retain the existing signage on that building identified in the notice.
36 No one present reported failure to receive the notice which had been
37 published in the February 3rd Bulletin and, mailed to all property
38 owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property and no one
39 objected to its content.
•
3
1 Agenda Copy of February 3rd notice and list of mailings;
2 Documenta- pertinent pages of Commission' s October 21 , 1986 •
3 tion minutes ;
4 rough draft of Secretary' s attempt at near verbatim
5 transcript of that meeting;
6 pertinent sections of the July 21 , 1987 Commission min-
7 utes airing the Commission' s concerns about the non-
8 conforming signage which was erected on the store after
9 it was completely rebuilt;
10 copies of the September 2 , 1986 elevations for the
11 remodeled Dairy Queen submitted to staff at the time
12 of construction;
13 City Manager ' s February 12th memorandum where he
14 attempted to summarize the issues which had arisen
15 since the Council had first approved the drive-through
16 facility for the store, which to the City' s surprise
17 had been completely leveled and rebuilt with signage
18 far in excess of what the Commission or Council expect-
19 ed or the Ordinance allowed;
20 - report in the same memorandum of the applicant' s fail-
21 ure to come in for a variance to allow that excess, in
22 spite of numerous letters explaining the necessity for •
23 doing so;
24 January 4, 1988 Petition for Sign Variance.
25 Staff report: Childs recalled it' had been during the July 21 , 1987
26 Commission discussion with Mr. Plaisted that the
27 Dairy Queen owner had been told a variance was neces-
28 sary for him to keep the signage he had put up on his
29 building but he could expect the Commissioners to look
30 favorably on that variance when he applied for it;
31 reported that in spite of several letters from the City
32 urging application for the variance, the application in
33 the agenda packet that evening was finally the response
34 to those letters ;
35 explained that technically the signage on the build-
36 ing might also be considered to be 5 separate signs
37 because of the 5 foot separation between the Dairy
38 Queen logos and the name lettering;
39 said the Commission could interpret that there were
40 only 2 signs on the north and south_ side of the build-
41 ing which, with the 48 square foot rotating roof sign,
42
4 •.
• 1 exceeds the ordinance allowance of 100 square feet of
2 surface sign area for that store by 92 square feet;
3 agreed with the Chair ' s statement that "there was no
4 point in revisiting the differences in recol-
5 lections held by the City and the applicant which had
6 been fully explored during the July, 1987 meeting with
7 the applicant and at many Commission meetings in the
8 meantime. " ;
9 reiterated that he perceived it was now up to the
10 Commission to make an interpretation related to the
11 number of signs involved and to decide whether or not
12 to recommend the Council grant the necessary variance
13 to allow the signage to remain on the building.
14 Proponents: Albert Plaisted conceded that the scale on the blue
15 prints could have been wrong but reiterated he had told
16 staff from the very beginning that the logos and let-
17 tering in the mansard roof had to be ordered as is from
18 the parent Dairy Queen office and that he could not
19 have that particular roof style without that standard
20 company identification; but
21 insisted that signage had been accurately depicted on
• 22 the blue prints even if the scale might have been off ;
23 said he was not denying that the misunderstandings had
24 resulted from his not giving more specific and accurate
25 information related to his plans to level the building
26 and the extent of the signage he was proposing to
27 erect on the building after it was rebuilt;
28 indicated the signs on the north and south side of the
29 building consisted of a 3 by 5 foot Dairy Queen logo
30 attached to the same panel as the 22 and 18 inch neon
31 Dairy Queen letters (each side would have 72 square
32 feet of signage if Commission interprets logo and let-
33 tering as one sign. ) .
34. Janet Plaisted in reference to Commissioner Hansen' s
35 comments about "ignored notices" said she had unsuc-
36 cessfully tried to contact Mr. Childs by phone after
37 receiving one of these letters and his absence from
38 the City coupled with the fact that she and her hus-
39 band had been traveling between their stores accounted
40 for some of the response delay.
41 The hearing was closed at 8 : 06 P.M. for formulation -of a recommenda-
42 tion to the Council.
•
5
1 Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived the major issues were that •
2 the Commission, without the knowledge that the building would be
3 leveled which voided the roof sign from being grandfathered in, gave
4 the applicant permission to take down the sign while the building was
5 being reconstructed for a drive-through facility as well as the fact
6 that an additional wall sign was erected without the City' s approval.
" 7 Mr. Childs responded that was the reason he had specifically described
8 all the signage on the building in the February 3rd notice of the
9 hearing on the variance.
10 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he could see no point in rehashing all
11 the grievances the Commission had which had been fully covered at
12 the July 21, 1987 meeting. He perceived it was up to the Commission
13 to recommend whether the existing signage could remain on the
14 building. The Commissioner said he would be in favor of recommending
15 the Council grant whatever variance is necessary to retain that
16 signage as the applicant had been told to expect if he applied for
17 the variance.
18 Commissioner Hansen responded to the suggestion that the Commission
19 interpret the logo and name lettering as one sign by saying that was
20 not the way the Leslie Paper Company signage had been interpreted.
21 The response was that there had been considerably more distance than
22 5 feet between that logo and the lettering on that building.
23 Commissioner London indicated he was concerned that to interpret this
24 signage any differently might result in an inconsistency with the •
25 directions given the owner of Mickey D' s restaurant.
26 Commission Action
27 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Wagner to recommend that the Council
28 grant the necessary sign variance to Albert Plaisted which would
29 allow him to keep the existing signage on the Dairy Queen at 2612
30 Highway 88 , realizing that by doing so the City would be allowing 92
31 square feet of signage over and above what the Sign Ordinance allows
32 for .a building with the frontage this building has. In recommending
33 the variance be granted, the Commission acknowledges the controversy
34 which has surrounded this reconstruction project which has been well
35 documented in Commission and Council minutes since 1986 but finds in
36 its favor that:
37 *the signage is in very good taste;
38 *the building is located on .two platted streets and actually
39 has traffic going three ways around it and the City has in the
40 past , granted variances for additional signage under similar
41 conditions ;
42 *there have been no public expressions of opposition to the sign-
43 age which is on the building and there was no one present at
44 this hearing who opposed granting a variance for its retention.
•
6
• 1 Voting on the motion:
2 Aye: Werenicz , Wagner, Brownell, Franzese, Madden.
3
4 Nay: Hansen, London.
5 Motion carried.
6 Following the vote, Commissioner London explained his vote against
7 granting the variance by saying he had concluded after reading the
8 minutes provided in the agenda packet that the issue involved a
9 situation where the applicant had taken advantage of a confusing
10 situation because both Chair Franzese and Commissioner Madden had
11 warned Mr. Plaisted that his roof sign would no longer enjoy a
12 grandfathered in status if more than 70% of the building were
13 removed during reconstruction. The Commissioner said he certainly
14 thought that had happened when the building was leveled. He said he
15 doubted whether the City would have allowed the pylon sign to remain
16 on the building if the Commission and Council had been told at the
17 start that the remodeling involved leveling the building. He
18 perceived a similar situation had occurred with the Mickey D' s
19 signage.
20 Commissioner Hansen agreed this was another case where the Commission
21 was being asked to overlook an applicant ' s ignoring the City or-
•22 dinance. He drew a comparison between what had happened in this
23 instance and the request for shopping center signage heard earlier
24 in the evening where the applicants had worked with staff to provide
25 signage which conformed to the ordinance and had waited to put up that
26 signage until they had gotten official approval.
27 TCF Request for Conditional Use Permit/Setback Variance Tabled for
28 Traffic Study
29 At 8 : 20 P.M. , the Chair read the notice of the hearing to consider
30 applications from Twin City Banking and Savings for a conditional use
31 permit to allow expansion of the existing drive-in teller facilities
32 and variance to allow extension of the existing canopy over the
33 drive-in on the north side of the building at 3899 Silver Lake Road
34 to within 31 feet of the north property line where a setback of 35
35 feet is required by ordinance.
36 The notice had been published in the February 3rd Bulletin and mailed
37 to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject
38 property. Four of these were present to express concerns that the
39 new facilities might exacerbate the traffic congestion at that
40 location.
41 No one present reported failure to receive the notice of the hearing
42 or objected to its content.
• 43 Staff report: Childs reiterated information in his February 12th
7
1 memorandum related to the facilities expansion and
2 traffic congestion;
3 reported that as of Friday night staff had received
4 no calls either for or against this request;
5 told Commissioner Brownell the applicant, Robert
6 Galush had indicated that the sketch in the agenda
7 packet was only a rough drawing and had failed to show
8 the 12 feet of blacktop which would extend beyond the
9 fourth drive-in lane to the parking lot to accommodate
10 the passage of emergency vehicles;
11 told Commissioner. Hansen the parking requirements were
12 based on the square footage of the building and maybe
13 the City'.s codes weren' t tough enough for banks;
14 indicated he had not been with the City when the bank
15 was constructed and wasn' t aware of any variances
16 granted for that construction.
17 Proponents: Mr. Jones said he was appearing for Mr. Galush who
18 could not be there that evening and had more complete
19 site plans to show the Commissioners and neighbors;
20 reported that since bank deregulation, TCF had expanded
21 its savings and loan services , which had •
22 increased their customers, most of whom preferred using
23 the drive-in facilities;
24 indicated other TCF locations were making similar
25 improvements to better serve this increase in
26 customers;
27 told Commissioner Brownell that rather than adding more
28 tellers, most of the banks were installing $20 ,000
29 automated cash dispensing machines which would increase
30 the productivity of the four lanes to a five lane dis-
31 pensing capability;
32 indicated the idea of adding an emergency lane had
33 originated with the 1984 tornado;
34 admitted the site often experienced parking problems
35 whch were often the result of not having enough
36 drive-in facilities ;
37 responded to the suggestion that the bank might have to
38 acquire more land to accommodate the increased business
39 by saying that was being looked at and although it was
40 not part of the request that night, bank planners were
41 also looking at available land on the site perceiving
8 '
1 8 or 10 cars could be provided on the grassy areas on
2 the south side of the property and parking for four on
3 the little grassy island on the east side;
4 told Commissioner Hansen they would be contacting
5 the City to ascertain the procedures for making these
6 additions and providing better traffic flow both on and
7 off the site;
8 told the new Commission Chair the bank had not had an
9 outside traffic study done and the expansion plans had
10 only resulted from internal bank planning;
11 told Commissioner Werenicz although the bank had not
12 planned any further landscaping on the north to buffer
13 the residents across 39th from the sight of cars
14 piling up but was certain the bank would be willing
15 to add shrubbery or hedges or anything else the City
16 deemed necessary;
17 responded to Commissioner Werenicz ' s suggestion that
18 the existing structure might have to be changed to
19 alleviate the parking and traffic problems by telling
20 him it was for security reasons , based on a .couple of
21 holdups at this bank and others that all the tellers ,
22 vaults and cash dispensing facilities have to be
•23 located in the same secured area of the facility, mak-
24 ing it essential to have the drive-in facilities where
25 cash is constantly being passed from the tellers in
26 the same area.
27 Jean Keller, who manages the Apache bank indicated the
28 heaviest traffic days are paydays and days Social
29 Security checks are cashed and the heaviest traffic
30 backups occur at her facility Thursday afternoons, all
31 day Friday and Saturday mornings.
32 Concerned Ruth Thompson, 3015 - 39th Avenue N.E. said she had
33 neighbors: been remiss in not contacting Mr. Childs about her
34 concerns before the hearing;
35 indicated she hadn' t realized how many new drive-in
36 lanes were. involved in the proposal;
37 stated she "deeply regretted" the loss of grass on the
38 north side which would make the site "more commercial
39 than residential looking. " ;
40 said the neighbors had opposed the drive-ins being
41 located on that side from the very beginning but in
42 spite of these and other concerns about the facility
•43 before it was built, TCF had turned out to be a satis-
9
1 factory neighbor when it came to upkeep of their
2 property;
3 doubted whether adding more drive-up lanes could cor-
4 rect the traffic congestion near her home which is
5 diagonal from the bank because traffic on 39th is like
6 "a zoo or state fair with cars constantly turning
7 around in the neighbors ' driveways and occasionally
8 having accidents in front of our homes" ;
9 observed that there are never enough parking places to
10 accommodate TCF customers;
11 "strongly" advocated the bank buy more property to
12 expand the parking facilities ;
13 wondered with traffic already backed up all the way
14 down the street to get into the existing two drive-in
15 lanes whether traffic conditions might get worse in-
16 stead of better with four lanes ;
17 was concerned all the lawn on her side of the bank
18 would be torn up with people parking all over the site.
19 Ruth Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, recounted the near
20 misses she, her husband, and other neighbors had ex-
21 perienced trying to drive or walk down 39th Avenue; •
22 requested a stop sign be installed at the end of the
23 bank' s driveway exiting on 39th.
24 Jake Cadwallader, 3901 Silver Lake Road, recalled that
25 it had been one of the major concerns when the bank was
26 constructed that bank traffic would not go through the
27 adjoining neighbors;
28 said preventing a right hand turn out of the site
29 might direct the traffic back onto Silver Lake Road and
30 prevent the constant flow of TCF customers through the
31 residential areas to avoid the semaphore at the Silver
32 Lane and Silver Lake Road intersection.
33 Kenneth Lee said he lived .and had a lot just north of
34 the bank;
35 echoed Mrs. Thompson' s suggestion that with the in-
36 creased business and better economic outlook the time
37 might have come for TCF to expand its banking fac-
38 ilities and take care of its own traffic control which
39 can' t help but become more difficult to handle as its
40 business improves.
10
• 1 Commission almost all said they were customers of TCF and could
2 comments: attest to the traffic and parking congestion.
3 Hansen: noted that Mr. Galush in his application letter had
4 mentioned a "tremendous increase in volume" in business
5 as the reason for expanding the drive-in facilities;
6 indicated he was. not opposed to the expansion but
7 testimony that evening and his own experience as a
8 bank customer and convinced him that traffic and park-
9 ing had become a real problem for both .the neighbors
10 and customers;
11 said he believed the neighbors' had legitimate com-
12 plaints ;
13 indicated he would like to see a traffic control and
14 flow study done to see whether curb cuts or relocation
15 of the drive-in windows would be necessary to protect
16 the residential areas to the north and east from the
17 traffic problems on 39th Avenue and on their own
18 streets which are bank generated;
19 expressed concern that without the study, the City, by
20 allowing the additional drive-in lanes rather than
021 alleviating the existing traffic problems might be
22 encouraging an increase in customers and greater con-
23 gestion on the site.
24 Madden: said he lived close to TCF but did most of his banking
25 through the mail to avoid the parking and traffic pro-
26 blems around the bank;
27 agreed with Commissioner Hansen that before the City
28 allows the expansion of the banking facilities, there
29 should be a study made of both traffic flow and con-
30 trol.
31 London: concurred that the Commission did not have enough
32 information to make a decision at this time;
33 said he knew from working on other banking facility
34 construction that all such facilities are experienc-
35 ing parking and traffic flow problems as they expand;
36 wanted to be certain that the drive-in expansion
37 would alleviate the traffic problems and not just .
38 create new ones .
39 Werenicz : said he hadn' t perceived the neighbors were actually
40 expressing opposition to the expansion per se, but had
11
1 come to tell the Commissioners their concerns about the •
2 current and potential problems at TCF.
3 Wagner: perceived the study might help solve the stacking
4 problems all over the site.
5 Franzese: expected economic pressures if customers are lost
6 because of the congested condition on the site might
7 force the bank to make the necessary changes on its
8 own.
9 Commission Action
10 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Madden to table action on the TCF
11 request until the applicant has returned with a satisfactory traffic
12 study to demonstrate the proposed new facilities would improve
13 conditions for both parking on the site and traffic congestion on the
14 site and on the side streets, with both exits and accesses to be
15 considered and provision of one way traffic patterns, if that would
16 help.
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Commission Agrees With Neighbors That Lot 'at 3657 Silver Lake Road
20 Should Not Be Rezoned R-2
21 At 8 : 50 P.M. the Chair read the notice of hearing to consider a
22 request from Reliable Builders,. Inc. 2575 Fairview Road North,
23 Roseville, to rezone the above lot on the southeast corner of Silver
24 Lake Road and 37th Avenue N.E. from R-1 , single family residential, to
25 R-2 , two family residential, for the double bungalow the applicant
26 proposes constructing on that corner which was cut down for the
27 reconstruction of 37th Avenue N.E. by Ramsey County.
28 The notice of the hearing was published in the February 3rd Bulletin
29 and mailed to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the
30 subject property. No one present reported failure to receive the
31 notice or objected to its content. Three of the property owners
32 listed on the back of the petition for rezoning in the agenda packet
33 were present to express opposition to the proposal.
34 Staff report: Childs reiterated a portion of the comments he had made
35 in his February 12th memorandum related to the factors
36 involved in the proposal;
37 reported there had been a single family residence on
38 the property before Hennepin County took it by con-
39 demnation for the reconstruction of the 37th Avenue
40 and Silver Lake Road intersection;
41 indicated there might be some question whether the 26 •
12
• 1 by 40 foot structure depicted in Reliable Builder' s
2 drawing in the agenda packet would meet the minimum
3 requirements for two family dwelling first floor areas
4 which he read aloud;
5 added that there was certainly adequate lot size for a
6 conforming double bungalow dwelling to be constructed;
7 reported a call had come into the City offices that day
8 from Gerald Smith, 3629 Silver Lake Road, who, though
9 he did not specifically oppose the rezoning, questioned
10 what this type of development might do to property
11 values;
12 said he understood Mr. Hamer had also gotten a call
13 from the property owner to the east which questioned
14 the rezoning;
15 reiterated that the City' s Comprehensive Plan had con-
16 sidered single family zoning for this parcel, probably
17 because that was what was on the property when the Plan
18 was written;
19 pointed out on the zoning map that all property on 37th
20 Avenue west of Silver Lake Road is R-2 and all property
021 on the east side, except a parcel near Wilshire Park
22 School, is classified with an R-1 zoning;
23 told Commissioner Wagner he wasn' t certain the Silver
24 Lake Road median wouldn't interfere with .the proposed
25 driveway on that side of whether there were utility
26 boxes and transformers buried in that location.
