HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 04241990 Meeting Sheet
103009
1
i
�t
i
Box:i 30
Folder: CC PACKETS 1990-1994
Document: CC PACKET 04241990
- i
i.
I
I,
-- 6 : 30 P.M. - CONTINUATION OF—
BOARD OF REVIEW
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 24 , 1990 C
7 : 30 P.M. r
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
H
0
O
I . CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Z m
nH
I I . ROLL CALL. tH+ y
t�
:4r
III . APPROVAL OF APRIL 10 , 1990 , COUNCIL MINUTES. M �-C
y
IV. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS. z r0
c� r
V. CLAIMS.
H
z
A. Verified. 0
B. North Memorial Medical Center - $5, 325. 00 . I '
C. Wahl & Wahl , Inc. - $2 , 353 .00 .
VI . REPORTS.
A. Planning Commission - April 17 , 1990 .
1 . Barbara Zielinska , 2608/10 - 37th Avenue N.E. ,
setback variance request.
2 . James Pirino, 2917 - 33rd Avenue N.E. , setback
variance request.
B. Council .
1 . Truck Signage.
C. City Manager.
1 . Purchase of a Computer.
VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS - none.
VIII . NEW BUSINESS.
A. Cable Television Update.
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS .
A. Ordinance 1990-002 , re: Temporary beer licenses ( 2nd
reading) .
X. ADJOURNMENT.
•
t t
l CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
4
5 APRIL 10, 1990
6
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9
. 10 The meeting was called to order at 7:55 p.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance
11 was led by Mayor Pro-Tem Ranallo.
12
13 2. ROLL CALL
14
15 Present : Mayor Pro-Tem Ranallo, Councilmembers Marks, Enrooth, Makowske
16
17 Absent : Mayor Sundland
18
19 Staff Present : City Manager Burt, Assistant to the City Manager VanderHeyden
20 City Attorney Soth
21
• 22 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 27, 1990 MEETING
23
24 Motion by Makowske, second by Marks to approve the minutes of the March 27,
25 1990 Council Meeting with the following corrections:
26
27 page 3, line 13 : Motion made by Enrooth, not Makowske
28 page 5, line 30: correct the word "charged" to "changes"
29 page 5, line 37: insert between the word "and" and "would" the word "they"
30
31 Motion carried unanimously
32
33 4. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
34
35 Contractors
36
37 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve the licenses for the
38 following contractors:
39
40 Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. , Maple Grove, Mn.
41 Normandale Services, Isanti , Mn. .
42 Asphalt Driveway Co. of St. Paul , Mn.
43 Voss Construction Company, Inc. of Minneapolis, Mn.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously
46
47 Garbage Haulers
• 48
49 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve the license for Larry's
50 Quality Sanitation of Ramsey, Mn.
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 2
1 VanderHeyden indicated she has had some problem in getting the recycling numbers
2 from Larry's Quality Sanitation. Councilmember Makowske stated that any license
3 is contingent on the licensee following the rules. She recommended that this
4 hauler be made aware of this stipulation.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously
7
8 Service Stations
9
10 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve the license for the Apache
11 Mobil Service Station at 4000 Silver Lake Road.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously
14
15 5• CLAIMS
16
17 A. Verified Claims
18
19 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve the verified claims as listed
20 for accounts payable dated 3/21/90 and 3/22/90.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously
23
24 B. Moody' s Investors Service
25
26 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to approve payment in the amount of
27 $3,000.00 to Moody's Investors Service for professional services rendered
28 for the General Obligation Bonds and the resulting evaluation rating.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously
31
32 C. Springsted - Public Finance Advisors
33
34 Motion by Makowske, second by Ranallo to approve payment in the amount of
35 $8,572.02 to Springsted for services rendered relative to the issuance of
36 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness.
37`
38 Motion carried unanimously
39
40 D. Pine Cone Nursery
41
42 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve payment in the amount of
43 $1 , 169.43 to Pine Cone Nursery.
44
45 Motion- carried -unanimously
46
47 E. Rieke Carroll Muller, Inc.
48 •
49 Motion by Makowske, second by Marks to approve payment in the amount of
50 $3,425.75 to Rieke Carroll Muller Associates,. Inc. for professional services
Council -Meeting
April 10, 1990
Page 3
1 rendered December 31 , 1989 to January 27, 1990.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously
4
5 F. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
6
7 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve payment in the amount of
8 $734.86 to Short-Reike-Hendrickson, Inc. for professional services rendered
9 regarding replacement of Foss Road sewage pumping station.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously
12
13 G. Calgon Carbon Corporation
14
15 Motion by Makowske, second by Marks to approve payment in the amount of
16 $3,348.00 to Calgon Carbon Corporation for the temporary granular activated
17 carbon system.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously
20
21 H. Dorsey S Whitney
22
23 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to approve payment in the amount of
24 $2,519.05 for legal services rendered from February 1 , 1990 through February
25 28, 1990•
26
�7 Motion carried unanimously
28
29 Hennepin County Commissioner Sam Sivanich was in attendance at the meeting.
30
31 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo welcomed Hennepin County Commissioner Sam Sivanich to
32 the meeting. The Commissioner is a recent. resident of the City of St. Anthony.
33
34 Commissioner Sivanich stated he intended to give a update on the activities
35 of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and in particular, those
36 activities that relate to the City of St. Anthony.
37
38 He noted that the budget for the City' s library is in the amount of $156,000.
39 He felt this was a sum that would continue the good services being offered by
40 the library.
41
42 Two other issues relative to the future .of St. Anthony have been addressed by
43 the Hennepin County Board, those being recycling and signalization needs at the
44 intersection of 37th Avenue and Stinson Boulevard. The Commissioner noted that
45 funds have been budgeted for the signalization and there is a 4% increase in
46 the recycling budget for. the. City totalling $12,500.
47
• 48 The Commissioner stated that many complaints have been received from residents
49 regarding recycling costs. The Legislature passed the Waste Management Act
50 whereby solid waste must be abated from the landfills in this area. The
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 4
1 County originally made arrangements to use the landfill in Medina. The
2 State said this could not be done so the County had to find another area
3 for the disposition of the ash which results from the burn plant located in
4 Minneapolis.
5
6 Originally, a site in Illinois agreed to take the ash but . reversed its
7 position because of the high metal content of the ash. The County has
- 8 now contracted with Seward, North Dakota to dispose of its ash in an.
9 abandoned coal mine. All. of the permits have been approved and the Commissioner
10 stated the residents of Seward are enthusiastic about the project as it
11 creates eight new jobs. The County still has the problem of disposing of
12 other materials. It is his observation that the waste stream will be greatly
13 reduced with the elimination of yard wastes.
14
15 Hennepin County is looking toward building a new jail facility by 1995• At
16 the present site, the crowding puts the County in violation of state and
17 federal regulations. The .site for the new jail is the land where the Armory
18 building is located. The property is owned by the State National Guard at
19 present. He noted that the Mayor of Minneapolis had suggested another use for
20 this building but the County prevailed in its request for placing the new
21 jail facility there. It would have cost approximately 14 -15 million dollars
22 to purchase land at another location. The cost of the entire facility and
23 land acquisition will be approximately one-hundred and thirty million dollars.
24
25 Commissioner Sivanich stated that Hennepin County is in very good condition
26 with an AAA credit rating which allows the County to borrow at favorable interes
27 rates. He felt the only large problem facing the Hennepin County Board in the
28 upcoming.. year is the limitations on tax levies. He noted that presently the
29 County purchases .services from private vendors and contractural services.
30 With a potential of a twenty million dollar decrease in property taxes there
31 may be some program cuts in human services and other programs which address
32 individual needs.
33
34 Commissioner Sivanich has been in public service for twenty-two years and
35 recently announced he is not seeking re-election to the County Board. He
36 stated he enjoys living in the City of St. Anthony and has always enjoyed
37 working with the City.
38
39 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo stated he has always found. Commissioner Sivanich responsive
40 to the concerns of St. Anthony and its residents. He noted that Councilmember
41 Makowske Is seeking election to the Sixth District Commissioner's seat.
42
' 43 Councilmember Marks thanked the Commissioner for all of his assistance to the
44 Youth Service Bureau and for the City's library.
45
46 Councilmember Marks inquired what activity there -has been from Hennepin
47 County regarding the Light Rail Transit issue. The Commissioner responded
48 that Hennepin County appears to be the only entity in a position to put a
49 light rail corridor together. He noted that the Legislature has taken some
50 interest in the issue and is indicating that the funding being considered for •
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 5
• 1
2 the LRT should be considered for social service programs. He observed that
3 if this were done it would mean another delay for the LRT. The Commissioner
4 felt if only one line were put into operation it would prove to the Legis-
5 lature how effective it would be.
6 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo inquired if Commissioner Sivanich had any solutions for
7 the water problems being experienced in St. Anthony. The Commissioner responded
8 that Hennepin County is not really in the sewer business, but referred to the
9 City of Minneapolis' work in separating storm and sanitary sewer lines. He sug-
10 gested that the City separate when the streets are repaved and tap into
11 Minneapolis' lines. He also suggested that the City of St. Anthony request
12 funding for this project from the Legislature, noting that funds were allocated
13 for this project to the City of St. Paul by the Legislature.
14
15 6. REPORTS
16
17 A. Council
18 Councilmembers Makowske and Enrooth had nothing to report at this time.
19
20 Counc i I member. Marks, who is a member of the Ramsey County Intergovernmental
21 Commission, is recommending to the Ramsey County Railroad Authority to
22 consider a light rail transit corridor be placed from downtown St. Paul
�3 along 194 where there is a four hundred foot right-of-way. Four different
24 options were discussed by the Authority. Councilmember Marks felt one of
25 these corridors would serve the City of St. Anthony very well and its resi-
26 dents would be afforded good bus connections for the feeder buses as well .
27
28 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo received a letter from Andrew Szurek regarding an
�9 article which appeared in a local newspaper. Mr. Szurek stated that the
30 article addressed the installation of sidewalks, a subject which he is
31 interested in seeing happen on Silver Lane between Silver Lake Road and
32 Stinson .Boulevard. Councilmember Makowske recalled this had been explored
33 34 and the cost was prohibitive and figured out to be about $2,306 per 70 feet
5 of residential property. The City Manager stated that the average life of
3
35 a sidewalk is about thirty years depending on the base.
37 The City Manager advised that the City's Road Construction Task Force has
38 been meeting for three months now and wants the information they have
39 considered included. in the City newsletter as well as on cable television.
40 The Task Force will also be considering sidewalks in the City and has
41 planned a walking tour for its April meeting. It was suggested that Mr.
42 Szurek be contacted regarding the upcoming Task Force meetings. Information
43 about the Task Force will be sent home with school children in the City
44 for their
45 parents' to -view.
46
47 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo observed that the profits from the off-sale liquor
48 stores have decreased steadily. The City Manager stated that this is
49 traditionally a slow period and sales will be increasing when the weather
50 warms up. The Liquor Operations Manager will be focusing on marketin.g.
•
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 6
1 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo also observed there appears to be some problems areas •
2 as indicated. in the Police Department reports. The City Manager advised this
3 is being addressed by the Department.
4
5 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo has received some resident calls regarding tree removal
6 in the areas where tunneling is being done for well #5 lines. The City
7 Manager indicated on a wall map where the lines are being installed and the
8 tree removal is taking .place. He noted that the City is not being charged for
9 the easement across railroad tracks in this project. A resident was able to
10 make this arrangement with the railroad company for which he formerly worked.
11
12 Construction is taking place approximately fifteen feet up from the street
13 which includes going into residents' yards into the easement. The City
14 Manager advised that this is a state and federal project and the City has
15 little control . Mature trees are being removed as is shrubs, decorative
16 landscaping and sod.
17
18 The contractor for this project is Barbarossa which is a large contractor
19 and has a number one safety record in the country. The contractor had indi-
20 cated he intended to inform residents in a timely fashion what would be
21 taking place in front of their homes. The City Manager observed that this
22 has not been happening and some residents were given no prior notice when
23 work would be done immediately in front of their property. He has instructed
24 City staff to advise people when activities will be taking place in their
25 area.
26
27 It was the opinion of the City Manager that the project has been moving quite
28 fast as it is presently one-fourth of the way on Belden. He has received very
29 few resident complaints at City Hall .
30
31 The construction of the treatment plant is planned to commence in the middle
32 of April with a completion date of November. It will begin operation in
33 November, but the Ucy will receive it from the State i.n March, 1991 . The
34 intent is to have the treatment plant in operation for about five months
35 before it is turned over to the City. This is about a five million dollar
36 project.
37
38 Councilmember Marks expressed his concern with chopping off trees. The City
39 Manager stated that every tree removed will be replaced with three trees.
40 They will be placed farther back from the water pipe than the location of
41 the present trees.
42
43 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo requested that the Council members be copied on all
44 responses staff sends to residents or requests:
45
46 The Mayor Pro-tem advised that the Minnesota Torch Run is scheduled for
47 July 4, 5, and 6.. 11e requested staff to find out when the Run will be passinq
48 through St. Anthony as the City has many runners who may be interested in
49 participating. Councilmember Makowske also requested this information but
50 advised that all runner spots had to be committed by March 15th.
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 7
1
2 B. City Manager
3 1 . Allocation of 1990 CDBG- Funds (Resolution 90-015)
4 Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager advised this is the sixteenth
5 year of allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds. She advised
6 that the allocation for the senior citizen program includes eighteen per-
7 cent of the senior staff person's salary.
8
9 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve passage of Resolution No.
10 90-015, a resolution approving pproving proposed program for year XVI urban
12 . Hennepin County community development block grant funds and authorizing
13 its submittal .
14 Motion carried unanimously
15
16 2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Re: Temporary license to sell beer
17 The VillageFest Committee has requested the Council .to allow it to
18 sell 3.2 beer at the VillageFest on July 21 and 22. The City Attorney
19 advised by letter that the City's ordinance does not allow for temporary
20 licenses but the state statutes do.. The City Attorney felt it would be
21 appropriate for the Council to amend the ordinance.
22
�3 Councilmember Makowske inquired what the difference was between a license
• 24 and a permit. The City Attorney responded that state statute refers to
25 a license and it should be referred to as a license on the municipal
26 level . There is no difference other than terminology.
27
28 In response to a question regarding wine, the City Attorney advised that
�9 the- ordinance does not permit wine. The ordinance defines beer as 3.2
30 beer or non-intoxicating malt liquor as stated in state statute. Council-
31 member Marks questioned the accuracy of this definition.
32
33 Motion by Makowske, second by Ranallo to approve the first reading of
34 Ordinance No. 1990-002.
35
36 Councilmember Marks inquired what constituted a person who is of good
37 moral character and repute, as stated in the ordinance. The City Attorney
38 explained what criteria has to be met to qualify.
39
40 Roll call : Makowske, Enrooth, Ranallo - aye
41 Marks - abstain
42
43 3. Remodeling of Liquor Outlet - Country Store/New Market
44 The City Manager has been contacted by the new owner of the Country Store.
45 The owner intends to improve the front appearance of the store and inquired
46 if the City Council would be interested in doing some improvements to the
47 Liquor Store.
48
49 It was the consensus of the Council that some improvements should be done.
i50 What is being considered will cost approximately $11 ,000. The City Manager
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 8
1
2 indicated there are funds in the Liquor Fund for these improvements.
3 The City Manager will coordinate this project with the new owner of the
4 store. He will get quotes for the work.
5
6 The City Manager observed that the sign at the store is a non-conforming
7 sign. The owner will have to appear before the Planning Commission to request
8 a variance and the sign will have to be reduced in size.
9
10 Councilmember Makowske reported that the Transportation Committee met on
11 March 29th. The Committee is looking at the Fall for the new bus lines to
12 be coordinated. She noted that the additional hours of operation will have
13 to be advertised a.nd some minor changes will have to be made to make them
14 more attractive to residents.
15
16 Councilmember Marks observed that two routes will run on Stinson Boulevard
17 and one will go to Kenzie Terrace. Councilmember Makowske noted that a route
18 running to Rosedale Shopping Center is being considered.
19
2
21 1 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
22 There were no public hearings.
23
24 8. NEW BUSINESS
25
26 A. Resolution No. 90-019, Re: Lease for sale of pull tabs at Stonehouse
�7 The City Attorney addressed the changes in the lease. These are requirements
28 of the State.
29
30 The resolution only mentions that the Sports Boosters are included in the
31 lease and resolution. Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo inquired if the Chamber of Commerce
32 and Lions Club as. wgll are not participants in the lease. He was advised that
33 these other two groups are also included but the body of the lease had only
34 enough room to insert one organization name.
35
36 The City Manager advised that the State has a rule that the owners of the
37 establishment involved in the lease and control of the establishment cannot
38 purchase pull tabs. This means that the Mayor, Council and the City Manager
39
40 cannot buy pull tabs at the Stonehouse.
'
41 Motion by Ranallo, second by Makowske to approve adoption of Resolution No.
42 90-019.
43
44 Roll call : Makowske, Enrooth, Ranallo - aye
45 Marks - nay
46
47 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo requested the list of those recipients of donations
48 from profits realized from the sale of pull. tabs. He stated that $4,000
4.9 has already been received for the City's float and $9,000 was received
50 •
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 9
• 1 .
2 for the replacement of playground equipment.
3 B. Resolution No. 90-017, Re: Cable Television
4 The City Manager reviewed the resolution and explained that the resolution
5
6 is for the preservation of the City' s regulatory authority.
7 Councilmember Makowske inquired if the City will have to make any changes
8 to meet the requirements as stated in the resolution. She was advised none
9 would be necessary.
10
11 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to approve adoption of Resolution No.
12 90-017, being a resolution urging support for the restoration of local
13 regulatory authority over cable television systems.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously
16
17 The City Manager advised that he and his Assistant will be attending an
18
19 upcoming cable meeting.
20 C. Resolution No. 90-018, Re: Specifying signatures on City financial accounts
21 Councilmember Makowske recommended that the name of the Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo
22 be substituted in the body of the -resolution for the name of the Mayor. Her
�3 suggestion is based on the medical problems presently being experienced by
• 24 Mayor Sundland and his absence not keeping him current with City business.
25
26 Motion b Marks second b Enrooth to a
27 y ' y approve adoption of Resolution No.
28 90-018 with the recommended change.
�9 Motion carried unanimously
30
31 D. Resolution No. 90-016, Re: Fire Department 1990 Labor Agreement
32 The City Manager explained why there was a delay in settling this contract.
33 He informed the Council that the agreement adds a four percent increase to
34 salaries and $10.00 to insurance.