27 Opponents: Bruce Anderson, 3640 Penrod Lane, said he had moved to
28 St. Anthony to avoid living in an area full of double
29' bungalows with transient inhabitants who moved every
30 six months or a year;
31 perceived there were enough double bungalows on 37th
32 not to add another to the area;
33 reported Marilee Higgins who had lived in the single
34 family dwelling on that corner before it was acquired
3.5 by Hennepin County had intended to attend this meeting ,
36 to testify that the County "had practically guaranteed"
37 that the zoning would remain single family but a strep
38 throat and a temperature of 104 deg. prevented her
39 attendance;
40 stated he didn' t want the property behind him to be
�41 zoned double bungalow;
13
1 said "It ' s zoned single family now, why mess it up?" ; •
2 indicated that if he had not been on vacation, he
3 would probably have been able to get "almost every one
4 of my neighbors up here to protest -the zoning change" ;
5 considered the road to be a hazard and reported he had
6 just built a $30 ,000 garage on Penrod just to get away
7 from exiting onto 37th where his family had been hit
8 four times.
9 Roger Rafferty, 3630 Penrod Lane, said his property
10 would border the southeast corner of the lot in
11 question;
12 indicated he was "totally opposed" to a double
13 bungalow on that lot;
14 - questioned whether a double bungalow with a double
15 garage would meet the site .requirements;
16 asked "why create any more rental property when what
17 the City needs is young families who own their homes
18 in the City?" ;
19 said a double bungalow meant two families had to con- •
20 tend with the hazards on 37th.
21 Mike Solz , who Mr. Anderson said owned the property at
22 3636 Penrod Lane, was present and nodded his head when
23 his neighbor said he opposed the property.
- 24 Mr. Lee indicated he had been a St. Anthony resident
25 and owned property there since 1929 and he had serious
26 doubts whether any type of residential development
27 should be allowed on that busy corner;
28 wondered if the City couldn' t make some use of the
29 property and build something to facilitate traffic,
30 like perhaps another turning lane for that corner;
31 was told by the Chair that she perceived the City
3 wanted to put the property to use to get some tax
33 dollars from it.
34 Proponent: Scott A. Holm, President of Reliable Builders, identi-
35 Tied himself as the builder and said he probably should
36 have talked to the neighbors before the hearing;
37
14
• 1 indicated he didn' t usually buy property without coun-
2 sel and said in this case he had gotten that from Henn-
3 epin County who told him "this would be a beautiful
4 spot for a double bungalow" ;
5 said he had also talked to builders around the City and
6 Mr. Childs about the property;
7 told the owners he understood their concerns about
8 rental property but the prospective owner-buyer would
9 be occupying a unit himself and would be most likely to
10 carefully scrutinize anyone who lived next door;
11 said actual plans for the house are "beautiful" and not
12 at all similar to his own rough drawings which were not
13 intended for approval at this point;
14 indicated the plans for the dwelling he had with him
15 were for a structure which would sell for $152 ,000 and
16 would be much nicer than the double across the street;
17 did not perceive -it would be very desirable for a fam-
18 ily to have a single dwelling on the lot where it would
19 be better suited for a double bungalow;
20 debated the point raised by Mr. Smith sayinq a well
21 designed double bungalow on that corner would not
22 diminish the surrounding property values;
23 told Commissioner Wagner he was planning a four car
24 garage with access off both Silver Lake Road and 37th
25 Avenue, although "that might be hoping for too much. " ;
26 told the Chair the back of the house would be tucked in
27 with only a little over one story exposed and he would
28 not be removing any dirt from the rest of the lot;
29 was told by Commissioner Hansen that seeing his plan
30 would be irrelevant at this stage since the Commission
31 decision whether or not the lot should be rezoned
32 would not be based on any plan for the property.
33 Commission Reaction
34 Franzese: told Mr. Anderson the county had cut down that lot
35 which greatly improved the visibility on that corner;
36 noted that the sketch in the agenda packet showed the
37 building set back far enough not to .obstruct the view
38 no matter how high it might be;
• 39
15
1 commented that before the double bungalow across the •
2 street had gone up, she had a hard time visualizing
3 anyone living there or trying to exit from the pro-
4 perty - now there are people coming. and going from
5 that property all the time.
I
6 Madden: indicated his first impression had been that the lot
7 certainly had the footprint for a single family dwell-
8 ing but not a double bungalow; however
9 he wasn' t ready to make a final decision yet.
10 Werenicz : said he didn' t doubt Mr. Anderson could have mustered
11 more support for his position if he had more time,
12 "having seen that happen many times before. " ;
13 said the fact that the neighbors who would. be the
14 most impacted by the project were so strongly opposed
15 to rezoning the property should have some bearing on
16 the decision since the Commission has always been
17 sensitive to the neighborhood reaction;
18 did not believe that by denying the change in zoning
19 the property would be unmarketable because he per-
20 ceived "there' s always a buyer out there somewhere. " ;
21 concluded that if the property remained R-1 , the City
22 would still benefit from the taxes.
23 Wagner: said he also opposed rezoning the property because the
24 neighbors don' t want it;
25 also indicated he didn't perceive it would be wise to
26 add traffic from a two family dwelling onto that busy
27 intersection which is already very congested.
28 Hansen: pointed out that a large single family home could pose
29 - just as much visual obstruction as a double bungalow
30 because it could be built just as big or bigger than a
31 double;
32 said he could show the--opponents single family homes
33 with eight cars in the driveway and rental properties
34 with only two;
35 indicated there were many double bungalows he'd rather
36 live next door to than singles;
37 perceived the neighbors would really rather see nothing
38 built there and cautioned there could be "worse
. 39 things than doubles. " ;
16
S1 however, agreed with the neighbors that it wasn' t a
2 good location for a double family dwelling and was
3 inclined to say "keep it single family. " .
4 London: indicated he was "strongly sympathetic" with the
5 neighbors because he didn' t see a compelling reason
6 to change the zoning to R-2 ;
7 said he thought the neighbors had every reason. to
8 expect their neighborhood to stay single family.
9 Brownell: perceived that would be a difficult corner to put any-
10 thing on because of its location and landscaping;
11 agreed with the neighbors that the City should con-
12 tinue to maintain the integrity of that tract of land
13 rather than changing it.
14 Franzese: said the bottom line with he was to keep the property
15 R-1 avoiding the inclination to "equate less desirable
16 property to R-2" ;
17 perceived adding to the congestion problems would only
18 make it all the more difficult for the neighbors to
•19 exit from their homes.
20 The hearing closed at 9 : 15 P.M. -
21 Commission Recommendation
22 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council deny
23 the request to have the property at 3657 Silver Lake Road rezoned from
24 R-1 , single family residential to R-2, two family 'residential,
25 primarily because the neighbors object to it ` and to rezone the
26 property now, when they have purchased their homes under the
27 existing condition, would probably not be fair to them without their
28 approval. The Commission sees no benefit to be derived from making
29 the property R-2 at this time.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 The Chair reminded those . present that the Council makes the final
32 decision and strongly advised all who were interested to attend the
33 February 24th meeting where the proposal would be given another
34 hearing. She commended the neighbors for keeping aware of the
35 notices and coming to the hearing to have their concerns heard.
36 Later in the evening Mr. Childs advised the Commissioners that the
37 applicant did not contact him until after he had already purchased the
38 property. The Manager said he had also advised the builder to
•39 contact the neighbors , which he had obviously not done.
17
i
1 HRA Still Looking for a Firm Bid on Kenzie Project
2 The Manager then reported on the "Catch 22" situation the H.R.A.
3 found itself in regarding developing the final phases of the Kenzie
4 Terrace Redevelopment Project with no firm commitment from either
5 Gaughan or Lang Nelson and the danger that the interest rates would
6 jump again. He said both developers are earnestly looking for
7 financing, with Lang Nelson working with Juran Moody as Commissioner
8 Brownell, who works for the investment company probably already knows.
9 Mr. Krier is working with both developers to see who has the best
10 financial potential on which to make a choice and should have someth-
11 ing to report soon.
12 Decision on Parkview Up to School
13 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Hansen even though the Council scheduled
14 their meeting on the same night as the school board meeting, the
15 Council felt that the decision needed to be made by the school anyway.
16 The Manager told Commissioner London the use of the gymnasium for a
17 fire station was not a negotiable item in discussions with the school.
18 No Further Word Related to the Proposed Medical Building Next to the
19 Kenzington
20 Mr. Childs reported Waco Scaffolding is using the back Berger Transfer
21 building and there are no further developments he knew about related •
22 to the development of the lot on Kenzie Terrace which is part of
23 the Kenzie project.
24 Hansen Unhappy With Council ' s Ignoring Commission' s Unanimous reco_m_ -
25 mendation to Deny the Mickey D' s Restaurant Signage
26 The Commissioner asked what the major consideration was which in-
27 fluenced the Council not to follow the Commission' s findings and
28 wondered if the Commission representative' s report had any bearing on
29 the outcome. Commissioner Madden said he perceived the photographs
30 the applicants brought with them demonstrating the poor exposure the
31 restaurant had from the east appeared to change a couple of Council-
32 members ' minds.
33 Commissioner London said he was also quite upset by the decision,
34 perceiving the applicant knew exactly what he was doing when he came
35 up with all the "phony" sign measurements. He said he didn' t recall
36 the Commission giving Mr. Farrell "a bad time" or being "hostile" to
37 him as he reported to the Council. He said the restaurant could
38 easily have been in compliance with the ordinance by having two
39 smaller signs which more clearly identified the business.
40 Commissioner Hansen -commented that he perceived the roof sign to be
41 the "ugliest in town" and certainly didn' t tell the public anything
42 about what the business was. The Commissioner said he perceived the •
18
1 City was getting to be a soft touch "giving into applicants who
2 ignore the ordinance ; put up their non-conforming signage; and then,
3 come in for approval, which is never denied. "
4 Commissioner Werenicz perceived it had been the same thing with the
5 Dairy Queen, but he who had qone at tooth and nail with the applicant
6 at the July meeting finally was hesitant to be the one to say tear
7 your $5 ,000-$6 ,000 sign down.
8 Mr. Childs asked if they had noted the New York appeals case where in
9 spite of a New York Planning staff goof in the beginning, the builder
10 was ordered by an appeals court to tear the top twelve floors off his
11 building to the tune of over 20 million dollars because the court
12 held "reasonable diligence" by a "good faith inquirer" would have
13 uncovered the true zoning rules. In the case of Mickey D' s sign, Tim
14 Gow should have known better, did know better, and wasn' t truthful
15 about other municipalities measuring signage the way he did.
16 Commissioner Hansen indicated he believed the Council owed the
17 Commission some explanation about that decision.
18 Mr. Childs reported the latest developments on the temporary shelter
19 erected in front of Mickey D' s to keep the windows from falling in
20 where the contractor failed to prove bonding, and the shelter is still
21 up. He concluded by saying staff puts forth a real effort to work
22 with business people and to give them the benefit of a doubt and 99
� 23 out of 100 times it works out fine - but every so often the City gets
24 taken advantage of, as discussed.
25 Legislative Changes Related to Planning Being Proposed
26 Chair Franzese sent around copies of potential changes in planning
27 which might impact on the Commission' s future decisions.
28 Franzese Commended for the Fine Service to the Commission
29 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to thank Rosemary Franzese for
30 the three years of fine service she had rendered the City on the
31 Planning Commission.
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 ADJOURNMENT
34 Motion by Madden, seconded by London to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 50
35 P.M.
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37 Respectfully submitted,
• 38 Helen Crowe, Secretary
19
ain tholli
Oil e
DATE : A P P ROVA L : �
March 9, 1988
TO :
Planning Commission Members
FROM : \ �
David M. Childs, City Manager
ITEM : TCF Variance and Conditional Use \
Attached please find a traffic study by Benshoof & Associates as well as a copy
(reduced) of a revised site plan for the site.
-Based on-the traffic study, and the final site plan, it appears that neighbors' and
Planning Commission's concerns about:
1. Traffic flow;
2. Stacking in drive-through lanes;
3. Additional on-site parking;
4. Landscaping and berming on the north side have been addressed.
Applicant had previously agreed to no right turn or similar signage at north exit.
The neighbors have been informed that this is back on the. agenda and they could
eview and plans at the City offices.
Please review the attached information in light of this request. Based on the
revised plan, I recommend approval of the variance and conditional use.
I:cjk3.15.88
ua Le January 28, 1988
Fee: $100.00
S
CITY OF ST'. ANTHONY
Application for Conditional Use Permit
(other than day care center)
Applicant TCF Banking & Savings FA Phone 370-7085
Address 801 Marquette; Minneapolis , MN 55402 Attn: Bob Galush
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc. ) Owner
Legal description of property in question Mounds View Acres Second Addn
Ex E 60 Ft . the Fol Lots 8, 9, & Lot 10 Block 7
Street Address 3899 Silver Lake Road; St Anthony, MN 55421
Zoning district in which property is located "C" Commercial
Conditional use proposed 4-Lane Drive-In Facility
Section 9 Subdivision 3. 1
Minnesota statutes and City ordinances require that the following conditions
be satisfied before a conditional use may be authorized :
Yes No
1. The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional
uses specifically listed for the zoning district in Yes
which it is to be located.
2 . The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to
the health , safety or general welfare of persons resid-
ing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property
values or improvements in the vicinity. Yes
3. The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable
at the above location to provide a service or a
facility which is in the interest of public conveni-
ence and will contribute to the general welfare of the
neighborhood or community. I Yes
Explain: The proposed drive-in facility will help to alleviate
the traffic congestion on 39th Avenue as TCF will be able to more
efficiently process our current drive-in customers
(use additional sheets if necessary)
• 1 /3 s s�'. �p
gnat r o
TCF BANKING AND SAVINGS. F.A.
&O1 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. NIN 55402 • 370 7000
January 28, 1988
Mr. David Childs
City Manager
St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: Petition for Variance and Necessary Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Childs:
Due to a tremendous increase in volume, the two lane drive-up
at our Apache Office is no longer adequate to serve the needs
of our clients and at times, creates a local traffic problem.
Our solution would be to expand it to four lanes. Our present
• canopy extends out 16 ft. 4 in. from the northernly side of our
building, it covers the first drive-up lane and half of the
second lane. The total distance from the north side of the
building to the property line is about 62 ft. 10 in. The canopy
would need to be expanded by an additional 15 ft. 6 in. (total
31ft.10 in. ) if we were to be permitted to expand to four lanes.
The canopy would not cover the vehicles in the fourth lane, only
the drive-up island where the drive-up equipment would be located.
To accommodate the increase in canopy size, we request a 4 ft.
variance from the 35 ft. setback now required. The first three
drive-up lanes would be 8ft. in width, the fourth lane would be
9 ft. in width, to accommodate wider vehicles. We would then
propose a 2 ft. wide buffer strip to separate the four drive-up
lanes from a proposed 12 ft. bypass and emergency vehicle lane
as outlined. on the enclosed sketch.
The layout as it extends outward from the side of the building
would consist . of the following:
A. 10" curb space - canopy to cover
B. 8' drive lane - " " it
C. 2' 4" equipment island - it It "
D. 8' drive lane - It " if
E. 2' 4" equipment island - " " "
D. Childs
Jan. 28, 1988
P. 2 •
F. 8' drive lane - canopy to cover
G. 2' 4" equipment island - " " if
H. 9' wider vehicle lane - no canopy
I. 2' concrete island separation - " "
J. 12' bypass and emergency vehicle lane - " "
Any additional information required would be provided as needed
as will any required drawings you feel would be necessary.
Yours very truly,
Robert Galush
Assistant Vice President
RJG:sl
Enclosure
January 28, 1988
uate:
Fee : $25.00
R- .
Other. . . . . . . $25 .0
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Applicant:
TCF Banking & Savings FA Phone : 370-7085
Address : 801 Marquette; Minneapolis , MN 55402 Attn: Bob Galush
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent , etc.) : Owner
Legal description of property petitioned for variance:
Mounds View Acres Second Addn Ex E 60 Ft the Fol Lots 8, 9 , & Lot 10 Block 7
Street address : 3899 Silver Lake Rd; St Anthony, MN 55421
Zoning istrict in which "C" Commercial
g property is located :
Request: Setback variance 4 feet from north property line where required setback is
35 feet
Minnesota Statutes and City ordinances require that the following condi-
tions must be satisfied affirmatively . If the answer to a statement is
Yes, please explain, using additional sheets .
Yes No
• 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings ,
shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel
of land involved, the proposed variance would re-
lieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience should the applicable ordin-
ance be strictly enforced . Yes
2 . The purpose of the proposed variance is not based
exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but would
correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to
this property but not applicable to other property
in the vicinity or zoning district . Yes
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by
City ordinance and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel
of land. Yes
Pursuant to Section 15 , Subd. 5 , of the City of St . Anthony Zoning Ordin-
ance, a variance shall not be granted for any use not permitted in the
zone in which a particular parcel lies .
Signd t re of Applicant
•
Signature of wner other
mthan_s.,>p,-1 icant) _
Tti71N CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
3599 SILVER LAKE ROAD ST. ANTHONY. ;;421 :32-iF42
January 28, 1988
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Rd
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Subject: Petition for Variance
Gentlemen:
1. Current physical conditions make it impossible to contain our
current customers ' automobiles in our parking lot and/or
drive-in facilities if you should enforce the applicable ordinance.
2. While the proposed variance may enhance the value of our property,
the intent of the variance request is to enable TCF to alleviate
traffic congestion on 39th Avenue and on Silver Lake Road. •
3. The applicable ordinance precludes TCF from resolving the congestion
which occurs at 39th Avenue-, and Silver Lake Road
Yours truly,
Robert Galush
Facilities Management
AVP
•
Silver lake Road
4a 10
1
I
1 Y � �•
D
or
0 t4.