35
36 The City Manager is looking into a policy for providing uniforms to the
37 Fire Deparment personnel . This. will be an item for next year's contract.
38
39 Motion by Ranallo, second by Marks to approve;�adoption of Resolution No.
40 90-016.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously
43
44 E. Proclamation, Re: VillageFest Days, July 20, 21 , 22, 1990
45 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to accept the proclamation for the 1990
46 VillageFest days and place on file.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously
49
50
Council Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 10
1 F. Proclamation, Re: St. Anthony Village Volunteer Recognition Week -
2 April 22 - 28, 1990
3 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to accept the proclamation for the
4 St. Anthony Village Recognition Week of April 22 - 28, 1990 and place on
5 file.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously
8
9 G. Quotes for 1990 Water Products
10 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to accept bid from Davies Water Equipment
11 for parts and supplies for the Water Department with the exception of the
12 purchase of the water meters.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously
15
16 H. Quotes for 1990 Road Materials
17 Councilmember Makowske inquired why only one bid was received. It was apparent
18 that companies who would have a distance to go to deliver these materials
19 were not interested in bidding. Delivery adds to the costs.
20
2.1 Motion by Enrooth, second by Makowske to award the bid for 1990 road
22 materials to those firms as recommended by the Public Works Director in
23 his memo dated April 2, 1990.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously
26
27 I . Bids for Wing Plow, Front Side Mount and Reversible Plow
28 Motion .by Marks, second by Makowske to award the bid for the wing plow and
29 front mount reversible plow for the new 33,000 gross vehicle weight to
30 Crysteel Truck and Equipment Company for $9,927.00.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously
33 '
34 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
35
36 The Assistant to the City Manager distributed registration forms for the
37 League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference to the Councilmembers. She
38 indicated she will complete the forms for those Councilmembers interested
39 in attending the Conference.
40
41 The City Manager stated there would be a conflict with the first meeting
42 date of the City Council . It is scheduled for the first day of the LMC
43 Conference. He suggested it could be changed to June 5th if necessary.
44
45 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to cancel the June 12, 1990 Council meeting
46 and reschedule it to June 5, 1990, if it is needed.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously
49
. : 50
Council Meeting
Apr-H 10, 1990
page 11
1
2 10. ADJOURNMENT
3 Motion by Marks, second by Makowske to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. .
4
5 Motion carried unanimously
6
7
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
10
11 Jo-Anne Student, Council Secretary
12
13
14 Mayor Pro-tem
15
16
17 Attest.:
18 City Clerk
19
20
21
22
23 .
• 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 '
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 '
41
42
43
-44
45
46
47
48
49
• 50
w
C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I 0 U R
P/E 3/31 /90 A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 1
• VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
NO. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
04112 DANA DEANS M 3/01/90 13014 80.00
04221 REINE KASSULKER M 3/01/90 .13015 120. 00
04242 LINDY'S CLEANING SERVICE M 3/01/90 13016 600.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/01/90 13017 159000.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/01/SO 13018 5,000.00
04235 DIANE LE CLAIRE M 3/01/90 13019 125.00
06712 BEALINSKY PLANE CO M 3/01/90 15805 408.00
04009 AETNA LIFE C CASUALTY M 3/01/90 15806 599.76
04040 BF.INGGOLD MEATS M 3/01/90 15807 79. 26
04080 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION M 3/01/90 15808 110.00
04100 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE M 3./01 /90 15809 846.48
04104 COMPUTER CHEQUE OF MN M 3/01/90 15810 131. 00
04108 DANS REGISTER SERVICE M 3/01/90 15811 91 . 19
04120 EAGLE WINE CO M 3/U1/90 15812 156.87
04139 FARMER BROS CO M 3/0.1/SO 15813 158. 80
04175 GR IGG S COOPER S CO INC M 3/01/ SO 15814 89112.38
04201 HEGGIES PIZZA M 3 /01/90 15815 60.50
04202 HENN CTY SUPPORT S COLL S M. 3/01/SO 15816 77.00
06716 PAT HIN�A N. 3/01/90 15817 11 .00
04208 ICMA M 3/01/90 15818 35.26
• 04215 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE M 3/01/90 15819 23.15
04220 JOHNSON WINE CO M 3/01/90 15820 39976.05
04225 KRAFT FOODSERVICE M 3/01/90 15821 217.97
04272 METZ BAKING CO M 3/01/ 90 15822 55.27
04311 MINTER-WEISMAN M 3/01/90 15823 39931 .12
04313 MUZAK M 3/01/90 15824 138.02
06686 NORTHLAND IMPORTERS M 3/01/90 15P.25 132.00
04360 EPSCO M 3 /01/90 15826 2, 965.91
04376 PRIOR WINE CO M 3/01/90 15827 930.70
04380 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMNT M .3/01/90. 15828 1 , 846.68
04.380 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RET.IREMNT M 3/01/90 15829 54.00
04385 QUALITY WINE CO M 3/01 /SO 15830 828.59
04400 ST ANTHONY LIQUOR #1 M 3/01/90 15831 13. 85
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3 /01/90 15832 1, 961.68
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/01/90 15833 29235.24
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/01/90 15834 107.4E
04468 TANGUERAY INVESTMENTS M 3/01/90 15835 87.40
04491 UNITED WAY P. 3/01/90 15836 23.00
04494 WASTE MANAGEMENT - BLAINE M 3/01/90 15837 19247.00
04025 APACHE PLAZA M 3/01/90 15838 8,784. 10
04098 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS CO M 3/08/SO 15939 22. 10
04112 DANA DEANS M 3/08/90 15840 80. 00
04120 EAGLE WINE CO M 3/08/90 15841 920. 17
04175 GRIGGS COOPER E CO INC M 3/08/90 15842 99906.09
04185 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC M 3/08/90 15843 397.20
04220 JOHNSON WINE CO N. 3/08/90 15844 858.72
• 04221 REINE KASSULKER N 3/08/90 15845 120.00
04225 KRAFT FOODSERVICE M 3/08/90 15846 487.39
04261 MANNINGS III M 3/08/90 15847 184.50
04265 MED CENTER M 3/08/90 15848 326.20
C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I 0 0 0 R
P/E 3/31/90 A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 2
• VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
NO. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
104272 METZ BAKING CO M 3/08/90 15849 29.05
04311 MINTER-WE ISMAN M 3/08/90 15850 927. 72
04325 RAYMOND J NELSON M 3/08/90 15851 160. 00
04360 EPSCO M 3/38/90 15852 3,927.34
04365 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN M 3/08/90 15853 1 ,635.00
04376 PRIOR WINE CO M 3/08/90 15854 19150. 71
04385 QUALITY WINE CO M 3/08/90 15855 298.65
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/08/90 15856 15 .000.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/08/90 15857 5,Cd0. 00
06717 BOB KORFE M 3/15/90 15858 125.00
04106 ERNIE 'S TRANSFER M 3/15/90 15859 19027.00
04112 DANA DEANS M 3/15/80 15860 80. 00
04221 REINE KASSULKER M 3/15/ 90 15861 120.00
04242 L INDY 'S CLEANING SERVICE M 3/15/90 15 862 600.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/15/SO 15863 159000.0C
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/15/90 15864 59000.00
04009 AETNA LIFE S CASUALTY M 3/15/SO 15865 599.79
04040 BRINGGOLD MEATS M 3/15/50 15866 129.20
04080 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION M 3/15/50 15867 110.00
04100 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE M 3/15/50 15868 808.71
• 04100 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE M 3/15/SO 15969 229579.97
-04109 DENTICARE M 3/15/90 15870 13 .00
04120 EAGLE WINE CO M 3/15/90 15871 219.04
04137 ENTERTECH M 3/15/SO 15872 343.93
04175 GRIGGS COOPER E CO INC M 3/15/80 15873 149349.21
04201 HEGGIES PIZZA M 3/15/90 15874 49.40
04202 HENN CTY SUPPORT E COLL S M 3/15/90 15875 77.00
04208 ICMA M 3/15/90 15876 35.26
04215 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE M 3/15/90 15877 58.99
04220 JOHNSON WINE CO M 3/15/SO 15878 39528. 82
04225 KRAFT FOODSERVICE M 3/15/90 15879 710.72
04234 LMCIT - EBP INC M 3/15/90 15880 91 .80
04272 METZ BAKING CC M 3/15/90 15881 29.84
04295 MINN BENEFIT ASSN M 3/15/90 15882 5.00
04311 MINTER-WEISMAN M 3/15/90 15883 19616 .67
04318 NAT FINANCIAL INS CO M 3/15/90 . 15884 14.40
04360 EPSCO M 3/15/SG 15885 4072.28
04380 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMNT M 3/15/90 15886 1, 853.70
04385 QUALITY WINE CO M 3/15/SO 15887 2 .154. 16
04400 ST ANTHONY LIQUOR #1 M 3/15/50 15888 16.20
04401 ST ANTHONY LIQ #1 M 3/15/90 15889 286.03
04404 S/A LIQUOR #2-PETTY CASH M 3/15/90 15890 95. 26
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/15/190 15891 19887. 52
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/15/SO 15892 29254. 80
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/15/SO 15893 91.36
06709 MICHAEL SMITH M 3/15/90 15894 40 .00
• 04491 UNITED WAY M 3/15/SO 15895 23.00
06718 BOB BERGLUND M 3/22/90 15896 200.00
04112 DANA DEANS M 3/22/90 15897 80.00
04221 REINE KASSULKER M 3/22/90 15898 120.00
4
C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I Q U O R
P/E 3/31/90 A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 3
• VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
NO. TYPE DATE N0. AMOUNT
04261 MANNINGS III M 3/22/90 15899 736.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/22/90 15900 159000.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/22/SO 15901 59000.CO