-rL
1 � �
Y
(V
� a
Banking and Savings, F.A. Shea Architects, Inc
600 1st Avenue North.suite 290
SITE PLAN
. St. Anthony, MN Minrieopolis,MN 55403
(612)'339-2257
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
- 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 1191 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 553441(612)944.7590
March 7, 1988 REFER TO FILE: 88-34-07
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mr. Robert Galush, Twin City Federal
FROM: James A. Benshoo andJon M. Wertje
RE: Traffic Engineering Study for Twin City Federal
Bank - Apache
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to document our traffic
engineering analysis for the Twin City Federal branch
located in St: Anthony. The analysis focuses on the
potential impacts of expanding the drive-up by two lanes
plus a bypass lane and assessing the bank's parking needs.
• The analysis process included conducting existing traffic
counts and assessing the impacts of the proposed drive-up
expansion. Conclusions from the analysis are:
Six percent of the existing bank traffic is orientated
to/from the east on 39th Avenue. Because of this small
percentage, 'the proposed drive-up expansion will have
no significant effect on 39th Avenue east of the bank.
The drive-up expansion will alleviate the on-site
traffic congestion which occurs at peak periods by
providing additional capacity for the drive-up
operation.
It is recommended that 11 additional parking spaces be
added to the bank site to allow customers parking along
39th Avenue to park on-site.
A parking area east of the building is recommended to
provide three spaces for drop-off/pick-up functions.
•
Mr. Robert Galush -2- March 7, 1988
EXISTING CONDITIONS
To. analyze the existing traffic conditions, Benshoof 8
Associates conducted traffic counts and observations from
11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 3-6 p.m. on Friday, February 26, 1988.
During the two time periods the following data was
collected:
. turn movements at bank driveways
. drive-up volumes and queue lengths
. parking on the bank site and 39th Avenue
In addition, observations were made regarding traffic
operations and circulation on-site. From the traffic counts
and observations, only six percent of the bank- traffic used
39th Avenue to the east. Some drive-up bank traffic was
observed circulating off=site in order to find an unoccupied
parking space. The maximum parking demand occurred at 3 :30
p.m. with 24 on-site and 6 off-site parking spaces. occupied.
The off-site parking occurred on both sides of 39th Avenue
between Silver Lake Road and the bank driveway. A couple of
times vehicles parked illegally in the drive aisles east and •
south of the building site. These vehicles caused traffic
circulation and parking problems.
The two drive-up lanes can accommodate five vehicles each.
From approximately 4:40 p.m. to 5: 15 p.m. the two drive-up
lanes were full . On two occasions one vehicle parked in the
drive aisle waiting to use the drive-up. Otherwise, most
vehicles noted the drive-up was full and found a parking
space.
In addition to our traffic counts and observations . Jean
Keller, the bank manager, provided us with .some other
traffic observations. She indicated that the combination of
the drive-up traffiG waiting in the drive aisle and the
Illegal parking along the south and east curbs of the
building sometimes caused serious interference with on-site
traffic operations. Also. Jean indicated that between seven
and 12 vehicles sometimes park along 39th Avenue and walk to
the bank. The existing site plan and traffic observations
are illustrated in Figure 1 .
•
• Mr. Robert Galush -3- March 7, 1988
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DRIVE-UP EXPANSION AND RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS
Twin City Federal 's plans to add two drive-up lanes and a
bypass lane to the existing drive-up will change traffic
conditions at the bank. The two additional lanes will
accommodate at least five vehicles each and will alleviate
the on-site traffic difficulties noted on Figure 1 . The
bypass lane will provide on-site circulation for drive-up
customers when the drive-up lanes are full .
To alleviate the customer parking which presently occurs "
along 39th Avenue, it is recommended that Twin City Federal
add three spaces along the east parking row and add eight
spaces immediately south of the building. This additional
parking will provide a total or 40 on-site spaces and is
expected to adequately meet the parking needs of the bank.
To resolve the existing difficulties due to vehicles parking
along the curb east of the building, it is recommended that
the drive aisle in this location be widened to provide three
drop-off/pick-up spaces on the east side of the building.
• These spaces should be signed and controlled for maximum
five minute drop-off/pick-up purposes, e.g. for ATM
customers. The recommended site plan improvements are
indicated on Figure 2.
TCF customers park small percentage of
on both sides of street bank traffic to/from
the east •
i
39TH AVENUE N.E.
— —�
stacking for I
Iten vehicles
a . .
o
or
w
Y
I drive-up queue extends
o:
TWIN CITY into drive aisle on
I FEDERAL occasion during peak
Z I periods
I
I I
I I
I
vehicles occasionally vehicles occasionally
parking in drive aisle park in drive aisle
during peak periods
0 N 50
e �
SCALE
TWIN CITY FEDERAL FIGURE 1
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR EXISTING SITE
TCF - APACHE PLAN AND
BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. OBSERVAT10N5
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS-
add two drive-up 39TH AVENUE N.E.
lanes and bypass lane
I
I
o I I
� I
Y add three spaces
Ifor drop off/pick up
w I TWIN CITY function
FEDERAL
LO I I
I I
I
I � I
• I
I I
I
add eight spaces add three
spaces
0 N 50
SCALE
TWIN CITY FEDERAL
TRAFFIC STUDY FIGURE 2
FOR RECOMMENDED
TCF - APACHE SITE PLAN
BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YEAR XIV ( 1988) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
CDBG PROGRAM
Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Anthony, pursuant to Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 , as amended,
are sponsoring a public hearing on March 15 ,. 19.88 , at 7:35 P.M. -
at 3301 Silver Lake Road N.E. (in the Council Chambers) to
obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban County housing
and community development needs, Urban County Statement of
Objectives and the City of St. Anthony' s proposed use of its
Year XIV Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
planning allocation of $25, 222 .
The City of St. Anthony is proposing to fund the following
activities, with Year XIV Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds
starting on or about July 1 , 1988.
• Activity Budget
Kenzie Terrace Pedestrian Signal Project $15 ,000
Senior Citizens Program $ 3 ,780
Kenzie Terrace Sidewalk or Ordinance $ 6 ,442
Recodification Project
For additional information on proposed activities, level of
funding, program objectives and performance, contact the City
of St. Anthony, City Manager, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.
Anthony, MN 55418 , phone 789-8881 or the Hennepin County of
Office of Planning and Development at 348-6418.
The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban
Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to MS
471. 59 .
David M. Childs
City Manager
Publish: Februaz:y 24 , _1988
rl'
ain 'e' r hon
illa
DATE : APPROVAL :
March 9, 1988
T O : �(
Planning Commission Members
FROM
David M. Childs, City Manager ly
ITEM : REHAB DYNAMICS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
This is a request from Rehab Dynamics for a conditional use permit at 4001 Stinson
-- Boulevard, Suite 220 (Apache Medical Center) to allow various types of therapy,
including occupational , physical , speech, therapeutic massage, etc.
A conditional use permit is required in this case because the zoning ordinance requires
conditional approval for "physical culture or health gyms, spas, or clubs."
It has in the past been interpreted that massage falls into this category and is
therefore subject to this provision of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the massage
is "therapeutic" and done in conjunction with occupational therapy, but the conditional
approval still needs to be considered on this application.
No calls either for or against this request have been.' receiveo.
I recommend that the Commission listen to the proposal trom Rehab Dynamics and then
recommend conditions that would simply limit them to exactly what they propose. Then
any future applicant for such services would have to overcome a medically related
precedent.
:cjk3.15.88
y
ud ce
Fee: $100 . 00
• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Application for Conditional Use Permit
(other than day care center)
Applicant REHAB DYNAMICS, INC Phone 788-3830
Address 4001 Stinson Boulevard NE Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55421
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc. ) Renter
Legal description of property in question Medical Building
Street Address 4001 Stinson Boulevard NE
Zoning district in which property is located
Conditional use proposed Office and therapy/treatment space.
Minnesota statutes and City ordinances require that the following conditions
be satisfied before a conditional use may be authorized;
Yes No
1 . The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional
uses specifically listed for the zoning district in X
which it is to be located.
2 . The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to
the health , safety or general welfare of persons resid-
ing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property
values or improvements in the vicinity . X
3. The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable
at the above location to provide a service or a
facility which is in the interest of public conveni-
ence and will contribute to the general welfare of the
neighborhood or community. X
Explain : Various types of therapy - occupational, physical,
speech, therapeutic massage, etc.
(use additional sheets if necessary)
Signature of App,. l.it
02 - 22 - 83A A100 . 00IV,
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, March
15 , 1988 at 8: 00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the following
purpose: •
-Consideration of a request from Rehab Dynamics, Inc. ,
4001 Stinson Boulevard N.E. , Suite 220 , for a conditional
use permit—to—a-l-low—of.f.ice and therapy treatment space
including occupational, physical, and speech—therapy-,
therapeutic massage, etc. , in a "C" commercial zone.
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at said time and place. Questions regarding this
matter may be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881 .
David M. Childs
City Manager
.Bulletin: March 2 , 1988
•
4-0b1 Hinson Mailing List
Dean Prekker Richard Merrill Mildred Walquist
401 Silver Lane 2405 Silver Lane 2409 SilvetLane
. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421 St.- Anthony., MN . 55421
Katherine Blum Peter, Edward, Mary Mansur William Kelly
2413 Silver Lane 200 Robert St. S. , Suite 300 1707 Summit Avenue
St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Paul , MN 55107 Minneapolis, MN 55403
Re: Apache Medical Center
Sentinel Management Firestone Real Estate Leasing Edwin Beutz
5151 Edina Industrial Blvd. 1200 Firestone Parkway 2029 Palmer Drive
Edina, MN 55435 Akron, OH 44317 New Brighton, MN 55112
Re: Equinox Apartments Re: 3901 Stinson Blvd.
. ai hon ile
DATE : APP VA1
March 9 1988
T O : planning Commission Members
]FROM :
David M. Childs. City Manager
I T EM : SETBACK VARIANCE FOR K. CAHILL, 2524 MURRAY
This is a request from Kevin Cahill . 2524 Murray Avenue N.E. to reconstruct (tear down
and build a new onej his garage at the rear of his property.
The zoning ordinance requires a 3 foot setback to the eaves for a garage, so the new 24
foot X 34 foot garage (sample picture attached) will have adequate setback on the alley
side, but will need a 3 foot variance on the west side (zero setback to eaves) .
According to Mr. Cahill , the existing structure has the same foundation plan (only
smaller) with existing and proposed setbacks on the south and west sides to remain the
same.
1. If he were only adding to the garage, a variance would be needed because he
would be requesting to expand a non-conforming use.
2. Since an entirely new structure is proposed, the non-conforming kgrandfather)
rights are lost. The procedure to build the new garage is still a variance.
No calls have been received either for or against this request, and apparently years
ago, most of the garages in the area were built with similar setbacks and are now
grandfathered in.
:cjk3.15.88
uate: 2-19-88
Fee : $15 . 00
R- 5.
• Other. . . . . . . 525.00,
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Home: 789-8617
Applicant: Kevin M. Cahill Phone : Work: 574-3632
Address : 2524 Murray Avenue N.E.
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent , etc. ) : Owner
Legal description of property petitioned for variance:
Street address : 2524 Murray Avenue N.E.
Zoning district in which property is located : R1
Request:
Minnesota Statutes and City ordinances require tY,at the following condi-
tions must be satisfied affirmatively. If the answer to a statement is
Yes , please explain, using additional sheets.
Yes N_o
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings,
shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel
of land involved, the proposed variance would re-
lieve an undue hardship , as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience should the applicable ordin-
ance be strictly enforced . - X
2 . The purpose of the proposed variance is not based
exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but would
correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to
this property but not applicable to other property
in the vicinity or zoning district. X
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by
City ordinance and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel
of land. X
Pursuant to Section 15 , Subd . 5 , of the City of St. Anthony Zoning Ordin-
ance, a variance shall not be granted for any use not permitted in the
zone in which a particular parcel lies.
Signature of Applicant
* 15 . 00 "
J
.. .gnature of Owner other
than applicant)
•
February 19, 1988
Mr. Dave Childs
Manager, City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Dear Mr. Childs:
Per our phone conversation of February 17 , 1988, I am writing this
letter requesting a variance for -the construction of a new
three-stall garage. The major reason for my request is the garage
is level with, or lower than, the yard; therefore causing the
rotting-out of the garage walls near the foundation. My cars have.
also been rusting much faster than normal as there is usually
water on the garage floor.
My present garage is 20' wide x 22 ' deep. The garage I would like
to put up is 34' wide x 24' deep. I would like to keep the same
starting point on the south side (approx. 3-4 feet from the. lot
line) and on the west side (1 ft. ) as is the present garage.
As I am having the garage built two feet deeper to accommodate a
boat and trailer, I would prefer not to have it any further from
the west end of my lot so that I would have enough room to turn in
from the alley and enter the garage. As a point of information,
the garages belonging to the neighbors on either side also are on
the west ends of their lots.
Attached is a sketch of the proposed garage and the Petition for
Variance. If I can be of further assistance, or if you would like
me to attend the next Planning Board meeting, please let me know.
You can reach me during the day at 574-3632 .
Sincerely,
7 Cam ,
Kevin M. Cahill
2524 Murray Avenue N:E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
789-8617
•
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE PETITION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, March '.
15, 1988 at 8: 15 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the following
purpose:
• Consideration of a request from Kevin M. Cahill,
2524 Murray Avenue N.E. , for a variance from the setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow replace-
ment of the existing legal non-conforming 20 feet X
22 feet garage with a new 34 foot X 24 foot garage to
be located with no setback from the west property line
( 3 foot setback required) .
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at said time and place. Questions regarding this
matter may be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881.
David M. Childs
City Manager
Bulletin: March 2 , 1988
2524 Murray •-
Raymond P. Furlong, Jr. Roger Akenson Robert Manley
2508-29th Ave. N.E. 2512-29th Avenue N.E. 2516-29th Avenue N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 •
H. L. Arent Joseph F. Gazda Ivan Gorshe
2520-29th Ave. N.E. 2524 - 29th Ave. N.E. 2528-29th Avenue N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418, St. Anthony, MN 55418
Robert A. Koch Stanley Mirocha Frank Mlekoday
2600-29th Avenue N.E. 2604-29th Avenue N.E. 2608-29th Avenue N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Donald Grassman Bernard Rottach Betty Shoultz
2608 Murray Ave. N.E. 2604 Murray Ave. N.E. 2600 Murray Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Robert Tokar*- John D. Dorr Thomas Evans
2528 Murray Ave. N.E. 2520 Murray Ave. N.E. 2516 Murray Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Carl R. Noren Kenneth Nagel Charles F. Kausel
2512 Murray Ave. N.E. 2508 Murray Ave. N.E. 2525 St. Anthony Boulevard
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony., MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Joseph Brinkman Bernie Forst John W. Dimunation
2529 St. Anthony Boulevard 2601 St. Anthony Boulevard 2509 St. Anthony Boulevard
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Brunis Smoka Myron Kudanovich Dean Affeldt
2513 St. Anthony Boulevard 2517 St. Anthony Boulevard 2605 St. Anthony Boulevard
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN ' 55418
David Drews
2609 St. Anthony Boulevard
St. Anthony, MN 55418
•
8k en:-,1005 i1ldq, r-
-3 IL/ X. -;t
a
k
�a
L
3
�1 e
i
11 L;P•top, Line
3,L
�— - 3�'
J
1
i kdo t �}
Ile
bid
or-
No
1
•.. fir" -�- - _ --- ��_ �--!�—~ .�. X4.1,
1
T C
5r iM1t 2• ,. ,t1,t'f�,', � f ti1� , y�ti3�� #.+-y Ft '�1,17Lti ?. :ef 1 �•� � }_u�,!
r,rna y:�� 9` '�r�{PG��" i "'40�' ^T. . ..� ` �..,,.-�'!i?S .�i�dv• �. I,t. ..r- � .."�
c
•x', .;fit!;;;4-' ,.,
"���yyHa- /.1 � 1' •(;fit
,,
��3
�4►0•�!}'n ? , —ta 1 '� � j
-4_i
_"'�i .�vr:�.�lt�,11r�'� .71Z.+, :r;;�y,!�'.;�"' ,4 ice•'.{� tr_-!� „2 f�,'!°`.Fh �°�ly�'•:-, :��at�"�b'J 'r_ i e.. ��eT��w�s,f-,,,� 1 •�i ,�.w,`,1
1�'. � �` �r't'1'-'• 'i:x-,.�_ � �,.IZ�A?�.a!lt,�-'��f..- .+f�T�F.1x i..'tiCoikakf!�'
LL
00:0.c OO
RAPID
February 29, 1988
David Childs, City Manager
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Dear Mr. Childs:
Thank you for responding to my recent questionnaire on planning
fees. Questionnaries were mailed to 46 municipalities in the
Twin Cities area and 38 of these cities responded.
Being true to my word, I have forwarded a copy of the results,
as enclosed. Because the structure of planning fees vary
greatly among cities, I have had to do some interpretation and
standardization of the results. Hopefully, I ' ve done justice to
the responses.
• If ou desire more information of specific cities a list of
Y P
survey respondents is enclosed at the end of the report. Once
again, thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
��--�-
Lee Mehrkens
Management Analyst
LM:mra
Enclosures
i
1313 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD, COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433-5397 (612) 755-2880
CITY OF COON RAPIDS
Planning Fee Survey.
February, 1988
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
. Anoka $ 50 •..,
Arden Hills 100 + Consulting Fees
Blaine 75 - One/Two Family Residential
250 - Other
Bloomington 50 - Single Family
200 - Others
Brooklyn Center 50
Brooklyn Park 150 + 350 Escrow
Burnsville 500
Champlin 50 - Agricultural & Residential
150 - All Others
Coon Rapids 50 - Single Family Residential
100 + 20/acre - Other
Cottage Grove 100
Crystal 75
Dayton 25 + 100 Escrow - Home Occupation
25 + 500 Escrow - Commercial
Eagan 150
Eden Prairie
Edina 500
Fridley 200
Hopkins
Lino Lakes 50 + 300 Escrow •
Maple Grove 200
Maplewood 157
Minneapolis 75 - Filing Fee
50/Lot ( 500 maximum) Hearing Fee
Minnetonka 350 - Churches , Schools, etc .
50 - Home Occupations
Mounds View 50
New Brighton 200
New Hope 0 - Residential
200 + 200 Deposit for Consulting
Fees - Other
Plymouth 120 - Initial
30 - Renewal
Richfield 200 + 5 per 1000 of Project Value
(Maximum Fee of 1000 )
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville 100
Shoreview 150
Spring Lake Park 100 + 150 Escrow
St. Anthony 100
St. Louis Park 300 + 50 Filing Fee
Conditional Use Permit Continued
St . Paul 170 - Residential
235 - Commercial
Wayzata 200
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake 100 + 3-5 Mailing Fee
Woodbury 150 + 750 Escrow - one acre or less
300 + 750 Escrow - over one acre
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
Anoka $50
Arden Hills
Blaine
Bloomington 25/50
Brooklyn Center 50
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville N/A
Champlin 50
Coon Rapids 25
Cottage Grove N/A
Crystal
Dayton 25 + 100 Escrow
Eagan 50
Eden Prairie
Edina N/A
Fridley N/A
Hopkins
Lino Lakes N/A
Maple Grove
Maplewood 45 - Initial
18 - Renewal
Minneapolis
Minnetonka 50
Mounds View N/A -
New Brighton
New Hope 40
Plymouth 90
Richfield
Robinsdale N/A ,
Roseville N/A
Shoreview 75
Spring Lake Park 100 + 150 Escrow
St. Anthony N/A
St. Paul N/A
Wayzata N/A
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake 10
Woodbury 50
i
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
LOT SPLIT
S Anoka $ 50
Arden Hills 75 + Consulting Fees
Blaine 100/lot (maximum two lots )
Bloomington 50
Brooklyn Center 100 (Platting required)
Brooklyn Park 150 + 350 escrow
Burnsville 50
Champlin 150 + 300 escrow
Coon Rapids 50
Cottage Grove 150
Crystal N/A
Dayton 25 + 500 escrow
Eagan 50 Delux Lot Splits/3.00 Others
Eden Prairie 50
Edina 20
Fridley 100
Hopkins 50
Lino Lakes 50 + 200 escrow
Maple Grove 100 ( three lots or less )
50 (Waiver of plat )
Maplewood 33/lot created
Minneapolis 125
Minnetonka 50
• Mounds View 7.5
New Brighton 100 + 20/lot
New Hope 200 + 200 deposit for consulting fees
Plymouth 120/parcel - Lot Split
60 Lot Consolidation
Richfield 150
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville 50
Shoreview 75
Spring Lake Park 50
St. Anthony 27
St . Louis Park -0-
St . Paul 10/lot
Wayzata N/A
West St . Paul -0-
White Bear Lake 30 + 2/lot + 3-5/Residents Notification Fee
Woodbury 25/parcel + 150 escrow
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
MAPS
(Base Map/City Map )
Anoka $N/A
Arden Hills . 75
Blaine 3. 00
Bloomington . 80
Brooklyn Center 1.00
Brooklyn Park 3.00
Burnsville Free
Champlin 1. 50
Coon Rapids 3. 00
Cottage Grove 2. 00 - Large, 1.00 - Small
Crystal . 50
Dayton 2.00 - Large, 1. 00 - Small
Eagan -0-
Eden Prairie 5.00
Edina . 50
Fridley . 25
Hopkins
Lino Lakes 1.00
Maple Grove . 25 - Small , 2. 50 - Medium
5.00 - Large
Maplewood 3. 90
Minneapolis Free
Minnetonka 2.00
Mounds View 1. 50
New Brighton 2.00
New Hope 4.77
Plymouth 2.00
Richfield . 30 to 2.00
Robinsdale . 25
Roseville -0-
Shoreview 2.00
Spring Lake Park 5.00 - Large, 1. 00 - Small
St. Anthony 2. 50
St. Paul
Wayzata . 50
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake 5.00 - Large, 1. 00 - Small
Woodbury 2.00
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
MAPS
(Land Use Map )
• Anoka $N/A
Arden Hills . 75
Blaine 3.00
Bloomington 3 . 50
Brooklyn Center . 25
Brooklyn Park 3. 00
Burnsville N/A
Champlin 1. 50
Coon Rapids 3. 00
Cottage Grove No Charge
Crystal 1.00
Dayton N/A
Eagan 3. 00
Eden Prairie 3. 00
Edina 2. 50
Fridley No Charge
Hopkins
Lino Lakes N/A
Maple Grove 1.00
Maplewood No Charge
Minneapolis No Charge
• Minnetonka 2.00
Mounds View . 1. 50
New Brighton 5.00
New Hope N/A
Plymouth 2.00
Richfield . 30 to 2. 00.
Robinsdale .25
Roseville No Charge
Shoreview 1: 00
Spring Lake Park
St . Anthony N/A
St. Louis Park 3. 00
St . Paul
Wayzata . 50
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake 5. 00 - Large, 1. 00 - Small
Woodbury 2.00
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
MAPS
( Zoning Map )
Anoka $ 1 .50
Arden Hills . 75
Blaine 3.00
Bloomington . SO
Brooklyn Center 1.00
Brooklyn Park 3. 00
Burnsville 1.00
Champlin 1. 50
Coon Rapids 3. 00
Cottage Grove 2. 00
Crystal 1.00
Dayton 2.00
Eagan 5.00
Eden Prairie 2.00
Edina 2.00
Fridley .25
Hopkins 2. 00 - Large, 1.00 - Small
Lino Lakes 1. 00
Maple Grove 2. 50
Maplewood 3. 90
Minneapolis 4. 00
Minnetonka 1. 00 •
Mounds View 1. 50
New Brighton 5.00
New Hope 2. 12
Plymouth 2.00
Richfield . 30 to 2.00
Robinsdale 3. 50
Roseville 1. 00
Shoreview 2.00
Spring Lake Park 2. 00
St. Anthony 2. 50
St . Louis Park 2.00
St. Paul 7.00 - Set of 44 maps
Wayzata . 50
West St . Paul
White Bear Lake 5. 00 - Large, 1 . 00 - - Small
Woodbury 2.00 - Regular , 3. 00 - Color
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
MINING PERMIT
• Anoka
$ 50
Arden Hills N/A
Blaine N/A
Brooklyn Center N/A
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville N/A
Champlin N/A
Coon Rapids 50
Cottage Grove 250
Crystal Uniform Building Code Fee
Dayton 50/acre
Eagan 250
Eden Prairie 22. 50/lst 100 yards
+10/eac.h additional yard
+30/Inspection Fee
Edina N/A
Fridley N/A
Hopkins N/A
Lino Lakes . 15/cubic yard
Maple Grove
Maplewood 15/50 Yards or less
45/51-1000 Yards
Minneapolis N/A
Minnetonka N/A
Mounds View N/A
New Brighton 200 - New
200 - Renewal
New Hope N/A
Plymouth
Richfield N/A
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville N/A
Shoreview 10/1st 1000 sq. ft .
Spring Lake Park N/A
St . Anthony N/A
St . Louis Park 350 - New
350 - Renewal
St' Pau l N/A
Wayzata N/A
West St. Paul 250
White Bear Lake 100 + 3-5 Residents Notification Fee
__ Woodbury__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -50,-New/-50 Renewal -
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Anoka $1000 Escrow •
Arden Hills 100 + Consulting Fees
Blaine Working on a New Ordinance
Bloomington 500 + 100 per revision
Brooklyn Center N/A
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville 500.
Champlin Concept - 200 + 500 Escrow
Preliminary - 600 + 20/Acre
Concept/Preliminary Comb. - 800
Final - 100
Coon Rapids Concept - 100
Preliminary - 200 + 20/Acre
Final - 50 + 10/Unit (Residential )
200 (Commercial )
Cottage Grove
Crystal 75
Dayton 1000 Minimum Escrow for Legal
Planning , Engineering Expenses
Eagan 250 Initial , 25 Annual Review
Eden Prairie Concept - 500 or 5/acre (whichever
is greater )
Concept/Prelminiary - 500 or 5/acre
(Whichever is greater)
Final - N/A
Edina N/A
Fridley 300
Hopkins Concept - 35
Concept/Preliminary/Final 75
Lino Lakes N/A
Maple Grove Concept - 250 + 20/acre
Preliminary - 200 + 5/lot (Residential )
200 + 20/lot (Commercial )
Final - 100 + Escrow
Maplewood 157
Minneapolis 10-24 Units - 100
25-49 Units - 150
50-99 Units - 200
100 + Units - 300
Minnetonka N/A
Mounds View 100
New Brighton 500 (Residential )
350 + 20/acre (Commercial/Industrial )
New Hope 500 + 250 Deposit for Consulting Fees
Plymouth Concept - 360
Preliminary - 120
Final - 120 •
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Continued)
• Richfield $200 + 5/1000 project value
(Maximum Fee of 2,000 )
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville N/A
Shoreview Concept - 200
Preliminary - 200 + 5/Lot
Spring Lake Park N/A
St. Anthony ' 300
St. Louis Park 400
St. Paul 465/First 50 ,000 Square Feet
65/ea Additional 50 ,000 sq. ft .
Wayzata Concept/Preliminary - 150
Final - 150
West St. Paul 250 + 2/lot
White Bear Lake 100 + 3-5 Residents Notification Fee
Woodbury Preliminary - 300 + 750 Escrow
Final - 300 + 750 Escrow
•
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
PLATS
Anoka $ 50 + l/lot •
Arden Hills 150 + 15/lot
Blaine Preliminary - 300 + 5/lot + 15/acre
Final - 100 + Legal Fees
Bloomington Preliminary - 50 + 5/lot
Final - 50 + 2/lot
Brooklyn Center 100 + Legal Fees
Brooklyn Park 10/lot (200 minimum, 300 maximum)+
100/Acre Escrow (500 minimum, 1 ,500
maximum)
Burnsville Preliminary - 150
Final 10 + 5/lot + Engineering Fees
Champlin Preliminary - 200 + 10/lot
Final - 100
Coon Rapids Preliminary - 100 + 10/lot
Final - 100
Cottage Grove Preliminary 4/lot (250 minimum)
Final - 200
Crystal 75
Dayton 10/lot (150 minimum) + 1000 Escrow
for Expenses
Eagan Preliminary - 300 + Escrow
Final - 100 + 3/lot + Escrow
Eden Prairie Residential: 0 - 10 Units 300 + 5/unit
11 or more - 400 + 5/unit
Commercial/Office/Industrial: 0 - 3 Acres -
300 + 25/Acre
3 or more - 400 + 25/Acre
Edina 225 + 5/Lot
Fridley Preliminary - 500
Final - 500
Hopkins 150
Lino Lakes 50 + 600 Escrow
Maple Grove Preliminary: 250 + 5/lot (Residential )
250 + 20/lot (Commercial )
Final: 100 + Escrow
Maplewood Preliminary - 157
Final - 33
Minneapolis 325
Minnetonka If no new street - 150
If new street - 250 + 5/lot (over 3 lots )
Mounds View 150
New Brighton Preliminary - 200 + 20/lot
Final - 100
New Hope 200 + 200 deposit for Consulting
Fees
Plymouth Preliminary - 250 minimum (or
18/acre ) + 10/lot
Final - 120
PLATS Continued
Richfield $150
• Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville 100
Shoreview 75 - 3 lots or less
200 + 5/Lot - 4 Lots or More
Spring Lake Park 150 + 1/Lot (200 maximum)
St. Anthony 25 + 1/lot (Maximum of 150 )
St . Louis Park Preliminary/Final:
150 + 25/lot in excess of four , not to
exceed 1 ,200 (R-1 , R-2, R-3 districts ) .
360 + 55/lot in excess of four, not .to
exceed 2, 400 (Other districts ) .
St. Paul Preliminary 2.00 + 5/lot
Final 65
Wayzata 3 lots or less - $100
4-15 lots or less - . 200.
15-30 lots or less - 300
Over 30 - 500
West St. Paul 250. + 2/lot
White Bear Lake Preliminary: 100 + 2/lot + 3-5 Residents
Notification Fee
Final - 0
Woodbury Preliminary: 100 + 1/lot + 750 Escrow
Final : 100 + 750 Escrow
•
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
REZONINGS
Anoka $100 - One acre or less
150 - Two acres
20/acre - Over Two acres
Arden Hills 100 + Consulting Fees
Blaine 250
Bloomington 500
Brooklyn Center 350
Brooklyn Park 250
Burnsville 500
Champlin 250 + 300 Escrow
Coon Rapids One acre or less - 150
Over one acre - 150 + 20/acre.
Cottage Grove 250
Crystal 75
Dayton 150
Eagan 250
Eden Prairie Residential: 0-10 Units - 300 + 5/Unit
11 or more - 400 + 5/Unit
Commercial/Office/Industrial:
300 + 25/acre 0-3 acres
400 + 25/acre 3 or more
Edina 600
Fridley 300
Hopkins 200 •
Lino Lakes 50 + 300 Escrow
Maple Grove R-A, R-1 , 100 + 20/acre (500 max. )
All others ,200 + 20/acre ( 500 max. )
Maplewood 157
Minneapolis 100 + 50/lot
Minnetonka 350
Mounds View 50
New Brighton 500
New Hope 250 +250 Deposit for Consulting Fee
Plymouth Residential - 300 , All others - 360
Richfield 350
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville 100
Shoreview 400
Spring Lake Park 50 + 50 Escrow
St. Anthony 100
St. Louis Park 300
St. Paul One acre or less: 335 Residential + 10/lot
465 Commercial
Over one acre: 395 Residential + 10/lot
530 Commercial
Wayzata 300
West St. Paul 250 •
White Bear Lake 100 + 3-5 Residents Notification Fee
Woodbury One acre or less - 150 + 750 Escrow
Over one acre - 300 + 750 Escrow
' PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
SIGNS
Anoka $ Based on Value of Sign
Arden Hills Permanent - 25 Initial , 10 Annual
Temporary - 25
Blaine Permanent - 20 + .30/sq. ft . over
32 sq. ft .
Temporary - 15/two weeks
Bloomington Permanent - 13-26 dep. on size
Temporary - 8-13 dep. on size
Brooklyn Center Permanent - 25/First 50 sq. ft .
10/each additional 50 sq. ft .
Temporary - 10
Brooklyn Park Permanent - Wall - 15 maximum
Ground - 5 Min. 2.5 max.
Projectinq - 5 min.
Marquis/awning - 30
Temporary - 10
Burnsville Billboards - 450
Permanent - 35
Temporary - 35
Champlin Permanent - 1 per sq.ft . up to 50 sq. ft.
Temp. - 10 per 10 days (up to 30 days max)
Coon Rapids Permanent - 20 + .50/sq. ft .
Temporary - 0
• Cottage Grove Permanent - varies
Temporary - 0
Crystal 15 Wall Mount
50 Freestanding
Dayton Permanent - 15
Temporary - 0
Eagan Permanent - 2. 50/sq. ft .
Eden Prairie Permanent - 12 to 24 , dep. on size
Temporary - N/A
Edina Permanent - 50
Temporary - 0
Fridley Permanent - 24 for signs 0-40 sq. ft .
60 for signs 41 sq. ft . or more
Temporary - No Charge
Hopkins Permanent - Varies with size - 15-75
Temporary - 15
Lino Lakes Permanent - State Building Code Fees
Temporary - 10
Maple Grove Permanent - Varies from 20-65 based on
Value
Temporary - 5
Maplewood Permanent - Varies from 12-122 , based
on size
Temporary - 0
• Minneapolis 75
Minnetonka Permanent , -Billboard - 55
Temporary - 16
SIGNS Continued
Mounds View $Permanent - 25 + 5 for every 25 sq. ft .
Temporary - 10
New Brighton Permanent - 25
Temporary - 25
New Hope Permanent - 20
Temporary - 25
Plymouth 50 + 5/100 sq. ft .
Richfield 18/1st 5.0 sq. ft . or less
11. 50/each additional 50 sq. ft .
Robinsdale Permanent - 10 + . 25/sq, ft .
Temporary - 2
Roseville Permanent - Based on value
Temporary - 15. 50
Shoreview 10 Minimum or . 50/sq. ft .
Spring Lake Park Permanent - 25/40 sq.. -ft . or less
25/each additional 40-100 sq. ft .