04034 BIG BANG PROMOTIONS M 3/22/90 15902 233.25
04120 EAGLE WINE CO M 3/22/50 15903 219. 70
04175 GRIGGS COOPER S CO INC M 3/22/SO 15904 99338.68
06717 BOB KORFE M 3122/90 15905 119.00
04225 KRAFT FOODSER VICE M 3122/SO 15906 482 .80
06527 LAKEL AND ADVERTISING M 3122190 15907 281.CC
04272 METZ BAKING CC M 3/22/90 15908 33. 30
04311 MINTER-WE ISMA N M 3/22/SO 15909 29548.73
04376 PRIOR WINE CO M 3/22/SO 15910 .144.01
04404 S/A LIQUOR #2-PETTY CASH M 3/22/90 15911 112.32
04112 DANA DEANS M 3/29/SO 15912 80.00
04221 REINE KASSULKER N 3/29/90 15913 120.00
04235 DIANE LE CLAIRE M 3/29/SO 15514 125.0^
04242 L INDY ' S CLEANING SERVICE M 3/29/90 15915 600.00
04325 RAYMOND J NELSON M 3/29/SO 15916 160.00
04400 ST ANTHONY LIQUOR Al M 3/29/SO 15917 5.65
04401 ST ANTHONY LI Q #1 M 3/29/90 15918 231.38 .
• 04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/29/SO 15919 15 ,000.00
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/29/SO 15920 5000. 00
06719 JOHN WENTZ M 3/29/90 15921 265.CO
06720 TOM WALSTEN M 3/29/SO 15922 125.00
04009 AETNA LIFE E CASUALTY M 3/29/90 15923 599.75
04039 STUART J BONNIWELL M 3/29/90 15924 29200.CO
04080 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION M 3/29/90 15925 110.00
04093 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS CO M 3/29/90 15926 22. 10
04100 COMMI SSIONER CF REVENUE M 3/29/90 15927 829.45
04120 EAGLE WINE CO M 3/29/90 15,928 548.21
04175 GRIGGS COOPER E CO INC M 3/29/90 15929 9,113.78
04185 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC M 3/29/90 15930 357. 20
04201 HEGGI ES PIZZA M 3/29/1;0 15931 178.60
04202 HENN CTY SUPPORT C COLL S M 3/29/SO 15932 77.00
04208 I CMA M 3/29/90 15933 72.40
04220 JOHNSON WINE CO M 3/29/90 15934 4, 167.92
04225 KRAFT FOODSER VICE M 3129/SO 15935 1 ,038.07
04234 LMCIT - EBP INC M 3/29/90 15936 2,058. CC
04234 LMCIT - EBP INC M 3/29/90 15,937 1 ,646.22
04269 MEO CENTER M 3/29/SO 15938 326.20
04272 METZ BAKING CC M 3/29/90 15935 93. 10
04311 MINTER-WEISMAN M 3/29/90 15940 1 ,677.09
04313 MUZAK M 3/29/90 15941 117.00
04360 EPSCO M 3/29/SO 15942 3 ,203.64
04365 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN M 3/29/90 15943 1 , 635 .00
04376 PRIOR WINE CO M 3/29/90 15944 19123.24
• 04380 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMNT M 3/29/90 15945 1 ,995. 14
04380 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMNT M 3/29/90 15946 54.00
04385 QUALITY WINE CO M 3/29/90 15947 2,661.33
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/29/SO 15948 19940. 10
C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I 0 U 0 R
P/E 3/31 /90 A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 4
VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
NO. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
04410 ST ANTHONY NATL BANK M 3/29/90 15949 2,440.3E
04491 UNITED WAY M 3/29/90 15951 23.00
04492 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS M 3/29/90 15952 500.05
04085 CITY OF ST ANTHONY M 3/29/50 15953 509000.00
04400 ST ANTHONY LIQUOR 01 N 3/29/90 15954 125.00
TYPE TOTAL 3319323.47
TOTAL 3319323.47
•
•
C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I 0 0 0 R
P/E 4/12190 A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
• NO. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
34005 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC R 4/12/90 14659 28.60
04009 AETNA LIFE E CASUALTY R 4/12/90 14660 599.79
04015 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO R 4/12/90 14661 659.07
04016 AMERICAN] RISK SERVICES R 4/12/90 14662 273.00
04026 APACHE PLAZA MERCHANTS R 4/12/90 14663 118.00
04080 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION R 4/ 12/90 14664 110.00
04095 COCA COLA BOTTLING R 4/12/90 14665 .1.630.86
04104 COMPUTER CHEQUE OF MN R 4/12/90 14666 131 .00
04108 DANS REGISTER SERVICE R 4/12/90 14667 49.00
04109 DENTICARE R 4/12/90 14668 13.00
04118 EMS MUSIC INC R 4/12/90 14669 127.50
04125 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO R 4/12/1;0 14670 269579.65
04129 ECOLAB R 4/12/SO 14671 175.00
04130 ECCLAB R 4/12190 14672 457 .98
04145 GANZER DISTRIBUTORS INC R 4/12/c.0 14673 59328.25
04156 GENERAL PARTS E SUPPLY CO R 4/12/90 14674 106.87
04202 HENI4 CTY SUPPORT C COLL S R 4/12/5) 14675 77.00
904205 HGME JUICE CO R 4/12/90 14676 28.86
04206 HOSPITALITY SUPPLY CO R 4/12/SO 14677 35.93
04208 ICMA R 4/12/90 14678 41 .45
04220 JOHNSON WINE CO R 4/12/SO 14679 1,532.58
04233 LADEN' S R 4/12/50 14680 12.04)
• 04234 LAIC IT - E BP INC R 4/12/90 14681 91 .80
04265 MARK VII SALES INC R 4/12/90 14682 15 .611 .77
04295 MINN BENEFIT ASSN R 4/ 12/90 14683 5.00
04313 NAT FINANCIAL INS CO R 4/12/90 14684 14.40
04334 NORTHEASTER R 4/12/90 14685 T.00
04335 NORTHERN STATES POWER R 4/12/'90 14686 3 ,087.67
04339 NORTH STAR ICE R 4/12/90 14687 395 .73
04345 OLD DUTCH FOLDS INC R 4/12/90 14688 45 .07
04355 PEPSI COLA/ 7 UP BOTTLING R 4/12/90 14689 5+02.98
04360 EPSCO R 4/12/90 14690 936. 80
04378 PRCFESSIGNAL PROCESSING R 4/12/90 14691 793 .93
04385 QUALITY WINE CO R 4/12/90 14692 29009.03
04390 REX DISTRIBUTING CO R 4/12/90 14693 149651.20
04415 SA VO I E SUPPLY CO R 4/12/'90 14694 110.74
04450 STUART DISTRIBUTING CO R 4/12/90 14695 446.50
04480 T�+IN CITY FILTER SERVICE R 4/12/90 14696 124.65
04431 TWIN CITY JANITOR SUPPLY R 4/12/90 14697 245.05
04491 UNITED !SAY R 4/12/90 14698 23.00
J4494 WASTE MANAGEMENT - BLAINE R 4/12/90 14699 409.0i7-
06198 ST ANTHCNY MERCHANTS ASSN R 4/12/90 14700 100.00
06521 COTTER CHARGE CARP R 4/12/90 14701 37.81
06538 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS CO R 4/12/90 14702 19050.00
06542 SKYVIEW SATELLITE SYSTEMS R 4/12/90 14703 19354.00
06564 BUILDING TRADES JOURNAL R 4/12/90 14704 499.50
06567 MINN POLICE CHIEF R 4/12/90 14705 225.00
06648 COAST TO COAST R 4/12/90 14706 6.98
• 06686 NORTHLAND IMPORTERS R 4/12/90 14707 15.00
06721 ACRES OF CORN INC R 4/12/90 14708 48.75
-� C I T Y O F S T A N T H O N Y L I 0 0 0 R
P/E 4/12/90 A C C 0 U N T S P .A Y A B L E PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
• NO. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
06722 HUGIN SWEDA R 4/12/90 14709 97.25
06723 CHARLIE KALUGA R 4/12/90 14710 48.00
TYPE TOTAL 91 ,09 8.97
TOTAL 81 ,098.97
•
•
C I T Y O F S T A N 'T H 0 N Y
P/E 4/26/90 A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 1
• VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHECK
NU. TYPE DATE NO. AMOUNT
00020 AA BATTERY CO R 4/26/90 19761 22.98
00045 ACRO-MINNESOTA R 4/26/90 19762 465.29
00115 AMES PHOTO FINISH R 4/26/90 19763 11 .10
00135 AMERICAN RISK SERVICES IN R 4/26/917 19764 377.00
00236 AT & T R 4/26/90 19765 61. 13
00237 AT & T CDM14UNICATION R 4/26/90 19766 39.71
00238 AT&T CREDIT CORP R 4/26/90 19767 296.89
0029U BASTIEN PRODUCTS INC R 4/26/90 19768 104.92
00323 3 EISSWEN3ER APPLIANCE R 4/26/90 19769 53.34
00558 CALGON CARBON CORP R 4/26/90 19770 39348.00
00610 CATCO CLUTCH & TRANS SVC R 4/26/90 19771 137.64
00625 COPY DUPL PRODUCTS R 4/26/90 19772 67.20
00650 CITY OF ST PAUL R 4/26/90 19773 195.42
00635 COAST TO COAST R 4/26/90 19774 413.47
-00715 LEEF BROS R 4/26/90 19775 3.66
00820 DORSEY + WHITNEY R 4/26/90 19776 4,444.35
00970 FLASH FOTO R 4/26/90 19777 7.21