Temporary - 15
St. Anthony Permanent - Sign value of 1-500 - 25
. Sign Value over 500-25 +4/100 value
Temporary - N/A
St. Louis Park Permanent - 35-75 , dep. on size
Temporary - 25
St. Paul
Wayzata Permanent - 60
Temporary - 10
West St . Paul Permanent - 1985 Uniform Building Code Fees •
Temporary - 10
White Bear Lake Permanent - 50
Temporary - 15
Woodbury Permanent - 0
Temporary - 0
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
SITE PLAN REVIEW
• Anoka $ 50
Arden Hills 100 + Consulting Fees
Blaine 100
Bloomington 100 - Final Site Plan
Brooklyn Center 250
Brooklyn Park N/A
Burnsville 150
Champlin 200 + 300 Escrow
Coon Rapids 100 + 20/acre
Cottage Grove 150
Crystal 75
Dayton 500 Escrow to cover expenses
Eagan
Eden Prairie 300 or 5/acre (whichever- is greater )
Edina N/A
Fridley N/A
Hopkins N/A
Lino Lakes 50 + 300 Escrow
Maple Grove 250
Maplewood 67
Minneapolis 65
Minnetonka 100 + 5/1000 Sq. Ft . of Building
(Commercial & Industrial )
350 + 5/Unit (Multiple Residential )
50/Building
50/Parking Lot Revision
Mounds View 50
New Brighton 200
New Hope
Plymouth Initial - 240
Revised - 120
Richfield Only in C-3 Zoning Districts - 200
+ 5 per 1000 of project value
(maximum of 2000 )
Robinsdale -0-
Roseville N/A
Shoreview 100
Spring Lake Park 100 + 150 Escrow
St. Anthony N/A
St. Paul 65 .minimum
Wayzata N/A
West St. Paul 65/Hour
White Bear Lake -0-
Woodbury 100 + 750 Escrow
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
VARIANCE
Anoka $ 50 •
Arden Hills 50 + Consulting Fees
Blaine 75 - One/Two Family Residential
150 - Others
Bloomington 75 - Single Family Residential
150 - Others
Brooklyn Center 50
Brooklyn Park 100
Burnsville 30 - Residential
60 - Commercial/Industrial
Champlin 50
Coon Rapids 50
Cottage Grove 50
Crystal 75
Dayton 25 - Residential
25 + 50 - Commercial
Eagan 75
Eden Prairie 75 - Residential
125 - Commercial/Office/Industrial
Edina 50 - Residential
100 - Non-Residential
Fridley 60 - Residential (R-1 )
100- - All Others •
Hopkins 50
Lino Lakes 50 + 200 Escrow
Maple Grove 150
Maplewood 45 - Residential
89 - Commercial
Minneapolis 50 + 30/each additional lot
Minnetonka 50
Mounds View 50
New Brighton 100 - Residential , 300 - Other
New Hope 40 - Single Family
150 + 150 Deposit for Consulting
Fees - All Others
Plymouth 60 - Variance w/Site Plan
90 - All other Variances
Richfield 129 - Residential
300 - Non-Residential
Robinsdale 85 Base Fee
Roseville 25 - Minor Residential Variance
50 - All Others
Shoreview 50
Spring Lake Park 25 + 50 Escrow
St. Anthony 15 - Residential (R-1 only )
25 - Commercial •
Variance Continued
St . Louis Park 100 - Single Family detached
• 150 - Others + 50 Filing Fee
St. Paul 140 - Minor/170 - Major Residential
235 - MultiFami.ly, 335 - Commercial
Wayzata 75
West St. Paul 50 - Residential, 250 - Commercial
White Bear Lake 30 + 3-5 Mailing Fee
Woodbury 25 - Residential + 50 Escrow
50 - Commercial + 50 Escrow
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
ZONING CODE BOOK
Anoka $10
Arden- Hills 25 - Zoning Code Book
40 - Comprehensive Plan
10 - Subdivision Regulations
Blaine 15 - Zoning Code Book
5 — Subdivision Regulations
Bloomington 9
Brooklyn Center 3. 50
Brooklyn Park No Charge
Burnsville 5
Champlin 10
Coon Rapids 5 + Postage
Cottage Grove 15
Crystal 10
Dayton . 25/Page
Eagan 10
Eden Prairie 25
Edina 11
Fridley 5
Hopkins 15
Lino Lakes 10
Maple Grove 15 (No Charge to Government
Entities ) •
Maplewood 6. 50 - Zoning Code Book
10 .70 - Comprehensive Plan
3. 40 - Plating Code
Minneapolis 35
Minnetonka 10 - Zoning Ordinance
5 - Subdivision Variance
15 - Comprehensive Plan & Map
Mounds View N/A
New Brighton 15
New Hope 5. 83 - Zoning Code Book.
4. 24 - Sign Code Book
Plymouth 10 - Residents, 20 - Non-Residents
Richfield 20
Robinsdale 40
Roseville 1 per Section
Shoreview 5
Spring Lake Park . 10/Page
St. Anthony 10
St. Louis Park 7. 50
St. Paul 25
Wayzata 25
West St . Paul 20
White Bear Lake 10 Zoning Code Book
5 - Subdivision Code
Woodbury 20
PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
OTHER
Anoka $ 2. 50 - Business Listing
2. 50 - Apartment Guide
Arden Hills 10 - Assessment Search
Blaine 10/Acre - Topography Maps
25 + Bond - Excavation Permit
10 - Driveway Cut (Residential )
25 + Driveway Cut (Commercial ) + 500 Bond
Bloomington 1000 - Comp Plan Amendment -
Brooklyn Park 85 - Housemoving
500 - Comprehensive Plan Change
Burnsville 75 - Street Vacation
100/Screen - Movie Theatres
Champlin 150 - Vacation
Coon Rapids 10 - Street Excavation (Paved)
5 - Street Excavation (Unpaved)
Cottage Grove 250 - E.A .W.
35 - Appeals
Dayton 25 - Public Hearing Fee
50 - Zoning Amendment
Eagan 100 - Accessory Housing Permit
8 - Assessment Search
300 - Vacation
Eden Prairie 500 or 5/acre (whichever is
greater )-Guide Plan Change
300 or 5/acre (whichever is
greater )-E.A.W.
Edina 200 - Planning Commission & City
Council Final P1an. Review
Fridley 150 - Vacations .
Hopkins
Lino Lakes 50/Half Section - Contour Maps
Maple Grove 20 -. Excavation Permit
250 - Easement/Street Vacation
Petition
175 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
150 - Flood Plain Permit
Maplewood 157 - Plan Amendment
122 - Housemoving
50 - Vacations
Minneapolis
Minnetonka 2. 50 - Half Section Prints
5. 50 - Demographic Information
. 25/Sheet - Copies
•
OTHER (Continued )
Mounds View
New Brighton •
New Hope
Plymouth $120 - Zoning Text Amendment
110 + 28/hour for Police & Inspection
House Moving Fee
25 - Street Excavation
Richfield 350 - Zoning Plan Amendment
350 - Street Vacation
6 - Forestry Permit
Robinsdale
Roseville
Shoreview 75 - Accessory Apartment Permit
Spring Lake Park
St . Anthony
St . Louis Park 150 - Street , Alley, Utility Vacations
150 - Interpretation Requests
St . Paul 170 - Sign Variance
170 - Appeal of Admin. Review (Single
Family)
235 - Appeal of Admin. Review (MultiFamily)
265 - Appeal of Admin.. Review (Commercial/
Industrial )
90 - Appeal of Planning Com. (Single
Family )
155 - Appeal of Planning Com. (MultiFamily)
185 - Appeal of Planning Com. (Commercial/
Industrial)
Wayzata Other charges based on Consultant
Planner Fees
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake 15 - Street Excavation
Woodbury
•
` PLANNING FEE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Anoka Melinda Coleman , City Planner
Arden Hills Catherine J. Iago , Deputy Clerk/
Zoning Administrator
Blaine Randall Thoreson , City Planner
Bloomington Galen P. Doyle, Associate Planner
Brooklyn Center Gary Shallcross , Planner
Brooklyn Park Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Burnsville Debra Brodsho, Associate Planner
Champlin Bruce Berghorst , Community
Development Intern
Coon Rapids Lee Mehrkens , Management Analyst
Cottage Grove Anne Hurlburt, Director of Planning
Crystal William Monk, Public Works Director
Dayton Mark Siewert , City Administrator
Eagan Mike Ridley, Intern
Eden Prairie Steve Durham, Planner
Edina Craig Larsen , Planning Director
Fridley Unidentified
Hopkins Nancy Anderson , Community
Development Analyst
Lino Lakes John Miller , City Planner
Maple Grove Bob Waibel, City Planner
. Maplewood Geoff Olson , Director of Community
Development
Minneapolis Gary Dorek, Planner
Minnetonka Kathryne Kinnane, Planning/Zoning
Secretary
Mounds View Kim Herman , City Planner
New Brighton Erny Mattila , City Planner
New Hope M. Jeannine Dunn , Administrative
Assistant
Plymouth Blair Tremere, Community
Development Director
Richfield Jane Skov, Planning & Zoning Secretary ,
Robinsdale William Deblon , Planning Coordinator
Roseville Rick Jopke , Planning & Zoning Administrator
Shoreview Thomas Simonson , City Planner
Spring Lake Park Cam Mueller , Receptionist
St. Anthony David Childs, City Manager
St. Louis Park Joan Johnson , Admin . Secretary
St . Paul Al Czaia , Planning Aide
Wayzata Joan Smith, Administrative Assistant
West St . Paul Jim Hausley, Senior Engineering
Technic ian/Ass 't Bldg. Official
White Bear Lake Dennis Welsch, Community
• Development Director
Woodbury Cindy Petrie, Associate Planner
. C M TY O F S T _ ANTHONY
C OUN C= L M 2 NUT E S
FEBRUARY 9
3- 988
7 : 30 P _ M .
1 The meeting was opened 'at 7: 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Mayor Sundland.
3 Present for roll call: Ranallo, Sundland, Makowske, Marks , and
4 Enrooth.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
6 Ray Nelson, Liquor Operations Manager
7 , Don Hickerson, Police Chief
8 James Krautkremer, Brooklyn Park Mayor
9 Joseph Strauss, Executive Director of the
10 Northern Mayor' s Association
11 JANUARY 26 , 1988 COUNCIL MINUTES
12 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve with the following
13 changes:
*4 Page 4 , line 34 : Change "have" to "has"
5 Page 5 , line 4: Change "were" to "was" .
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
18 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to grant licenses to the follow-
19 ing as listed in the February 9th Council agenda packet:
20 Service Station
21 Dave' s St. Anthony Mobil
22 Murphy' s Service Center
23 Cigarettes
24 Town and Country Foods
25 Contractors
26 Milton L. Johnson, Minneapolis
27 Rite Way Waterproofing, Lino Lakes
28 Lawrence Signs , Inc. , St. Paul
49 Rubbish Removal
30 Gallagher ' s Service
1 Heating
2 EAH Schmidt & Associates •
3 Laundry Vending
4 Manor Wash ' n' Dry
5 St. Anthony Self Service Laundry
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 CLAIMS
8 Motion by Marks, seconded Enrooth to approve payment of $21,612 . 00 to
9 Fullerton Lumber Co. for work on the Stonehouse reconstruction
10 project. The City Manager explained the contract price, will be
11 reduced by $5 ,000 as a result of pending change orders but this draw
12 does not pay the entire cost of the construction as there is still
13 work remaining to be done by the contractor.
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $1 , 561. 26
16 to Bruce A. Liesch Associates for their services regarding the
17 T.C.A.A.P. litigation.
18 Motion carried unanimously. •
19 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $2 ,852. 90
20 to Briggs and Morgan for professional services regarding the City' s
21 lawsuit against the U.S. Army et al related to St. Anthony' s water
22 contamination.
23 Motion carried unanimously.-
24 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment to Hance and
25 LeVahn for legal services rendered for the month of February, 1988 ,
26 relative to St. Anthony prosecutions.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of $619 . 80
29 to Dorsey & Whitney for legal services for the month of December,
30 1987 .
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of $1 , 510 . 35
33 to Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. relating to the City' s 1987 MSA
34 account.
35 Motion carried unanimously.
2
• 1 Motion by Marks , seconded by Makowske to approve payment of $9,000 . 00
2 to School District #282 for the City' s rental of the ParkView facilit-
3 ies for January, February, and March, 1988.
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 REPORTS
6 COUNCIL
7 Councilmember Makowske presented a Councilmember ' s perspective and New
8 Brighton' s Mayor Beneke gave a Mayor ' s perspective of their respective
9 government positions to newly elected officials at a recent Ramsey
10 County League of Local Government meeting.
11 Councilmember Makowske discussed steps which could be taken by St.
12 Anthony regarding pornography on cable television. The problem was
13 stressed in a letter she had received from Clean Up Project.
14 Councilmember Marks agreed, saying he read an excellent article in a
15 Bulletin editorial regarding this problem. He also said he felt the
16 City' s cable representative should attend a Council meeting soon to
17 discuss this and other cable television issues. Councilmember Ranallo
18 added that the Knights of Columbus are sponsors for the Clean Up
19 Project and he, too, feels something should be done about pornography
20 on cable television.
�1 Council Action
22 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks that the .City' s Cable Commission
23 representative be instructed to request a legal opinion from the North
24 Suburban Cable Commission' s attorney as to our ability to control
25 sexually explicit movies currently being offered on a pay-per-view
26 basis.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Councilmember Enrooth recently attended a meeting on hazardous
29 materials as a member of the Local Emergency Planning Committee, which
30 is a state commission.
31 Mayor Sundland thanked Mayor Pro Tem Ranallo for standing in for him
32 at 'a recent ribbon cutting ceremony.
33 The Mayor also read a letter from the Volunteers of America, which is
34 a very active human services organization, requesting a proclamation
35 naming March 6-13 , 1988 as Volunteers of American Week in the Village.
36 Council Action
37 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth proclaiming March 6-13 , 1988 as
40 8 Volunteers of America. Week in St. Anthony Village.
3
1 Motion carried unanimously. •
2 Congressman Sikorski Representative to Hold Meeting at Chandler Place
3
4 Each of the Councilmembers had received a letter from Congressman
5 Gerry Sikorski. The letter invited them to a meeting with a member of
6 his staff on February 17th at Chandler Place to discuss issues and
7 problems of his constituency. The Councilmembers agreed that the
8 meeting should be attended to discuss the water contamination problems
9 in St. Anthony.
10 Councilmember Ranallo attended a League of Minnesota Cities meeting in
11 Grand Rapids regarding the Gopher One Call; and a LMC seminar in
12 Brooklyn Center. The Councilmember also mentioned the Salvation Army
13 has opened a large store in Apache Plaza.
14 Councilmember Marks has just completed his jury duties which lasted
15 four weeks. The case was a civil lawsuit regarding a product. He
16 indicated it was "quite an experience" .
17 Because Mayor Jim Krautkremer and Joseph Strauss were present to
18 discuss the Northern Mayors '. Association, that portion of UNFINISHED
19 BUSINESS was moved up on the agenda.
20 Northern Mayors ' Association Representatives Outline Goals and •
21 Objectives for Organization
22 Mayor Sundland introduced Brooklyn Park Mayor Krautkremer. The. latter
23 was the major force in organizing the association of which there are
24 21 communities .
25 Mayor Krautkremer spoke about the need for the northern suburbs to -
26 band together to improve the area' s economic development and transpor-
27 tation needs. He gave examples of some of the needs and agreed that
28 while not every member community would benefit to the same degree,
29 each would benefit in one way or another.
30 Mayor Krautkremer introduced the Executive Director of the organiza-
31 tion, Joseph Strauss. Mr. Strauss described his background and went
32 into additional detail of what the organization' s goals are. Mr.
33 Strauss gave statistics to support the need for such an organization
34 and indicated a "focus" for the northern area must be established.
35 Mayor Sundland said the organization is becoming well known, citing
36 their hand in some of the transportation needs.
37 Councilmember Marks was concerned about "regional interest" . He does
38 not want to become "fractionated" with an organization such as this.
39 Mayor Krautkremer agreed and emphasized the Northern Mayors ' Associa-
40 tion was organized to establish a positive force in our area - not
41 against other areas. •
4
� 1 Mr. Strauss noted that not all development is necessarily good. He
2 mentioned an emphasis on light rail transit as an example of a
3 positive force. Mr. Strauss stressed that most of these things take
4 time to accomplish, and can be accomplished with community coopera-
5 tion.
6 Councilmember Enrooth wanted to know if Mr. Strauss was working at
7 the Executive Director job full time. Mr. Strauss indicated he was
8 not and that his commitment is about half-time. Mayor Krautkremer-
9 stressed the need for a strong start and/or base for the organization
10 to be successful in the long run.
11 Councilmember Ranallo was concerned about the need to belong to
12 another organization to pay dues to. Mr. Strauss will, in a short
13 time, begin fund raising in the private industry, utility,
14 organization sectors (besides community funding) . .
15 The Brooklyn Park Mayor and Executive Director of the Northern Mayors '
16 Association were thanked for their presentation and left the meeting
17 about 8: 30 P.M. The regular meeting agenda continued.
18 DEPARTMENT AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
19 The January, 1988 Fire -Department Report and - the Liquor Operations
00 January monthly report were ordered filed.
21 Plans for Grand Opening/Open House at Stonehouse Liquor Operations
22 Discussed
23 Liquor Operations Manager Ray Nelson was present ( 1 ) to discuss plans
24 for the open house and grand opening plans for the Stonehouse On and
25 Off Sale operations; and ( 2 ) because he will not be able to attend the
26 annual goal setting retreat the end of February.
27 Mr. Nelson discussed his preference for two separate openings - an
28 "open house" for the Stonehouse operation and a "grand opening" for
29 the bottle shop.
30 Plans for the open house include invitations, extensive local adver-
31 tising, i.e. , local newspapers , cable T.V. , and possibly the Newslet-
32 ter. Mr. Nelson suggested having hors d' oeuvre, champagne, and gifts
33 for the guests. His idea is to hold this "open house" for about four
34 hours probably on a Saturday.
35 The "grand opening" for the bottle shop could be a weekend affair , and
36 also extensively advertised. Mr. Nelson suggested the open house
37 could be held in March and the grand opening possibly in April.
38 Business at the Stonehouse bar had decreased in 1986 and 1987 . In
�9 September of 1987 , with the remodeling of the bar lounge, and the
5
1 addition of dancing and restaurant business began to increase and has
2 been doing so steadily since then. Councilmember Ranallo inquired
3 about the parking situation at the off-sale and was told by Mr.
4 Nelson that it may be a problem but assured the Councilmember that a
5 solution will be worked out. Mr. Nelson proceeded to describe some of
6 the possibilities.
7 Mr. Nelson expressed the need for Council' s input regarding to the
8 Apache bar and lounge which has been losing business since the bottle
9 shop was moved out. Because he cannot be at the goal setting retreat,
10 Mr. Nelson suggested the Council and he set up a work session to
11 discuss his goals and their suggestions for 1988 . This action was
12 agreed upon by the Councilmembers. Mr. Nelson left the meeting at
13 9:00 P.M.
14 Changes In Weapons Ordinance Approved
15 The third readings and adoption of the two Ordinances , 1988-001 and
16 1988-002 , listed under UNFINISHED BUSINESS on the agenda, were
17 considered next.
18 Chief Hickerson had suggested the City Attorney make some changes to
19 the weapons ordinance, 1988-001 . The City Attorney agreed to the
20 changes and the City Manager distributed the copies indicating the
21 changes. In addition, Chief Hickerson suggested the word "unloaded"
22 be added in Subd. 3 before "firearm in the closed trunk of" . The
23 changes were all agreed upon by the Councilmembers.
24 Council Action
25 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve the third reading and
26 adopt the corrected version of Ordinance 1988-001 .
27 ORDINANCE 1988-001
28 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEAPONS, AMENDING
29 SECTION 925 OF THE 1973 ST. ANTHONY CODE OF ORDINANCES
30 IN ITS ENTIRETY; REPEALING SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4 OF
31 SECTION 930 OF THE 1973 ST. ANTHONY CODE OF ORDINANCES
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 Motion by Sundland, seconded by Marks to approve the third reading and
34 adopt Ordinance 1988-002.
35 ORDINANCE 1988-002
36 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
37 REGULATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES;
38 AMENDING THE 1973 CODE OF ORDINANCES
39 TO ADD A SECTION
40 Motion carried unanimously. •
6
� 1 Mayor Sundland thanked the Police Chief for the Police Reserves report
2 which the Councilmembers had received prior to the meeting. The
3 Police Chief then left the meeting.
4 CITY MANAGER
5 The February 2nd Staff Meeting Notes were noted and ordered filed.
6 Fire Relief Association By-Law Changes Tabled
7 The Fire Relief Association had requested some changes in their By-
8 Laws . It was originally thought this could be done at this meeting,
9 but after consulting with City Attorney Soth, it was determined
10 Council action should be tabled until Mr. Soth reviewed the changes.
11 Council Action
12 Motion by Sundland, seconded by Enrooth to table action on the changes
13 requested by the Fire Relief Association to their By-Laws until review
14 by the City Attorney.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 Council Meeting Date Changed
07 Because several ::Co.uncilmembers and the City Manager will be out of
18 town on March 22nd, it was suggested to delay it a week.
19 Council Action
20 Motion by Makowske , seconded by Enrooth to reschedule the Council' s
21 regular meeting for Tuesday, March 29 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 P.M.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 Purchase of New 33 ,000 G.V.W. Dump Truck Approved
24 Hennepin County had taken and awarded bids for 33 ,000 G.V.W. dump
25 trucks and awarded the bid to Lakeland Ford for $41 ,723 . 25. The
26 underbody plow, wing plow, and straight plow, will be purchased
27 separately. $57 ,000 had been budgeted and with the additional cost of
28 the plow and attachments appears the cost will come to about that
29 amount.
30 Council Action
31 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Makowske to purchase a 33 ,000 G.V.W.
32 dump truck from Lakeland Ford for $41 ,723 . 25 , as recommended in the
33 Public Works Director ' s February 2 , 1988 memo.
�34 Motion carried unanimously.
7
1 Purchase of Minolta EP 570Z Copier Approved
2 After in-house testing five different brands of copiers, staff
3 recommended the purchase of a new Minolta EP 570Z copier as proposed
4 by Copy Duplicating Products for $8 , 103. 00. The 1988 budget for a
5 copier replacement was $7 ,000. Mr. Childs stated that $1 , 500 of the
6 total cost will come from the liquor operations budget for their use
7 of the machine.
8 Council Action
9 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to purchase a Minolta EP 570
10 copier from Copy Duplicating Products for $8 , 103 .00 , with no more than
11 $7,000 coming from the Capital Equipment Fund.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 Water/Sewer Rates to Be Increased
14 The City Manager introduced two proposed Ordinances, - 1988-003 and-
15 1988-004 , which would increase water and sewer rates. Mr. Childs
16 reiterated what was written in his February 5 , 1988 memo that to stay
17 even water rates must be increased to at least $ . 75 per hundred cubic
18 feet. He stated that even at that rate, transfers would be needed due
19 to the water contamination litigation costs (which would be repaid if
20 and when the lawsuit against the Army is settled) . Mr. Childs also •
21 noted that higher rates ( such as 80 or 90- cents) seemed to be in
22 communities which are established and lower rates ( such as 30 to 40
23 cents) are charged in newer, fast growing communities of those which
24 indirectly subsidize these operations through the General Fund.
25 Councilmembers Makowske and Ranallo felt the increase should be more,
26 to either 80 or 85 cents , due to the litigation costs and the costs of
27 water bought from Roseville. Councilmember Marks agreed with this
28 assessment, but Councilmember Enrooth felt that because the sewer
29 rate is proposed to be increased also, perhaps that raise would be too
30 much at one time.
31 Mr. Childs said the increase at 80 cents would mean about $3 . 00 on a
32 minimum utility bill but did not have figures for an average bill.
.33 The Council' s consensus was that the Ordinance should be changed from
34 a 75 cent increase to a 80 cent increase and the minimum bill would be
35 changed from $7 . 50 to $8 . 00 per quarter.
36 Council Action
37 Motion by Marks , seconded by Ranallo to approve the first reading of
38 Ordinance 1988-003 with charges to be $ . 80 per hundred cubic feet and
39 a minimum charge of .$8. 00 per quarter.
40
8
1 ORDINANCE 198:8-003
102 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER RATES; AMENDING
3 SUBDS. 2 AND 3 OF SECTION 550: 00 OF THE 1973
4 CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
5 Voting on the motion:
6 Aye: Ranallo, Marks , Makowske , Sundland.
7 Nay: Enrooth.
8 - Motion carried.
9 Ordinance 1988-004 , relating to sewer rate increases, was discussed at
10 length. An automatic increase of about 12 cents per ccf occurred as
11 of January 1 , 1988 because of the charges from the Metropolitan Waste
12 Control Commission. The additional 10 cent increase would be needed
13 due to the repairs which need to be made to the Foss Road Lift Station
14 and the increase could be put off until this summer when the work on
15 the lift station begins. Councilmembers Enrooth and Marks suggested
16 that the Council "wait and see" just how much of an increase would be
17 needed for the lift station repairs before incurring the increase.
18 Therefore, there was no Council action on Ordinance 1988-004 to
19 increase the sewer rates.
40 0 Benefits of Northern Mayors ' - Association Membership Discussed
21 Enrooth sees limited benefit for St. Anthony.
22 Makowske thinks the only gain would be that it would be a good
23 investment because there would be continued good valu-
24 ation on St. Anthony homes.
25 Sundland asked if there would be an impact;
26 wondered what would happen if we didn' t approve of a
27 development and we were not a member;
28 believes St. Anthony would benefit as a member of the
29 Association..
30 Ranallo agreed northern area is short-changed;
31 other types of funding (other than community) should be
32 looked at;
33 if City does join organization, someone should stay active
34 as a member.
35 Marks feels transportation will be St. Anthony' s greatest benefit.
9
1 The Councilmembers all agreed that choosing Mr. Strauss as Executive
2 Director was an excellent choice.
3 Council Action
4 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to approve the resolution
5 supporting an increased funding for the Northern Mayors ' Association
6 and that the projected dues for the City of St. Anthony for 1988 are
7 $1 ,933 . 00 .
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 ADJOURNMENT
10 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to adjourn the meeting at 9: 25
11 P.M. for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting which
12 followed at 9 : 30 P.M.
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14 Respectfully submitted,
15 Connie Kroeplin, Acting Council Secretary
16 :cjk
10
;y
C 2 TY O F -C->T
ANTHONY
HOU S =NG AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTFiOR2TY M2NUTES
F M B RUARY 9 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was called to order at 9 : 30 P.M. by Chair Sundland.
2 Present for roll call: Sundland, Vice Chair Enrooth, Secretary/
3 Treasurer Marks, and Commissioners Makowske
4 and Ranallo.
5 Also present: David Childs, Executive Director
6 William Soth, H.R.A. Attorney
7 Richard Krier, Development Advisory Services,
8 Consultant
9 JANUARY 26, 1988 H.R.A. MINUTES
10 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve the above as
11 submitted.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 CLAIMS
14 Motion by Marks , seconded by Makowske to approve payment of $2 , 210 . 00
15 to Stuart J. Bonniwell for services rendered the H.R.A. for the 1986
16 H.R.A. audit.
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to .approve payment of $500. 40 to
19 the Dorsey & Whitney law firm for legal services rendered the H.R.A.
20 during December, 1987 .
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 KENZIE TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE - RICHARD KRIER
23 Both interested developers , Gaughan and Lang Nelson are still seeking
24 financing for the project. Neither has found financing yet.
25 Because Gaughan seemed to be dragging its feet to acquire financing
26 for the project, Lang Nelson was approached in December as to their
27 interest. Lang Nelson will put up $10 ,000 to assure they will find
28 financing in 45 days.
29 Gaughan has contacted Midland, based in Des Moines, who indicated they
30 would finance at 9-1/4%. Gaughan decided to drop them. First Bank
31 was also contacted and indicated they would not want to do a "lower
32 floater" type of deal.
33 HUD indicated the SAMA (site/market analysis) sounded favorable
34 (considers the market, the rents, and the people) . Mr. Krier
1 indicated that if Gaughan went with HUD a lot more time would probably
2 have to be taken before conditional commitment would be received. If
3 Gaughan did decide to obtain financing in this manner, it would
4 probably take 45 to 60 days before the bonds can be marketed. Before
5 the FHA would give final commitment the plans, specifications, etc.
6 would all have to be submitted. There are many steps in this process
7 and it would take at least 90 days to complete it.
8 Lincoln National Life from Ft. Wayne, Indiana, was also approached by
9 Gaughan. That company offered a partnership - 50% of the deal and
10 they would put up some of the equity. Mr. Krier indicated this would
11 probably be a better deal for the developer, but would also take 45-60
12 days to close.
13 Mr. Krier feels the developers are "shopping" for the best interest
14 rates and this may be the main factor in the length of time it is
15 taking for the financing of this project. He feel sure, however, that
16 both the developers are still very interested in the project and do
17 not want to drop it.
18 Commissioner Ranallo indicated he is very concerned about the length
19 of time the potential developers are taking to get the project
20 started. He said that in actual fact, the project still does not have
21 a developer. He said he understood, as did the Minneapolis residents
22 concerned with the project, that the project was ready to go back in
23 October. The Commissioner questioned the sincerity of either
24 developer for the project.
25 Mr. Krier indicated he felt both developers were still very
26 interested and sincere in their efforts toward the project and
27 reiterated that they were both looking for the best interest rates for
28 the financing.
29 Mr. Krier agreed with the H.R.A. that the reality is "we have nothing
30 on the table. " There are options , however.
31 1 . Don' t deal with either Gaughan or Lang Nelson.
32 2 . Inform either or both developers that they have a
33 certain number of days to complete the financing.
34 3 . Inform either or both developers we would keep their
35 $10 ,000 (Gaughan has already given a check in this
36 amount to the City) and raise -the cost every 15 days
37 until the project is financed.
38 When Commissioner Marks wondered if we would really get the project
39 going with one of these two developers, Mr. Krier again insisted that
40 the developers are shopping the market and when the interest rates are
41 economically feasible they will commit to the project.
2
1 Mr. Soth suggested that what the H.R.A. needs from each developer is
2 an indication of what would give an "edge" to one or the other. Mr.
3 Krier believes if we ask for too much money, both companies "would
4 walk" and that in actuality the commitment to this project by the
5 developer is for $8 million, not just the $700,000 for the land.
6 Finally, it was suggested that the developers realize that the H.R.A.
7 is interested in doing the deal with someone who will put up enough
8 money to prove their interest.
9 ADJOURNMENT
10 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to adjourn the H.R.A. meeting at
11 10: 25 P.M.
12 Respectfully submitted,
13 Connie Kroeplin, Acting Secretary
14 :cjk
15
3
C 2 TY O F S T . ANTHONY "
C OUN C= L M 2 NUT E S
F EBRUARY 2 4 , 1 9 8 8
7 : 30 P _ M .
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Mayor Sundland.
3 Present for roll call: Marks, Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth, Makowske.
4 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
5 William Soth, City Attorney
6 Larry Hamer, Public Works Director
7 FEBRUARY 9, 1988 COUNCIL MINUTES
8 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to approve with the following
9 changes:
10 Page 1 , line 6: Indicate William Soth, City Attorney, was
11 present.
12 Page 8 , line 31: Substitute 11$2 . 00" for 11$3 .00" .
13 Page 8 , line 35: Substitute "$6 . 00" for "$8. 00" .
14 Page 9 , line 22: Delete "the only gain would be that" between
15 "thinks" and "it would be. . " .
W6 Motion carried unanimously.
17 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
18 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to grant a new heating license to
19 Market Mechanical and to renew the remainder of the licenses and
20 permits listed in the February 24th Council agenda packet as follows:
21 Off-Sale Beer Rubbish Removal
22 Country Club Market Waste Management
23 Speedy Market #7 Twin City Sanitation
24 Keith Krupenney & Son Disposal
25 On-Sale Beer
26 Minneapolis Bowl-O-Mat Contractors
27 Cigarette American Remodeling, Inc.
28 Twin City Exteriors Co. , Inc.
29 Mico Oil Company, Inc. Suburban Lighting, Inc.
30 Get It For Less, Inc.
31 Service Station
32 Mico Oil Co. , Inc.
03 Speedy Market #7
34 St. Anthony Standard, Inc.
35 Dave ' s Apache Auto Wash
36 Motion carried unanimously.
1 CLAIMS
2 Motion by Marks , seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of all the
3 City accounts payable listed for December 31, 1987 and liquor accounts
4 payable for January 31, 1988 in the February 24th Council agenda
5 packet and the February 24th listing of City accounts payable which
6 were distributed before the meeting.
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enr.00th to approve payment of
9 $26 ,082 . 04 to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for February
10 sewer services.
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payments of
13 $1 ,127 . 09, $3 ,621.04, and $3 ,840 to Rieke-Carroll-Muller Associates,
14 Inc. for engineering services through January 30 , 1988 on the City' s
15 sanitary and storm sewer studies as well as the study for completing
16 the reconstruction of St. Anthony Boulevard to the City boundaries,
17 respectively.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 REPORTS
20 FEBRUARY 16 , 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - RICK WERENICZ
21 Application: from Gene Happe of EFH Company, 1601 East Highway 13 ,
22 Burnsville, Apache Squares Center owners, who was pre-
23 "sent but didn' t speak;
24 for the proposed 80 square foot pylon sign the ordin-
25 ance allows each shopping center as well as, 88 square
26 feet of wall signage for four businesses in the center,
27 all of which meet the City Sign Ordinance regulations.
28 Commission
29 recommendation: approval.
30 Marks Fears Jungle of Pylon Signs in Apache Area
31 Because of this perception, the Councilmember indicated he believed
32 action was necessary at this time to prevent every building in that
33 retail center from seeking its own pylon sign. He mentioned the
34 Firestone store and "stilt building" as examples.
35 He was told the ordinance interpreted buildings with multiple
36 businesses but different ownership to be shopping centers. The
37 Country Store building, on the other hand, did not meet that criteria
38 because it had single ownership with Apache Plaza. •
2
1 The City Zoning Ordinance only made a generic reference to shopping
� 2 centers and the City Attorney indicated it was up to the Council to
3 interpret whether or not this building fell under that
4 classification. The suggestion was made that the Planning Commission
5 might want to research the issue to see if the criteria needed
6 tightening up.
7 Mayor Sundland recalled the involved discussions between the Council
8 and Planning Commission about the signage allowed the Apache Medical
9 Building, which he perceived once it was up was hardly noticeable at
10 all.
11 Council Action
12 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Ranallo to accept the Planning
13 Commission .recommendation. to approve the request for signaqe under
14 Section 430 : 40 Subdivision 8b ( 3 ) of the City Sign Code as. presented
15 for the Apache Squares Shopping Center, 2504-2524 - 39th Avenue N.E. ,
16 finding, as did the Planning Commission, that:
17 1 . Staff had indicated the proposed free-standing center
18 identification sign and the comprehensive plan for indivi-
19 dual business signage in the center would meet all the Sign
20 Ordinance requirements and would provide the type of sign-
21 age St. Anthony desires for. the community.
0,2 2 . . No public opposition was expressed during either the
23 Planning Commission or Council considerations of the
24 application.
25 Voting on the motion:
26 Aye: Makowske, Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth.
27 Nay: Marks.
L8 Motion carried.
29 Council Directs Non-Conforming Signage Off Dairy Queen
30 Application: from Albert Plaisted, owner of the St. Anthony
31 Dairy Queen, 2612 Highway 88 ;
32 for a sign variance for the existing signage put up on
33 the building after it was leveled and rebuilt in 1986 ,
34 including:
35 1 .. One 4 foot X 6 foot rotating roof sign with
36 Dairy Queen logo which was originally allowed
37 on the building as "non-conforming, but grand-
38 fathered in with the 1973 Ordinance;
3
1 2 . Two ( 2 ) wall sign units on each side of the
2 building with 3 X 5 foot Dairy Queen logos and
3 individual lettering "Dairy Queen" , 22 inches
4 X 14 feet each in size.
5 Documentation: same as presented at February 12, 1988 hearing plus
6 minutes of that meeting.
7 Commission Werenicz noted the history of the controversy around
8 report and this signage which he considered would be unproductive
9 recommenda- to go into again;
10 tion
11 reported that the Planning Commission was recommending
12 to the City Council that the proposal for a sign vari-
13 ance to allow the signage which is currently on the
14 Dairy Queen after the store was "remodeled or rebuilt"
15 as the Council chose to interpret it be granted;
16 reported the Commission recommendation which acknow-
17 ledged this would involve a variance of approximately
18 92 square feet over what the Ordinance allowed a
19 building of that size;
20 reiterated the Commission findings that the signs were
21 in good taste; precedents had- been established for
22 allowing businesses with multi-frontage exposure addi-
23 tional signage; and that. t;;ere had bee:: no expressions
24 of public opposition to the proposal.
25 Ranallo Recalls Similar Cases Where Signage Was Disallowed
26 The Councilmember told Commissioner Werenicz that another precedent
27 had been set for disallowing existing signage when the Council made
28 the owner of the barber shop on Lowry Avenue take down his non-
29 conforming signage when he redid the whole front of his building. He
30 was concerned that merchant ' might perceive unequal treatment if this
31 merchant were allowed to keep his non-conforming signage after making
32 the improvements to the extent he did of his building.
33 The Commission representative responded that "to be honest, the
34 Commissioners felt they had been taken" in this instance, having had
35 no prior notice that the building would be leveled instead of just
36 having an addition put on when the drive-through facility was added.
37 Parallel Drawn to Mickey D' s Restaurant Signage
38 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he perceived Commissioner London' s
39 comments after the Commission had voted 5 to 2 to recommend approval
40 . of all the signage on the building accurately reflected the majority
41 of the Commissioner' s feelings of frustration after the reception
42 their recommendation to deny in the above case had been overturned by
43 the Council.