01060 GARELI;K STEEL CO R 4/26/90 19778 50.00
01145 GLENW03D INGLEWOOD R 4/26/90 19779 27.82
01233 GOPHER STATE CNE CALL R 4/26/90 19780 45.00
01275 GRAYBOW DANIELS COMPANY R 4/26/90 19781 10.35
• 01505 HENN CO SHERIFF - R 4/26/90 19782 776.48
01680 J C AUTO SUPPLY R 4/26/90 19783 18.59
02040 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPER R 4/26/90 19784 81.20
02060 MB INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO R 4/26/90 19785 26.55
02200 MEDICAL OXYGEN EQUIPMENT R 4/26/90 19786 108.20
02240 METRO WASTE CONTROL R 4/.26/90 19787 259471 .55
0228: MIDWEST A SPHALT CORP R 4/26/90 19788 21 .48
02335 MINN CELLULAR TELEPHONE R 4/26/90 19789 10.50
02345 MN CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC R 4/26/90 19790 40.00
02380 MINNEGASCO INC R 4/26/90 19791 6.380.12
02420 MINNEAPOLIS STAR + TRIB R 4/26/93 19792 496.50
02520 NATIONAL MOWER CO R 4/26/90 19793 .56.25
02600 NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CT R 4/26/90 19794 5025.00
02680 NORTHERN STATES POWER R 4/26/90 19795 V O I D
02680 NORTHERN STATES POWER R 4/26/90 19796 V O I D
02680 NORTHERN STATES POWER R 4/26/90 19797 59803.41
02700 US WEST :L:MMUNICATIONS R 4/26/90 19798 56.57
02880 PITNEY BOWES INC R 4/26/90 19799 47.25
02980 PROFESSIONAL PROCESSING C R 4/26/90 19800 228. 18
03000 RADIO SHACK R 4/26/90 19801 137.79
03050 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER R 4/26/90 19802 626.86
03260 T A SCHIFSKY + SONS R 4/26/90 19803 469.66
03315 SERCO LABORATORIES R 4/26/90 19804 1 ,027.00
03460 SPRING LK PK LUMBER CO . R 4/26/90 19805 328.42
03490 STREICHER GUNS INC, • DON R 4/26/90 19806 570.17
03560 TRACY PRINTING R 4/26/90 19807 428.05
• 03670 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED R 4/26/90 19808 21.95
03720 W W GENERATOR REBUILDERS R 4/26/90 19809 33.89
03735 WASTE MGMT R 4/26/90 19810 19205.22
C I T Y O 'F S T A N T H O N Y
P/E 4/26/90 A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME CHECK CHECK CHES
NO. TYPE DATE NO . AMO
05010 MINN CONWAY FIRE S SAFETY R 4/26/90 19811 22.50
05017 HENN CO TREASURER R 4/26/90 19812 2,970. 25
05028 AMERICAN SEMI-PARTS INC R 4/26/90 19813 10.00
05067 INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 282 R 4/26/90 19814 2,322.33
05070 COTTER CARD CENTER R 4/26/90 19815 52.20
05080 I NT 'L SOCIETY OF FIRE SER R 4/26/90 19816 60.00
05082 RAMSEY CO CHIEFS ASSOC R 4/26/90 19817 25.00
05116 CABLE TV NORTH CENTRAL R 4/26/90 19818 8. 75
05194 STEWART LUMBER CO R 4/26/90 19819 22.69
05232 MURPHY RADIATOR R 4/26/90 .19820 32.00
05233 APACHE PAPER CO R 4/26/90 19821 202.95
05241 NO SUBURBAN CABLE COMM R 4/26/90 19822 69685.01
05306 SPRINGSTED R 4/26/90 19823 89572.02
06074 ELIZABETH HELLER R 4/26/90 19824 50.00
06075 SOUTHWESTERN TECH COLLEGE R 4/26/90 19825 255.00
06077 MAIER STE4ART 8 ASSOC INC R 4/26/90 19826 431.26
37036 IlAkTIN OTTEN R 4/26/90 19827 100.00
07037 TOM OWENS R 4/26/90 19828 37.71
07038 HIGHLAND FAMILY PHYSICIAN R 4/26/90 19829 92.00
07040 PALEN/KIMBALL CO -- R 4/26/90 19830 211.97
07041 FRUEHAJF TRAILER OPER R 4/26/90 19831 44.31
07042 WILLYS-MPLS R 4/26/90 19832 35
07043 NORTHERN STATES POWER R 4/26/90 19833 4,427
07044 TWIN CITY JANITOR SUPPLY R 4/26/90 19834 293. 75
07045 STATE TREASURER R 4/26/90 19835 8.00
07046 REEDS SALES E SERVICE R 4/26/90 19836 22.61
07047 SCHUTTA' S HARDWARE R 4/26/90 19837 31.68
07048 BARTON SAND F. GRAVEL R 4/26/90 19838 177.84
07049 CRS INCORPORATED R 4/26/90 19839 67.69
07050 J P COOKE CO R 4/26/90' 19840 30.07
07051 WAHL E WAHL INC R 4/26/90 19841 29353.00
07052 MID-CENTRAL INC R 4/26/90 19842 296.00
07053 HANCE E LEVAHN R 4/26/90 19843 49800.00
07056 SUBURBAN RUBBER STAMP R 4/26/94 19844 22.75
07057 GOPHER MELDING SUPPLY R 4/26/90 19845 2 .43
07075 HOLIDAY INN ST PAUL NG R 4/26/90 19846 741.37
07076::;_ MOODY' S INVESTORS SERVICE R 4/26/90 19847 3,734. 86
070771 THE NORTHFIELD CO R 4/26/90 19848 18.CO
A TYPE TOTAL 99,249.76
TOTAL 99, 249.76
•
North Memorial
Medical Center,& F-136 Rev. 85
3300 North Oakdale
RoWnsdaW,Minnesota 55422
612/5205200
ACCOUNT NO. April 5 19 90
Account of St. Anthony Fire Department
Attn: Don Drusch
3301 Silver Lake Road
Minneapolis, MN 55418
tServices provided by Emergency Services
PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT. If you have questions, please call
520-9MKK 5535.
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT
1 First Medic 610 Defibrillator $5,325.00 $5,325.00
Please return this payment in the
' enclosed envelope for proper credi.t.
Thank you.
I
Credit to Dept. Emergency-Restri ctedrotal $5,325.00
7
INVOICE DATE
INVOICE NO. 030596
9333 PENN AVENUE SOUTH ACCOUNT NO. CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
Wahl & MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55431 S-TE3264 2446
Wahl Inc (612) 884-7301 DATE SHIPPED METHOD OF SHIPMENT ORDER DATE
. ESTABLISHED 1934 3/12/90 0/D, 3/14/90
'SALESMAN TERMS
147456 63 JACIIDSEN NET 1.0 DAYS
S r-
S I
H CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
0 rTTY ng* qT. &MTWnh(y p F,OL.10E DEr-,,,'-.RTMrNT
L p
D 3301 SILVER LAKE ROAD E 3301 SILVER LAKE ROAD.
0
T ST. ANTI--TONY MN 55418 D ST. ANTHONY MN 5541.8
T
0 L
PRODUCT CODE NO OUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
I RICOH 95 FACGIMIL.TE 22454000 ??.45.000
S/W 100275
7-F,300 6 RICOH FACGIMILIE PAFTER, G 1/2" X 3 19.0(•0 i094000
•
Rs.
f U 16.
EYA
U.i ts.
NON TAX STATUS XF*MF.T SUBTOTAL
REPRESENTING SALES TAX Mir!
HANDLING CHARGE
WH'ER FREIGHT CHARGE•PRICIOUCTS CO
• w 2,353.0
A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1%% PER MONTH (18% ANNUALLY) WILL BE ASSESSED ON ALL OVERDUE AMOUNTS.
ORIGINAL INVOICE-PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE
PLEASE RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE
CUSTOMER NAME CITY OF ST, ANTHONY
ACCOUNT NO. f.-,TE3264 CHECK NO.
9333 PENN AVENUE SOUTH INVOICE NO. 03,0596
Wahl & MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55431 INVOICE DATE 3/15/90
(612) 884-7301
I Wahi Inc, ESTAKISHED 1934 INVOICE AMOUNT 00 CHECK AMOUNT
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17 , 1990
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 P. M. with the Pledge of
2 Allegiance led by Chairperson Madden.
3
4 ROLL CALL
5
6 Present : Faust , Franzese, Wagner , Hansen, Madden, Brownell , Werenicz .
7
8 Also present : Thomas Burt, City Manager
9 Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
10
11 MINUTES
12
13. FEBRUARY 20, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14
15 Motion by Brownell., seconded by Hansen to approve the minutes of the
16 above meeting with the following changes :
17
18 Page 1 , line 46 : Insert "square" after "one-half" .
19 Page 2 , line 9 , insert "due" between "were" and "to" .
20 Page 2 , line 12 , Insert "to" between "as" and "the" .
21 Page 2 , line 26 : Correct "were"
22 Page 3 , line 21 : Correct to indicate 1112 or 16 foot section" .
23 Page 5 , line 22 : Correct "Madden" .
24 Page 5 , line 46 : Substitute "closed for continuation" for "was
25 closed. "
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 The matter of the signage on the former Medtronics building on Page 6
29 will be further investigated by the Assistant to the City Manager.
30
31 APRIL 3, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON CDBG FUND ALLOCATION
32
33
34 Motion by Wagner , seconded by Werenicz to approve minutes as presented .
35 COMMISSIONER HANSEN TO REPRESENT PLANNING COMMISSION AT APRIL 24, 1990
36 COUNCIL MEETING
37
38
39 PUBLIC HEARINGS
40
42 Denial Recommended for Requested Front Yard Variance for 2608/10 37th
43 Avenue N. E.
44
45 . Chairperson Madden read aloud the Notice of Hearing to consider a - request
19 from Barbara Zielinska/H.C. Zawieruszynski to allow a 20 foot front
48 yard variance: .to. the 3 5foot front yard setback required by Ordinance
49 for the property at the above address . No one present reported failure
50 to receive the notice or objected to its content.
Planning Commission meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 2
1 The Chairperson explained the procedure to be followed for such hearings
2 to the 20 or so persons present.
3
4 Staff Report
5
6
7 Ms. VanderHeyden restated some of the concerns staff had regarding
8 the variance which had been presented in her April 10th memorandum
9 in the agenda packet. These included potential safety problems with
10 a driveway only 15 feet long as well as concerns that the private
11 service sewer lines into the units which are now buried in the slope
12 in the terrain in front of the projects might not be adequately covered
13 when the garage units are constructed over them. She also mentioned
14 the possibility of liability for the City should the City snow plows
15 hit one of the cars parked in the driveway during the winter.
16 The Assistant to the City Manager also reported finding no
17 precedent for allowing a similar variance- in the City other
18 than for non-conforming front yard structures which were grandfathered
19 in with the 1973 ordinance or allowed after the 1984 tornado.
20 She said the only instance she could find was for a garage
21 in front of the Hance home on Silver Lake for which the Council
22 had found a hardship resulting from the stringent requirements
23 imposed on lakeshore property by the DNR.
24 Mr. Burt indicated the City ' s utility lines in the public right of
25 way would not be impacted by the proposed construction.
26
27 The public hearing was opened at 7 :43 P. M
28
29 Barbara Zielinska, the only spokesperson for the variance, reported
30 her family was now driving four vehicles and needed more than a single
31 garage for their three bedroom bungalow. She indicated a double garage
32 would allow them to hide two of the vehicles from view and would leave
33 only two vehicles on the driveway rather than the three which will have
34 to be parked there during the winter when the City ' s parking restrictions
35 are in force . The applicant also pointed out that three vehicles parked
36 on her driveway posed a greater obstruction to the view of neighbors
37 exiting onto that busy street.
38
39 Mrs . Zielinska reported the applicants had a contractor friend as
40 well as an uncle who is an architect who would help them with the project
41 and assure a nice appearance for the garage exteriors . The existing
42 garages would be sealed off and perhaps utilized as living space later
43 on she told Commissioner Franzese. However, the need for more garage
44 space for the four vehicles was the prime consideration right now.
45 The applicant also told the Commissioner she had discussed the project
46 with her neighbors and they had indicated no objection based on their
47 knowledge of the "good care her family already gave their property. "
48
49 There was no one else present to speak to the issue and the public
50 hearing was closed at 7:49 P. M. for Commission consideration.
Planning Commission meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 3
2 Commissioner Faust indicated his concern with the conformity of the
3 project with other front yard setbacks in -adjacent properties and the
4 safety factor of having only 15 feet of driveway which even one normal
5 sized car would fill .
6
7 Commissioner Wagner said he was also concerned with the length of
8 drive-way to accommodate the vehicles but his greatest concern was
9 the size of the variance, 20 feet which would make the new garages so
10 far out of alignment with other front yards in the same area .
11
12 Commissioner Hansen said he was also concerned about the safety factor
13 with parking even two cars on only 15 feet of driveway exiting onto that
14 busy street . He imagined that a driver would almost be out in the street
15 before he or she had a chance to judge the speed of approaching vehicles .
16
17 Commissioner Brownell questioned whether the three questions which the
18 applicant had to answer affirmatively on the Petition for Variance could
19 realistically have been answered thus for this project . He perceived
20 the variance relieved more of an inconvenience than an undue hardship;
21 saw no extraordinary circumstance related to that particular parcel to
22 justify a variance , and did not agree that the City Ordinance caused
23 any particular difficulty or hardship for the property owners . He indi-
24 cated he would therefore oppose granting the variance.
25
26 Commissioner Werenicz also questioned the validity of affirmative replies
27 to the three questions and joined the other Commissioners in their
28 opposition to the variance.
29
30 Chairperson Madden said the magnitude of the discrepancy in structure
31 alignment with adjacent properties in addition to the problem the shorter
32 driveway might pose for the City snow removal plows prompted his
33 opposition to granting the variance .
34
35 `lotion by Werenicz , seconded by Wagner to recommend that the City Council
36 deny the request for a 20 foot variance from the 35 foot front yard set-
37 backs maintained by adjacent properties for two double garages in front
38 of the double bungalow at 2608/10 37th Avenue N. E. finding that ( 1) the
39 Commission did not perceive the three questions in the variance applicatic
40 could be answered in the affirmative; ( 2 ) the safety factors and potential
41 problems with the sewer line with the construction justified the denial
42 of the variance as well as ( 3) the lack of precedence for granting similar
43 requests in the past .
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 Zoning Change for Self-Service Storage Project at Apache Tabled to
48 Allow Additional Notification of Property Owners in the Same Area
49
50
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 4
1 Chairperson Madden read alound the Notice of Hearing to consider an
2 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit request
3 from the Weiss Companies which as published in the April 4 , 1990
4 Bulletin and sent to all property owners of record within 350 feet
5 of the subject property. The Amendment was requested to provide
6 for self-service (mini-storage) as a specifically listed Conditional
7 Use in a Commercial District where such a use is now considered an
8 Industrial use .
9
In Upon approval of the Amendment , the applicant is seeking a Conditional
11 Use Permit in a "C" Commercial District for constuction of a self-
12 service storage facility on 2 . 5 acres adjacent to the northwest corner
13 of Apache Plaza Mall and immediately east of the Equinox Apartment
14 Building garages .
15
16 When the Chair asked whether anyone present had failed to receive the
17 notice of the hearing, Ken Solie, 2817 Silver Lane, requested the specific
17 location of the proposed facility. Mr. Burt estimated the facility would
19 be approximately 100 feet from the Apache Medical Office building on
20 Stinson Boulevard. Mr. Solie then identified himself and Gerry Cowan
21 who was with him as the owners of Village Properties who are part owners
22 of the medical building. He said they had received no notice of the
23 hearing and only learned it would be held during a casual conversation
24 within the last few days . The City Manager indicated he assumed their
25 company was not listed on the tax rolls for that building which was
26 used to identify those who are required by law to be notified of such
17 a hearing.
28
29 When asked, Mr. Solie indicated he and Mr. Cowan would not object
30 to continuation of the hearing but because they had no opportunity to
31 review the plans for the new facility might request the Commission
32 consider tabling a recommendation after the testimony of other interested
33 parties present that evening was taken.
34
35 Staff Report
36
37 Mr. Burt discussed his April 10th memorandum to the Commissioners in-
38 cluding the results of an informal survey he had made of surrounding
39 suburbs to ascertain how they treated similar facilities in their
40 ordinances . He said from the response he had concluded that typically
41 self-storage facilities remained an Industrial use and were still
42 viewed as "warehousing uses . "
43
44 The City Manager reported receiving three inquiries of where the
45 facility would be located from Silver Lane residents who were concerned
46 the vacant area at Stinson and Silver Lane might be the site of the
47 proposed development . When the callers realized where the facilities
48 were being requested, they were no longer concerned.
49
50 The agenda packet contained copies of the detailed site and landscaping
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 5
1 plans as well as a letter from the applicants giving justifications for
2 making the requested zoning change . Mr. Burt identified the owner of
3 the property as Apache and not the applicants .
4
5 The public hearing opened at 8 : 03 P. M. with Weiss Companies repre-
6 sentatives , Norman Brody, David Deerach, and Charles Habiger answering
7 Commission questions related to the 700 unit storage facility the
8 proposed constructing predicated upon approval of the site plan .
9 The development location would be within a narrow 800 foot long
10 space which has remained undeveloped since the Apache mall has been
11 in existence .
12
13 The Weiss Companies representative told the Commissioners market
14 studies had show this area of multi residential development would be
15 very conducive to their proposed facility which they anticipated
16 would be designed for 90% residential and 10/ commercial use as
17 adjusted for user mix. The study indicates a need for 300, 000 square
18 feet of self service units within a five mile radius .
19 The owners intend to operate the facility much like a regular retail
20 operation from an office in the facility which would be retain in nature
21 with large windows , a decorative canopy in front and signage to match
22 the adjacent retail mall operation . The facility would be open to its
23 users only during regular store hours . There would probably be no access
24 to the building much after 9 : 00 P. M. Security would be provided by
25 a secure card access which would be recorded on a print out system
26 in the office . The hours the facility would be open would be designed
27 not to adversely affect the nearby residential neighbors and users woulc
28 be locked out of their units after normal business hours .