4
• 1 Applicant' s Wife Gives Their Side of the Controversy
2 Janet Plaisted reacted to the statement that the Dairy Queen building
3 had been completely removed by stating the foundations had been left
4 intact. She was told that with no basement under the building, it
5 would be hard to calculate the foundation as more than 30% of the
6 building.
7 Werenicz indicated that from the elevations the Commission had been
8 furnished at the first Commission meeting, as well as the impression
9 both the applicant and contractor left with the Commission that
10 evening, the Commissioners believed the building was only going to be
11 remodeled for a drive-through addition and all were shocked to see the
12 building leveled the next day. He added that he perceived these
13 impressions were accurately reflected in the minutes of the
14 Commission' s October 21 , 1987 meeting in the Council' s agenda packet.
15 Ranallo said it was clear to him that at least 70% of the building had
16 been removed, which meant the roof sign was no longer grandfathered
17 in, which meant other merchants who had been denied signage might be
18 asking to have it reinstated if the rotating sign was left up.
19 Makowske indicated she didn' t think a parallel could be drawn between
20 this store and the Lowry Avenue barbershop which fronts on only one
�21 street. She said that, in spite of the "bad taste" she also shared
2 about the way the Dairy Queen owner had handled the matter, she still
23 thought there were some good reasons for allowing this roof sign to
24 remain, including the fact that the Commission had recommended the
25 Council do so.
26 The Councilmember then made a motion which granted a variance for all
27 the existing signage on the Dairy Queen building, which Mayor Sundland
28 , seconded for purposes of discussion.
29 Marks offered as a "different perspective" in the issue, "the fact
30 that there had been cases in the past like the Mickey D' s Restaurant
31 where the Council had chosen to overlook whether or not the City had
32 been taken" in favor of basing their decisions on whether or not a
33 particular building needed more signage than the ordinance allowed.
34 Ranallo objected to the terminology inferring the City had "been
35 taken" in this case because up to now, the Council, who makes the
36 final decision, had only given approval to the drive-through Addition, .
37 October 28 , 1986 and denied a companion request for a free-standing
38 sign in front of the store. .
39 In reference to the connection drawn between this signage and Mickey
40 ' D' s, Councilmember Ranallo said he thought the Dairy Queen building
41 was a sign in itself where the Council had recognized it would be
42 difficult for persons driving by the restaurant to know what business
•43 was conducted there without signage. The Councilmember added that
5
1 there had been miscommunications between staff and the applicant in
2 the case of Mickey D' s which, as far as he could tell, had not been
3 true with the Dairy Queen.
4 As far as he was concerned, the rotating sign on top of the Dairy
5 _Queen had to come down, the Councilmember said.
6 Mrs. Plaisted disputed these remarks, saying the tall copper colored
7 roof on the St. Anthony Dairy Queen was completely new to this area
8 where all other stores of this kind still retain the red barn mansard.
9 She reiterated the roof and signage on her store is the' only type
10 Dairy Queen sells at this time,. so she and her husband had no choice
11 but to buy or forget it altogether. She continued to insist her
12 husband and his contractor believed the building permit issued by Mr.
13 Hamer covered the signage as part of the building plans.
14 Werenicz told Mrs. Plaisted the only recommendation the Commission
15 had made to the Council after the first October 21 , 1986 hearing had
16 been to deny the pylon sign requested in front of the store. As the
17 minutes of that meeting clearly show, although his options for signage
18 were discussed at that meeting, Mr. Plaisted had been warned by two
19 Commissioners that the rotating roof sign would lose its
20 grandfathered in status and was told that although the City ordinance
21 only allowed one sign per store, he might be allowed "one additional
22 sign because of his location. " The Commissioner commented that was
23 certainly not the same as the current signage on both sides .of the
24 building as well as the rotating sign on the top of the building,
25 which he agreed, should come down.
26 The Commissioner also told Mrs. Plaisted the difference between the
27 plans presented at the first hearing and those Mr. Plaisted brought to
28 the July 21 , 1987 meeting with the Commissioners certainly confused
29 the issue and reinforced the Commissioners ' recollection that the
30 applicant and his contractor ' s presentation at the October hearing had
31 given them the impression that only a remodeling job was contemplated.
32 Childs , who had not been present for the first hearing, commented that
33 he perceived from reading those minutes that Commissioner Hansen had
34 told Mr. Plaisted that although he might be able to put his revolving
35 sign back up on the roof, he would still have to apply for a variance
36 "for any additional wall sign. "
37 Hamer who had taken the City Manager ' s place at the first hearing,
38 told Mrs . ' Plaisted she and her husband were sill mistakenly insisting
39 the building permit, which he had issued for the structure alone,
40 covered signage as well. He indicated he always tells applicants
41 signage is a separate issue and perceived the very fact that the
42 applicant had submitted an application for the free-standing sign,
43 which had been denied, indicated he and his contractor knew they had
44 to come to the Commission and Council for sign approval.
6
• 1 Wer.enicz confirmed Mr. Childs ' report that much of the same ground
2 being plowed that evening had been part of the "heated" hour and a
3 half discussion the Commission had with the applicant July 21 , 1987 .
4 He indicated confusion as to what should be done, now that the
5 expensive signage is all up, had led to the Commissioners, without
6 taking a vote, indicating to Mr. Plaisted that if he would make a
7 formal application for the existing signage, although there was no
8 guaranty, the Commission would probably look favorably upon
9 recommending he be allowed to keep the signage.
10 The Commission representative told the Council that what had happened
11 at the Dairy Queen had a lot do with the Commission' s taking a hard
12 line on the Mickey D' s signage where they perceived a direct
13 parallel.
14 Enrooth commented that even though the perception might now be that
15 the City hadn' t really "been taken" on the Dairy Queen signage, he
16 certainly hoped the steps staff had taken to tighten up variance
17 processing procedures would help to prevent future problems like those
18 experienced with the Dairy Queen and Mickey D' s Restaurant signage.
19 Makowske drew attention to page 5 of the October 21st minutes which
20 talked about the pylon sign the Council denied as well as "the logo to
21 be added to the new mansard roof" which she now had no trouble with
22 and although she said she was bothered by having the revolving sign on
23 the roof put back up after the structure was more than 70o changed,
494 called for - a vote on her motion to allow all the signage to remain on
25 the Dairy Queen as recommended by the Planning Commission.
26 Voting on the motion:
27 Aye: Sundland.
28 Nay: Makowske, Ranallo, Enrooth, Marks.
29 Motion not carried.
30 The original plans were compared to those in the agenda packet which
31 had been submitted for commission and Council consideration in 1986
32 before a vote was taken on Councilmember Ranallo' s motion, which he
33 said he was going to make because he perceived the signage on both
34 sides of the building more than adequately identified the Dairy
35 Queen.
36 Mr. Soth suggested it was unnecessary in this case to specify signage
37 size and suggested the Council be very specific in their findings for
38 signage they proposed disallowing or retaining.
39 Council Action
40 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to grant the necessary variance
�1 to the City Sign Ordinance requirements which would allow the Dairy
7
1 Queen owners to keep the signage they have on the two sides of the new •
2 mansard roof on their building at 2612 Highway 88 but to deny the
3 retention of the rotating roof sign on top of the building. In
4 granting the variance for the logos and lettering on the mansard roof ,
5 the Council finds that:
6 1. A particular hardship to the applicant would result if the strict
7 letter of the ordinance regulations are adhered to because the
8 building' s size seems to call for .more signage for a building
9 which fronts on two platted streets and has traffic flowing
10 around three sides, making that parcel unique to that particular
11 area and neighborhood;
12 2. Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public
13 welfare or injurious to other properties in the same area;
14 3. No public expressions of opposition to the variance being granted
15 had been presented during the Planning Commission or Council
16 hearings on this issue.
17 In denying the retention of the 4 X 6 foot rotating sign on the roof,
18 the Council finds that:
19 1. The grandfather clause under which the Dairy Queen had been
20 allowed to keep the sign after the new Sign Ordinance had been
21 written, no longer applies because the building had been com- •
22 pletely leveled and rebuilt in 1986 ;
23 2. This parcel could not be considered to be unique enough to over-
24 ride possible injury to other property owners in an area where a
25 strong precedent for disallowing that type of signage had
26 already been established; and
27 3 . Sufficient hardship had not been demonstrated to justify granting
28 a variance for a type of signage not allowed other property
29 owners in the same area.
30 Voting on the motion:
31 Aye: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Makowske.
32 Nay: Sundland.
33 Motion carried.
34 Council Concurs With Commission Tabling TCF Expansion Request
35 The general consensus was that allowing the proposed expansion would
.36 probably not cure the parking and traffic problems at the Silver Lake
37 Road site and that further study of those problems was necessary.
8
1 Mayor Sundland commented that he agreed with the Commission perception
• 2 that the increase in business since the institution became a checking
3 as well as savings bank should not become a burden for the neighbors.
4 Vacant Lot to Retain R-1 Zoning
5 The Council agreed- with the Commission recommendation that the request
6 from Reliable Builders to rezone the lot left vacant when the
7 intersection of Silver Lake Road and 37th Avenue N.E. was
8 reconstructed for a double bungalow be denied. Commissioner Werenicz
9 reported neighbor opposition had also played a major part in the
10 Commission' s recommendation. He said the Commissioners also agreed
11 with the neighbors who were present that changing from a single family
12 dwelling on that corner could be expected to add to rather than
13 diminish the existing traffic congestion in that area. He reiterated
14 his own perception that keeping the zoning R-1 would not have too
15 great effect on its marketability.
16 Mayor Sundland indicated that by following . the Commission
17 recommendation the Council would be in conformance with the
18 Comprehensive Plan for that area which called for the retention of-
19 R-11 zoning for all the properties on 37th Avenue, east of Silver Lake
20 Road.
21 There was no one present from Reliable Builders. No further input was
22 given by neighbors Roger Rafferty and Bruce Anderson, who were present
�3 and later expressed satisfaction with the manner in which the rezoning
24 request had been handled.
25 In his February 23rd memorandum on the matter, which had been
26 distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, Mr. Soth had advised
27 that any motion to deny the rezoning should go beyond just neighbor
.28 approval and should include some of the good reasons reported in the
29 Commission minutes but not included in their recommendation to deny.
30 Council Action
31 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to affirm the Planning Commission
32 recommendation to deny the Reliable Builders ' request to rezone the
33 property at 3657 Silver Lake Road from R-1 , single family
34 residential, to R-2 , two family residential, finding that:
35 1 . The City' s Comprehensive Plan designates R-1 zoning for this and
36 other property on 37th Avenue N.E. , east of Silver Lake Road.
37 2 . Rental property with transient inhabitants is not therefore
38 appropriate for this location.
39 3 . Surrounding property values will be adversely affected by
40 changing the zoning.
•
9
1 4 . Neighbors have every reason to expect the zoning in their neigh-
2 borhood would remain R-1 and several of these were present at the
3 February 16, 1988 Commission hearing to express opposition to the
4 proposed rezoning.
5 5. R-2 zoning would be likely to increase traffic and congestion in
6 an area where there are already traffic concerns.
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8 Discussion About Difference in Recommendations Related to Mickey D' s
9 Signage
10 Commissioner Werenicz explained some of the Commission concerns
11 reported in the minutes by saying there was a perception on the
12 Commission that they might be getting "mixed signals" from the Council
13 related to planning issues. He said this uncertainty as well as the
14 realization that the Planning Commission is only an advisory board had
15 played a big part in the Commission' s reluctance to suggest a harder
16 stance related to the excessive signage on the Dairy Queen after what
17 , had happened to their recommendations related to Mickey D' s Signage
18 where the Commissioners were convinced the City "had really been
19 snowed. "
20 Ranallo assured the Commissioner that the Council thought they were
21, doing a fine job and benefited from their input. He reminded him
22 that the Council has legal guidance the Commission doesn' t have and •
23 often in cases like the Mickey D' s signage the Council may have
24 predicated its decision on the legal ramifications of that issue.
25 Marks told the Commission representative the Council relies on the
26 Commission' s best possible interpretations and findings on issues even
27 if they get overturned. He said the Council doesn' t want the = --
28 Commission to be driven by what they think the Council wants to hear
29 but rather wants their best independent thinking on every matter
30 which comes up for their recommendations. He said he continued to
31 believe that in both the Dairy Queen and Mickey D' s matters , the
32 Council had tried to get past the differences and to grant signage
33 based on what signage was really needed for those two different
34 locations. He said in the case of Mickey D' s signage, a photo of how
35 the restaurant looked as you approached it from the east had
36 convinced at least some of the Councilmembers that the businesses
37 needed signage on that side. He insisted the fact that the applicant
38 had already bought the sign had really not been a factor in that
39 decision.
40 Sundland indicated the Council' s minutes accurately reflected the
41 Council ' s skepticism about the sign company' s sign measurements but
42 at the same time recognized the restaurant needed better
43 identification.
•
10
•1 Enrooth agreed, and added the Council had certainly wanted to do
2 anything it could to have a business succeed in that troubled location
3 where an empty building would certainly not be good for the
4 community.
5 COUNCIL REPORTS
6 Constituents. Calling About Sewer and Aircraft Noise Concerns
7 Makowske reported receiving calls from residents about storm and
8 sanitary sewer problems which she had indicated the City would have a
9 better handle on after receiving the Rieke-Carroll-Muller engineering
10 report and recommendations. She said she was also receiving
11 complaints about the increase in air traffic over St. Anthony.
12 The Councilmember also indicated she had learned there had been
13 motions related to the City' s water contamination problems passed at
14 both the IR and DFL caucuses the previous evening which should
15 generate support from both parties.
16 Consensus Hard to Get On Tax Issues
17 Ranallo reported the LMC Board was having difficulty agreeing on a
18 recommendation to the legislature related to reclassifying the
19 property tax base because of the three way split between the five
0 largest cities, smaller cities, and suburbs , and the outstate cities
1 from which mixed messages are going out to the legislators. It is
22 hoped some consensus can be reached during the next Board meeting
23 which is scheduled for March 3rd so the League can get out the cities '
24 needs for reclassification.
25 Some Movement Perceived Related to Carbon Plant Schedule
26 Sundland briefly drew the Council' s attention to the draft of the
27 minutes they had been provided for the meeting he, Mr. Childs, and
28 Mr. Hamer had attended that day with Gene Wong of the EPA; Maureen
29 Johnson of the .M.PCA; Tim Henning of CDM; David McDonald the City' s
30 attorney from Briggs and Morgan; and Ken Olson from Bruce Liesch where
31 those present discussed ways to expedite the proposed schedule for
32 completion of the City' s carbon filtration plant was worked on. He
33 said he perceived from Mr. Wong' s attitude that he had been impressed
34 by the call from Congressman Sikorski' s staff expressing the
35 Congressman' s strong interest and concern about the process.
36 Marks to Head Youth Service Bureau for Another Year
37 The three top officers for the above organization were re-elected
38 during a meeting of the full Board last week, Marks reported.
39 Councilmember Receives Calls About School Board Meeting
11
1 Marks indicated he told callers that the Council meeting that evening •
2 had prevented him from attending the school ' s meeting, which he
3 wouldn' t have gone to anyway not wanting to bias in any way the
4 decision which the School Board has to make on its own related to the
5 use of Parkview.
6 County Commissioner Sivanich Welcomed by Second Precinct Caucus
7 Marks indicated the above action had been taken by resolution.
8 As an aside to Councilmember Makowske ' s report on the caucuses, he
9 said there was certainly a lot of interest in the City' s water
10 contamination problems where concern was expressed that the Army
11 wasn' t moving fast enough to correct the problem them had caused.
12 DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES
13 The Hance & LeVahn, Ltd. , report on cases they had prosecuted at the
14 Hennepin County District Court, February 3 , 1988, was ordered filed
15 after a brief discussion of the phone call Councilmember Makowske
16 reported receiving expressing concern about the number of arrests
17 for marijuana possession recently reported in the Bulletin. She said
18 she had received assurances from Chief Hickerson that the incidents
19 didn' t indicate "crack houses in St. Anthony" but only involved
20 persons picked up for DWI ' s or some other crime who were only passing
21 through the Village.
22 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
23 Mr. Childs explained that the February 22nd staff meeting had been
24 held after the agenda had been put together so the meeting notes
25 would. be_ held over until the next agenda packet.
26 St. Anthony Faces Stricter Recycling Requirements
27 The City Manager had advised in his February 18th memorandum that
28 staff was under great pressure from both Hennepin and Ramsey Counties
29 to get with the curbside recycling program aspects of which he
30 discussed at some length as an aid to the Council ' s giving him
31 guidance on how to proceed. In his memo he discussed the different
32 county approaches to the problem, indicating that:
33 *in spite of the fact that the City has one of the most suc-
34 cessful and profitable dropoff recycling centers with much of
35 the material collected coming from outside St. Anthony, it will
36 be very difficult to meet the 16% goal set for us ;
37 *the two proposals from Recycling Unlimited and Waste Management
38 were very different and would require close study by the Council
39 members before a choice is' made; however,
•
12
• 1 *they had been included in the agenda packet that night as a
2 basis for preliminary guidance as to how staff should proceed;
3 *the Mayor had suggested a citizens task force to study the
4 issue because state law mandates a public hearing before all
5 residential pickups could be transferred to one hauler;
6 *even though 85% of the hauling is done by Waste Management now,
7 St. Anthony residents are very covetous of their right to
8 select their own hauler.
9 Hamer warned it wouldn' t be very long before sorting at the source
10 would become mandatory and even if that didn' t happen, hauling costs
11 would be rising so dramatically it would become too expensive not to
12 comply.
13 Sundland pointed out that dump sites now have to take out expensive
14 insurance to cover damage done if leaks occur.
15 Makowske wanted to be sure the haulers would take cardboard wastes.
16 Enrooth suggested the recycling center start taking cardboard, which
17 if all the rubbish from supermarkets, etc. were counted, could help
18 the City a good deal to meet its goal. The Councilmember wondered
19 whether making the residents more aware of the City' s goal might
V0 avoid having to go to a mandatory program.
21 Childs told him the last four Newsletters had carried that message
22 with little response and although St. Anthony is already far ahead of
23 other communities in its voluntary efforts, it might still be tough to
24 triple those efforts without some type of curbside program. He also
25 agreed that although there' s not much market for shiny cardboard,
26 those products are easily burned and could be acceptable for the
27 waste-to-energy plants.