29
30 The applicants indicated there would be a 10 foot buffer around the
31 perimeter of the facility which would meet all pertinent codes .
32
33 There would be nine different sized units with only 15 or 20 of the
34 larger 30 foot wide by 30 foot deep available for merchants use. The
35 smaller units would be mostly located on the second . These would be
36 the size of a small closet, 5 feet by feet, designed for use of
37 apartment dwellers who need additional space for seasonal equipment,
38 etc-. Other sized units could be utilized by residents who for one
39 reason or another are downgrading their housing needs .
40
41 Twenty foot driveways should be sufficient for the type of vehicles
42 expected to use the majority of these units . Most users of the larger
43 units would be expected to bring materials to and from the units in
44 vehicles not anticipated to exceed two axles like pickups. Only rarely
45 could a multi axel vehicle be expected to access the building and then
46 only for a short time. Commissioner Madden had noted that a similar
47 facility in the Village had 34 foot driveways and mentioned that some
48 vans were stored in those units . Mr. Brody indicated seven foot headers
49 on the doors would probably prevent large vans from being stored inside .
50
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 6
1 Concerns about flammable materials being stored in the facility would also
2 have to come into play with probably only cars stored there long term when
3 the tanks would have to be emptied .
4
5 Commissioner Werenicz that the pylon sign idicated on the plans would
6 not be allowed by the City Sign Ordinance and only one sign would be
7 allowed on the building.
8
9 The building would be a masonry project with decorative block on the walls
10 exposed to the exterior. Accent earth tone striping would probably be used . i
11 A standing seam steel roof is anticipated but bids are being taken now
12 on a masonry or precast concrete roof .
13
14 The definition of the facility is "pure passive storage" to comply with
15 the self storage law enacted in Minnesota in 1988 . Therefore only one
16 light fixture would be provided to the large units and because the
17 facility would only be open during daylight hours the smaller units
18 wouldn ' t even need that fixture . There will be no climate control in
19 the building and no opportunity for unit owners to work on cars or anything
20 else in their units .
21
22 Summer time hours might be extended out to accomodate contractors , etc.
23 who start work earlier and finish later to get their equipment out of their
24 units . Activity diminishes in the winter hours so the hours of operation
25 would be shortened up during that season . Gate hours when a unit owner
26 may access the building electronically may differ from the office hours
27 just like banks with ATM facilities . The gate hours in the winter may
28 be from 7 : 00 in the morning until 8 : 00 at night with the office only
29 open from 8 : 00 A. M. to 6 : 00 P. M. In the summer hours the gate would be
30 from 6 : 00 A. M. to 9 :00 P . M. but the office hours would be the same.
31 For security reasons the company does not desire to be open in the late
32 evening hours and they don ' t want anybody in the facility after closing
33 time. In deference to the apartment dwellers near the facility all
34 exterior lighting would be downlighted .
35
36 All storage of hazardous waste would be contracurally prohibited in these
37 units . The storage of toxic or flammable materials or even materials that
38 might degrade, including food will be prohibited in the rental agreements .
39 Control will be provided by the onsite management. However they can only
40 inspect materials when they are put into or taken out of the units since
41 they have no access into the units themselves when they are unattended .
42 Mr. Brody added that apartment garages in the 'area offered less security
43 than they provided behind locked gates , electronic security and video
44 cameras throughout. He then described the print out system which keeps
45 track of any egress to the building.
46
47 Access to the second story units it by stairwell or mechanically operated
48 hydraulic lifts designed to transport materials but not people which come
49 in at the west side of the center building.
50
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 7
1 Commissioners were also advised that the Weiss Companies had negotiated
2 a lease which was a 20 year lease with 4 five year extensions . The building
3 would not be sprinkled . They were assured that if the onsite security is
4 kept operational necessity for police security should be absolutely minimal .
5 There are only two points of entry and one way to get out of the building
6 The height of the security fence would be whatever the City code allowed
7 with wrought iron fencing with sliding gates and chain link fencing to
8 the rear with barbed wire on top if allowable. as further deterrent .
9
10 Ken Solie indicated that the owners of the office building were concerned
11 that with all the distressed commercial in the area adding industrial use
12 would only add to the poor image already present in that center. He said
13 he wasn ' t very comfortable with the proposed industrial use in an area
14 which is and should be developed increasingly with successful and strong
15 commercial use .
16
17 the public hearing was closed at 8 : 37 P. M. for Commission discussion.
18
19 It was determined that the only City street in the complex was 39th
20 Avenue .
21
22 Comments by the Commissioners were as follows:
23 Commissioner Hansen said his priiaary concern was allowing an industrial
24 use in a commercial area . He preferred a retail shopping strip.
25
26 Commissioner Brownell agreed the use fit more appropriately in an indus-
28 trial rather than a commercial area . However, he said he thought this
29 would be a good use for this spot because there are already commercial
30 endeavors which haven ' t met with much success in this center. He perceived
31 putting another small shopping center would not particulary benefit the
32 existing property owners .
33 Commissioner Werenicz said he would like to research the recent Minnesota
34 statute on this type of use. He indicated he found the concept "very
35 interesting and thought it might work in this particular area . He didn ' t
36 view this as an industrial type use and perceived the applicant had made
38 some valid arguments about times changing which might make the City Zoning
39 Ordinance somewhat outdated when it comes to new uses like this one.
40 He didn ' t see the need for another commercial strip in that location where
41 two are already dying. He couldn ' t perceive -any other use going into
42 that particular space.
44 Commissioner Franzese indicated she agreed with what had been said about
5 the existing uses in that center and questioned whether a closed in facilit:
45 like this one really fit in that area or might rather be detrimental to
47 the surrounding vicinity.
49 Chairperson Madden thought the facility would provide a good buffer between
50 the residential Equinox and the commercial Apache. He didn ' t see this as
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17, 1990
Page
1 - "nuisance providing environment . " However he thought to amend the
2 ordinance for the use would be a big step he wasn ' t really sure
3 he wanted to take because it would open the commercial districts
4 in the City to this special use as well . He agreed the City didn ' t
5 have that many areasavailable for commercial anyway and he said he
6 wouldn' t want to make the wrong choice on one that is still open.
7
8 Commissioner Wagner indicated he would tend to favor the request .
9 He pointed out that there aren ' t that many large units in the facility
10 to lend it to an industrial use although he anticipated 15 or 20 of
11 the largest units might be too many to really pursue the residential
12 and private storage. If it remains gauged for primarily that type of
13 use, he didn ' t think it would be such a bad operation for that location
14 nor would it adversely impact the rest of the area . The Conditional
15 Use Permit can b*e written to assure the facility would be kept up
16 and the area around it properly maintained. He perceived if kept up
17 this facility would look as good as the back of the garages now which
18 it would shield . He wondered if this facility might not even bring
19 in more shoppers for the area . However , with control of the materials
20 which can be stored there he didn ' t see how the facility could be
21 detrimental to the surrounding area and questioned whether the Fire
22 Department would allow the building not to be sprinkled .
23
24 Commissioner Faust commented that the market studies had indicated this
25 to be the highest and best use for that land. He said if that area has
26 been vacant all those years he couldn ' t help but believe a 700 unit
27 facility was bound to bring in people who might want to shop in Apache
28 Plaza while they were there.
29
30 Mr. Burt advised there was no vehicle for treating this area separately
31 because to do so could easily be viewed as "spot zoning" . However,
32 size requirements could be put in the ordiance which would prevent the
33 use in smaller commercial areas . You could also limit the site size by
34 citing a maximum amount of land or acreage which could be used for that
35 type of facility. He pointed out that there are only two vacant pro-
36 perties in the City now besides Apache and they are both quite small .
37 He identified these as the triangular piece of land in the Kenzie
38 Terrace area and the area just north of Firestone near the medical
39 office. However it would be prudent to put restrictions of size in
40 the ordinance in case a commercial area did move out .
41
42 The City Manager told Commissioner Franzese he was aware of only one
43 industrial area open to development inthe City now and that was the
44 land east of American Monarch which is up for sale now. Chair
45 Madden observed that parcels location right across from residential
46 made ' it less desirable for this type of use than the parcel considered
47 that evening.
48 Chair Madden indicated he used the storage facilities near his home
49 and perceived the resident manager was not doing a good job of maintenanc
50 outside.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17, 1990
Page 9
1 The notification requirements for public hearings were explored with
2 the City Manager advising that if there was any question at all -whether
3 that requirement had been met for this hearing, action should be tabled
4
5 Commission Recommendation
6
7 Motion by Werenicz , seconded by Wagner to table action on the Weiss
8 request until the third Tuesday in May, 1990.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 The meeting was recessed from 8 : 58 P.M. to 9 : 05 P.M. when Chairperson
13 Madden read aloud the Notice of Hearing to consider the request from
14 James and Harriet Pirino to allow a 33 foot front yard setback from
15 the average front yard of the two adjacent lots of 53 feet required by
16 Ordinance. Approval of the petition for the 20 foot variance would
17 allow the applicants to locate the home they had moved into St . Anthony
18 facing east on their property at 2917 33rd Avenue -N. E. with a garage
19 proposed in the front of the house leaving a front yard setback of only
20 33 feet .
21
22 The notice had been published in the April 4th Bulletin and sent to all
23 property owners of record within 300 eet of the subject property . No
24 one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its
25 content.