28 Hamer reported the City had earned $5 , 000 from its recycling center
29 last year and with a substantial percentage coming from outside the
30 City. He said he is in the process of surveying the City' s business
31 establishments and stores to find out how much of their wastes are
32 being recycled all of which the tonnage given to paper drives can be
33 calculated to help meet the 16% goal.
34 Marks indicated that on an average, every person in Hennepin County
35 generates a ton of garbage a year and with 8 , 000 people in St.
36 Anthony, there would be a lot of tonnage included in City' s goal
37 amount.
38 Ad Hoc Committee to Study Recycling to be Formed
39 Sundland said he would like to see both residents who support
w40 recycling and those with reservations about the program on the Ad Hoc
1 study group. There was general consensus to use this approach. Mr.
13
1 Childs said that was the direction he was looking for and would
2 proceed to make preparations.
3 NEW BUSINESS
4 $5,160.00 Deducted From Stonehouse Addition Contractor ' s Charges
5 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve Change Order #5 on the
6 above contract amount on the project in accordance with discussions at
7 previous Council meetings.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Foss Road Lift Station Ordered Replaced and Financing to be Studied
10 Mr. Childs asked for direction related to how the $198 ,000 project
11 would be paid for. He indicated:
12 *this was the first time in many years such a large sanitary
13 sewer project had been undertaken; and he wanted to know
14 whether the Council wanted to finance the construction by
15 ( 1) direct assessment to the Ramsey County users or ( 2 ) to
16 increase the sewer rate to all City users;
17 *confirmed that Happy Potato Chip plant was a major user and
18 their rates reflect that;
19 *was directed to get not only the comparisons between their flow
20 and those of the area residential users but also the figures for.
21 different scenarios related to assessing by use or over the
22 whole City anticipating similar projects in other parts of the
23 Village.
24' Council Action
25 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to adopt Resolution 88-009 and to
26 direct staff/engineers to research specific methods of financing the
27 lift station.
28 RESOLUTION 88-009
29 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC.
30 TO PREPARE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
31 PROPOSED FOSS ROAD LIFT STATION
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 Lease Approved for LaMere Barber Shop in Fire Station Building
34 Motion by Marks , seconded by Makowske to adopt the resolution
35 authorizing execution of the four year lease with the owner of the
36 barber shop as negotiated by staff subject to additional language in •
14
•1 the lease which establishes compensation for renter should the City' s
2 Parkview lease be terminated, causing the City to need that space.
3 RESOLUTION 88-010
4 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
5 TO EXECUTE THE OFFICE SPACE LEASE WITH PHIL LAMERE,
6 dba BARBER STYLISTS FOR RENTAL AT
7 2800 KENZIE TERRACE
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Survey Shows Community With Very Positive Feelings About St. Anthony
10 A summation of the results of the above survey had been distributed
11 and were discussed with Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of Decision
12 Resources Ltd. , the firm who had conducted a telephone survey of 400
13 randomly selected residents of St. Anthony between December 14-21.,
14 1987.
15 Mr. Morris hit the nine highlights of the survey as follows:
16 1. Resident makeup. City has an extremely high mobile segment as
17 compared to other first ring suburbs;
18 St. Anthony is an aging, middle income, white collar community of
09 which 36% of those interviewed were new to the community within
20 the last two years and 31% intended to move within the next year ;
21 most of these were renters in the northern apartment areas and
22 many of them indicated they would like to find permanent homes
23 in the southern sections.
24 2. Quality of life rated excellent. Mr. Morris said this gave
25 St. Anthony the most solid rating of any community their firm had
26 surveyed in the metropolitan Twin Cities area, including "boom"
27 areas like Egan, Woodbury, Shoreview, who get better coverage but
28 are rated less positively by their residents than St. Anthony in
29 this respect;
30 80% take pride in their City; 3/4ths of the residents felt things
31 going in the right direction, and 93% view the City as a good
32 place to raise children;
33 health and vitality of community rated as one of the strongest
34 in the metropolitan area and clearly distinguishes the City
35 from lower norms for other first ring suburban communities.
36 3 . Location and small town spirit are key draws. One resident' s
37 classification of St. Anthony as "a small town close to a big
38 City" summed up most of the respondents ' attitudes. Thirty per-
• 39 cent of these indicated they were St. Anthony boosters, which
15
1 compares very favorably with norm of between 15% and 20% found in •
2 other community surveys ;
3 no single major problem was identified, but 7% reported concerns
4 about water and 8% complained about the condition of the streets.
5 No significant "dark clouds on horizon" that even a small number
6 of the residents are aware of.
7 4 . Community not dogmatically anti-tax indicated that given the com-
8 munity demographics , would have expected to see fewer people
9 supporting a tax increase to maintain the current level of ser-
10 vices, but 53% of those contacted supported that concept and only
11 36% opposed. Most people consider taxes "about average" and
12 there weren' t a lot who consider the property taxes they pay
13 onerous. Two services which are definitely "sacred cows" which
14 the community would object cutting are snow plowing and park
15 maintenance. The message came over loud and clear that a prudent
16 approach when it came to taxes and spending really characterized
17 the St. Anthony residents because the moderate approach when it
18 came to the City Hall was the consensus choice of 470. The
19 survey indicated the community perceived what was being proposed
20 was logical once they understood what was going to be done.
21 Community is prudent but certainly not opposed to taxing for a
22 good solid level of City services.
23 5. City services given excellent ratings: park maintenance; snow
24 plowing; police and fire protection. Street maintenance, animal
25 control, and storm sewers" were given slightly lower ratings but
26 still got 70% approval. What really split the community was
27 water.
28 Police patrolling considered adequate; City streets and storm
29 sewers posed only minor and not major problems; code enforce-
30 ment was considered to be about right in terms of toughness;
31 City parks are very well used and rated high with the exception
32 of playground equipment which still only attracted a minor
33 number of negatives in the survey. The commercial areas were
34 the only ones who came under fire in terms of appearance. They
35 were termed "displeasing to neutral" by nearby neighbors. Over-
36 all in terms of performance, the City rated generally well.
37 6. City government and staff given highest rating compared to
38 other communities surveyed - considered to be most popular and
39 respected of any other of the Communities the firm has surveyed
40 the last few years. Forty percent knew a great deal or a fair
41 amount about what the Council and the Mayor were doing, which is
42 a very high number. The approval rating was 79% which topped
43 Decision Resource' s high and established a new norm for other
44 communities to meet. Also high were the 31% of the respondents
45 who had some interaction with the staff , which Mr. Morris in-
46 terpreted to mean that St. Anthony has. a "very hands-on govern-
47 •
16
•1 ment, which is very accessible. Staff got a positive rating of
2 71%, also the highest found in other suburban studies.
3 The City Hall staff was rated very favorably, the liquor store
4 was rated exceptionally high ratings, and all City employees
5 looked at in terms of their courtesy and performance were rated
6 enthusiastically. Conclusion: human side of City government in
7 St. Anthony is no problem at all and is probably one of its major
8 strengths.
9 7 . Economic development efforts. respondents generally agreed with
10 the direction the Council is taking, but there is a minority
11 opposition view that more emphasis should be placed on attracting
12 younger families to become residents. Shopping patterns split
13 the community with half shopping in St. Anthony and the other
14 ha-lf going elsewhere for most of the things they bought (most
15 mentioned Rosedale) . The reasons for going elsewhere were stores
16 and selections where half found the mall better.
17 8 . Recycling meets metropolitan norm. The 33% figure for residents
recycle might be inflated. Most residents favor an incentive
19 program (over 70°% support) but certainly don' t like the idea of
20 having .garbage collected, separated, and then having everyone
21 charged after the fact. The big problem is the "unalienable
22 right to chose your own hauler" which is supported in most
3 communities , where the same contradiction exists. A close look
4 at reaction to the water contamination issue indicates very
25 little behavioral change because almost 70% said they use
26 almost as much water now as they did prior to the crisis. Fifty-
27 six percent were satisfied with the proposed filtration system
28 but what appeared would be a calming effect would be to have
29 periodic testing because residents still harbor some suspicious
30 that the "untreated armory water might still be hanging around _
31 out there. "
32 9 . No dominant source of information. Residents rely on the Bul-
33 letin. Thirty-eight percent readership is very low for a local
34 newspaper. Only 12% mentioned the City Newsletter, which is also
35 low compared to other suburban communities. 12% mentioned the
36 Star & Tribune. However, most of those surveyed considered the
37 newspaper coverage as "adequate" when that question was asked.
38 In fact, 81% were satisfied with the amount of information they
39 are getting, which seems to indicate that they' re picking' up
40 enough pieces of information here and thee to satisfy them,
41 indicating they are very much in favor of the status quo with
42 substantial opposition to a new publication and very little
43 interest in cable television. The one problem area in communi-
44 cations is the reaction of the younger less informed and less
45 connected residents in the northern part of the City. Surveys
46 of these people indicated they did feel as strongly connected
47 to the City or as knowledgeable about what was going on in the
�48 City as other residents, making them less satisfied with their
17
1 level of information about the City. Summarized that with one •
2 exception, in spite of the disparate channels of information,
3 people seem to have accepted that and have gotten used to it
4 and appear to have their means of gathering information.
5 CITY SET NEW HIGH FOR FIRST RING SUBURBS
6 To support the excellent findings his firm had found related to St.
7 Anthony, Mr. Morris reiterated that the surveyors had contacted 400
8 randomly selected households throughout the community, which provided
9 a plus or minus accuracy rate of 50 of the feelings of the community,
10 or 95 out of 100 cases. Great precautions were taken with this
11 sampling by using a city map to keep track of where people were
12 located within the City to guarantee a good representative spread,
13 including apartments, was reflected in the results. The sample was
14 validated with available census and Metropolitan Council data, which
15 had resulted in Decisions Resources concluding they had a very
16 defendable and representative sample.
. 17 Mr. Morris told Councilmember Marks , it would be very hard to separate
18 out the response from the population who owned their own homes who
19 represented a very small sub-sample in the survey, but agreed thee was
20 a problem of perceived estrangement from the rest of the City in the
21 neighborhood north of 37th Avenue N.E.
22 There was general agreement that the staff should look at individual
23 mailings of the Newsletter to the apartment dwellers. Mr. Morris
24 reported Plymouth' s success in bringing its high density apartment
25 residents in touch with the rest of the community after their
26 newsletter was delivered to each apartment and Plymouth had even held
27 a couple of council meetings in those areas. He said that in spite of
28 the fact that 60% of the people in the apartment . area perceived they
29 were not a part of the city and planned to move elsewhere, a second
30 survey had found the disconnection problem .had disappeared.
31 Councilmember Ranallo pointed to representation that area had with
32 Mayor Haik and Commissioners Jones , McGinn and Madden. Councilmember
33 Ranallo recalled that Karen Karkula of Mirror Lake Manor had been very
34 active on another City commission, but there had been little
35 interest on the part of apartment renters to participate.
36 Mr. Childs reiterated that whatever type of information the
37 residents are getting, they seem to be comfortable with it. The
38 Manager said if staff ' s plan to get the Newsletter into every mail box
39 is successful, he anticipated a second survey of that Ramsey County
40 section of the City might be as positive as Plymouth' s had been when
41 it came to elimination of feelings of alienation from the rest of
42 the community. Mr. Childs also reminded the Councilmembers that about
43 a quarter of the renters have the desire to obtain permanent housing
44 in the City, which they have been unable to do because there are no
45 empty single family homes to move into, which may have contributed to
46 their feelings of frustration.
18
• 1 Councilmember Marks indicated the several attempts he had made to have
2 coffee parties in the apartments had been unsuccessful.
3 Mayor Sundland told Mr. Morris his was only one survey being made in
4 the City at this time, the other being that which the school district
5 mailed out to residents, a few of whom had told the Mayor they found
6 the questions too complicated to understand.
7 Mr. Childs , recalling discussions earlier that evening about the
8 City' s code enforcement, drew attention to the survey' s indication
9 that the average St. Anthony resident perceived the City is neither
10 too tough nor too lenient, but about right when it came to that. He
11 added that corrections had now been made at staff level which should
12 prevent recurrence of situations where "someone plays both ends
13 against the middle and gets away with something. " He said he
14 wouldn' t expect a "flood of ordinance breakers" in St. Anthony in the
15 future.
16 The Decision Resources representatives were thanked for a good job and
17 Councilmember Makowske said she thought those thanks should also go to
18 the residents who took the time to answer the many questions in the
19 survey. In that respect, Ms. Traxler said her callers had found the
20 St. Anthony residents to be "as happy as any they had ever contacted
21 to be able to express their opinions" with many staying on the phone a
412 half an hour, where normally a survey of this length should take only
3 15 minutes . One resident broke all the records , talking for an hour
24 and fifteen minutes.
25 Mayor Sundland said he had told one person who questioned the validity
26 of the survey that the TV networks had been able to base their
27 presidential election projections on a poll of only 300 voters as
28 they went into the polling places.
29 Mr. Childs and Mr. Hamer indicated staff was already using the survey
30 with the latter saying the Public Works people were looking for ways
31 to improve on any problem areas.
32 Mr. Childs added that in addition to improving current performance,.
33 one of the purposes of the survey had been to get a handle on
34 information which could be used for long range planning and decision
35 on how the City' s resources should be channeled.
36 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
37 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve the second reading
38 of the ordinance increasing water rates.
39 ORDINANCE 1988-003
�40 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER RATES; AMENDING
1 SUBDS. 2 AND 3 OF SECTION 550 : 00 OF THE 1973
19
1 CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY i
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3 Councilmember Enrooth explained that he had changed his mind on the
4 issue since the last meeting, having come to agree with the conclusion
5 of an article he had read in the Freshwater magazine, that "there' s no
6 free lunch and sooner or later we have to pay for water overuse we
7 haven' t paid for in the past. " He perceived the water rates the City
8 was adopting now would be paltry in the face of what would have to be
9 charged in the future.
10 - ADJOURNMENT
11 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to adjourn the meeting at 10: 30
12 P.M. for the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting .
13 which followed immediately.
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15 Respectfully submitted,
16 Helen Crowe, Secretary
17
18 Mayor
19 ATTEST:
20 City Clerk
21 :cjk
22
23
20
C 2 TY O F S T . ANTHONY
HO U S 2 N G AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHOR 2 TY M 2 NUT E S
FEBRUARY 2 4 1. 9 8 8
1 The meeting was called to order at 10 : 15 P.M. by Chair Sundland.
2 Present for roll call: Sundland, Vice Chair Enrooth, Secretary/
3 Treasurer Marks, and Commissioners Makowske
4 and Ranallo.
5 Also present: David Childs , Executive Director
6 William Soth, H.R.A. Attorney
7 FEBRUARY 9 , 1988 H.R.A. MINUTES
8 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve as presented.
9 Motion carried unanimously..
10 CLAIMS
1 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payment of $2 ,294. 29
2 to the Dorsey & Whitney law firm for legal services to the H.R.A.
13 during October, 1987.
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15 STAFF UPDATE ON KENZIE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - CHILDS AND SOTH
16 After Staff ' s meeting with the H.R.A. February 9th, staff met with
17 both Gaughan and Lang/Nelson and indicated the City wanted $20 ,000 now
18 and $20 ,000 in 30 days for an additional 15 days which would not be
19 applied to the purchase price for the land.- There was no interest on
20 the part of either developer to that proposal.
21 Conversation that day with Gaughan indicated their willingness to put
22 up $20 ,000 for 45 days with the amount to apply to the purchase price.
23 Staff is waiting fora final response from Lang/Nelson, Monday because
24 their representative reported his boss' first reaction had been that
25 the City was in effect, "raising the purchase price by $40 ,000 . "
26 Staff ' s response had been to tell Lang/Nelson that the intent had not
27 been to raise the price of the land but that the H.R.A. was only
28 looking for security to assure project development and if that
29 happened, there was no reason the money couldn' t be applied to the
30 purchase price. Mr. Childs added that because Lang/Nelson doesn' t
�31 have an exclusive on the project, they ,are unable to proceed at this
32 point anyway.
1 Gaughan has reported having a Phoenix insurance company, whose
2 representatives will be coming to St. Anthony the next day to look
3 over the site, which had been confirmed by Piper Jaffray. The
4 consensus was that the insurance company route was preferable to
5 waiting the necessary period it would take for H.U.D. to approve
6 financing. Sundland pointed to the insurance company who had come
7 forth to put up 570 million dollars towards the development of the
8 Bloomington Mega Mall. He perceived this might provide the needed
9 incentive for Gaughan to put up the $40, 000.
10 The presence of Diane and Robert Slick of the Alternative during the
11 recess was noted by Sundland, who said they were understandably
12 concerned about how the project was progressing.
13 Childs concluded his report by commenting that he had to believe each
14 of the developers when they said they were waiting for interest rates
15 to come down which was happening right now. Ranallo pointed to
16 Rothchilds ' rates which had dropped to 9-3/4 February 23rd from 10-1/2
17 which they had been for a long time.
18 Soth said staff had told the developers that the H.R.A. expected some
19 money to be put up as a measure of their confidence that the project
20 would be done.
21 Ranallo indicated he perceived "$20,000 was better than nothing" and
22 he suggested giving staff the power to negotiate that. kind of a deal
23 with Gaughan for 45 days. Soth posed the possibility that a bidding
24 war might ensue between the two developers, which was generally agreed
25 might be advantageous to the project. Soth told Makowske that if the
26 insurance company indicated an interest in the project, Gaughan would
27 be told they could put 'up their Letter of Credit, which would be
28 returned if that method of financing failed, but they would lose the
29 $20 ,000.
30 It was agreed that ' a short H.R.A. meeting would be called if events
31 warranted it.
32 ADJOURNMENT
33 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to adjourn. the H.R.A. meeting at
34 10: 30 P.M. for a Council Executive Session, which followed
35 immediately, related to direction to staff regarding the City' s
36 lawsuit against the U.S. Army et al in connection with St. Anthony' s
37 water contamination problems.
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39 Respectfully submitted,
40 Helen Crowe, Secretary
41 :cjk •
2