26
27 Staff Report
28
29 City Manager Burt reiterated much of the information in his April 10th
30 1990 memorandum and gave the timetable of events which had prompted
31 Public Works Director Hamer to issue a stop work order on the construction
32 of the garage early in March. As noted in his memorandum , Mr. Burt
33 indicated the project was allowed to proceed with the understanding
34 on the part of the applicants that finishing the block work on the garage
35 would be at their own risk and. could be ordered out, pending the outcome
36 of the variance request.
37
38 The City Manager reported he had consulted City Attorney Soth regarding
39 the lanquage in the City Ordinance regarding front yard setback require-
40 ments . Mr. Soth agreed that the 1973 Ordinance ml gbt be open to intre-
41 pretation which he perceived could be made by the Planning Commission
4.2 and Council. A copy of the pertinent section of the ordinance had
43 been provided in the agenda packet.
44 r
45 The City Manager also indicated he had driven around the City and re-
46 searched the files regarding any non conforming front yard setbacks.
47 This had led him to conclude that except for the homes which were destroy-
48 ed by the 1984 tornado and were allowed to be reconstructed on their
49 original foundations as well as those which had been grandfathered in
50 with the adoption of the 1973 Ordinance, there was only one home where
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 10
1 a precedent had been set for allowing a non conforming front yard setback.
2 This was the Hance home on Silver Lake where a variance was granted for
3 a garage on the front of the house which did not meet the ordinance re-
4 quirements . In that case the variance was granted on the basis of the
5 hardship posed by the DNR setback requirements for lake front property
6 as well as the fact that the Hance garage was set back 3 feet farther
7 than the garage it was replacing .
8
9 Mr. Burt also reiterated that the single car garage indicated on the
10 plans on which the original building permit was issued would meet the
11 side yard requirements of the Ordinance. He also drew attention to the
12 fact that an existing long driveway on the site could provide access to
13 a garage in the rear.
14
15 The plans for the non-conforming garage in Exhibit were only presented to
16 the City March 23rd when the applicants were requested to meet with the
17 City Manager in his office . He explained that teh stop work order was only
18 lifted in compliance with the applicants ' request to be allowed to proceed
19 with the grading so as to get into their home by Easter .
20
21 Mr. Burt reported there had been several calls to the City Offices
22 inquiring about the project but no count had been kept because the callers
23 had indicated they intended to come to the hearing anyway.
24
25 The public hearing was opened at 9 : 12 P. M.
26
27 Mr. Pirino admitted it had been "an oversignt on our part not to have kept
28 the City informed as the changes we made in the ' concept drawing ' submitted
29 when the building permit was requested. Mrs. Pirino explained that the
30 project had moved along at such a fast pace after they bought the home in
31 Roseville, that although they had tried to keep their neighbors informed
32 as to the changes they were making they had not done a go�cl job of it She
33 also indicated they were prevented from doing so for the McNultys who live
34 east of them because the couple was gone for five weeks .
35
36 However, Mr. Pirino insisted that he had numerous discussions with Mr.
37 Hamer who he thought knew what they were doing. The applicant also
38 contended that the foundation plans had been approved by the City at three
39 different stages and that the step footings had passed inspection before
40 the house was moved. He added that at no time during this process had he
41 been advised to :cet an attorney ' s opinion" Mr. Pirino said that if he
42 had known the City was going to protest the siting of the garage he could
43 have "pushed the whole house 20 feet farther to the rear . " However, doing
44 so would have cut off more of his neighbor ' s to the east air and view.
45
46 The applicants reported they had never had blueprints drawn up for the
47 siting illustrated in the cocept drawing because that plan was considered
48 not feasible right at the start . Blueprints for a tuck under garage were
49 drwan up in January but a survey of the site indicated drainage problems
50 which caused them to discard those plans and have blueprints drawn up
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 11
1 the project they presented to Mr . Burt March 23rd. These plans included
the garage in front of the house for which three feet of wall had already
3 been completed when the order was issued to stop work on the project .
4
5 Commissioner Franzese was told the house originally on the same lot
6 had only two bedrooms and was only a 20 by 25 foot structure in which
7 the basement was always cold . Mr. Pirino indicated that was the reason
8 why he and his wife had always intended that any replacement would have to
9 have a walkout basement. He insisted they had raised the terrain of the
10 lot no more than eight inches and indicated banking the dirt around the
11 foundation made the house appear higher than it actually was . However,
12 the applicant said the grade on the west side would be lowered still farther
13 to prevent drainage problems for his neighbor to the west. Mrs. Shun.
14
15 Mr . Pirino confirmed that there was an existing 80 foot long driveway
16 which could be utilized if had had to construct the garage in back of the
17 house. He also indicated that the proposed garage floor would be a foot
18 or 18 inches higher than that driveway.
19
20 Mrs. Pirino indicated they had been able to show Mr. and Mrs. McNulty
21 the plans for the tuck under garage but the fast pace since the latest '
22 blueprints were drawn up had prevented a discussion of the changes with
23 the neighbors on either side of them. She confirmed that the structure
24 which they had moved from Roseville had not had a walkin basement and
25 reported the garage on that house had been destroyed in the move.
26 The petitioner contended the change from their old small $65 ,000.00
27 home to the new 1 , 600 square foot home which she valued at $135 , 000. 00
28 would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. She said when Mr. Hamer
29 had viewed the home in Roseville he had commented that he perceived
30 it would be "an asset to the community" . Mrs. Pirino recalled the Public
31 Works Director as only emphasizing the importance of maintaining a 30
32 foot front yard setback with the project. The Commissioners attention was
33 also drawn to the fact that the homes on either side of the Pirinos were
34 the only ones in that block which maintained front yard setbacks much. over
35 30 feet.
36
37 Neighbors' Reaction to Variance Request
38
39 James and Evelyn McNulty, 2921 33rd Avenue N. E. , expressed their oppositior
40 to the variance. Mr. McNulty indicated he had been sympathetic to the
4.1 Pirino ' s inability to upgrade their original home and their purchase of the
42 Roseville home to replace it on that lot . He said he had no objections
43 to the original plans or even to the ones with the tuckunder garage both
44 of which would still maintain the required front yard setback, assuming
45 the City staff and the Planning Commission would have input as to its
46 siting. However when he returned from a five week vacation in Florida,
47 he found the new home had been sited in such a manner as to shut off 40
48 feet of air and view from his property and that their living room would
49 now be facing directly into the redwood deck on the back of his home which
50 of course, would reduce his privacy . Mr. McNulty added that he had also
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 12
1 not been aware that the applicants were going to"jack up their house
2 or turn the house 180 degrees around so their living room faces right out
3 on our deck now. "
4
5 He said he perceived the Pirino ' s were taking an 11$800 . 00 gamble" by
6 proceeding with their project before the hearing. He reiterated that.
7 he had been led to believe before he left that although the new house
8 couldn ' t be put lenghthwise on the smaller lot that the structure would
9 have the same frontage as his own .
10
11 The former St. Anthony Mayor indicated that during his time in office
12 a 30 foot front yard setback was considered the absolute minimum with
13 existing houses to be kept at the same setback as the houses on either
14 side. He insisted that was the way it was up until 1973 and said he
15 thought the ordinance developed that year .intended to keep the same
16 intrepretation. Mr. McNulty added that he had left his Florida number
17 with his son who stayed in his home while he was on vacation and it would
18 have been very easy for the Pirino ' s to check any changes with him by phone . )
19
20 Mr. McNulty had made his own drawings of the three properties affected by
21 the changes and reported he had contacted Mr. Burt and Mr. Hamer as soon
22 as he saw the footings for the garage after he returned from Florida.
23 He commented that if the garage goes in as proposed what he would now have
24 would be 85 foot property with over 60 feet without a breeze or a view.
25 He said even though the Pirino' s property values might be raised he
26 "perceived the rest of the block' s would go down. " He questioned whether
27 there might not have been a time while he was gone when the applicants
28 could have sought more input from the neighbors and City. He also
29 indicated :- it was his personal opinion that "the Building Inspector_
30 was too busy with his other duties running maintenance to do a decent
31 job of inspection. "
32
33 Mr. Burt had provided the Commissioners with drawings illustrating the
34 various front yard setbacks in that block as well as a copy of a letter
35 from the cement contractor on the job.
36
37 When Mr. Pirino showed photos of 10 different properties in the Village
38 which illustrated examples of homes which were sited substantially forward
39 from adjacent properties, Mr. McNulty acknowledged that there had been
40 a number of non-conforming front yard setbacks which had been grandfathered
41 in with the 1973 Ordinance.
42
43 Ruby Shun, 2913 33rd Avenue N. E, , said she would have no objections to
44 the new home next to her which she thought was "nice" as long as the
45 grading on her side is done correctly so she wouldn ' t get water in her
46 basement. She said she certainly didn' t want the garage on her side of
47 the house.
48
49 Majda Bren, 2916 33rd Avenue, directly across the street from the Pirino
50 property; indicated she had no objections to the garage being placed
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17, 1990
Page 13
1 on the front of the Pirino home.
2
3 Mrs. Pirino explained that the home they had moved onto their property
4 had been too wide to fit lengthwise on their 70 foot lot . She indicated
5 she thought facing the house towards Silver Lake Road was more aesthesti-
6 cally pleasing and said turning the house 180 degrees around allowed
7 the maximum distance between adjacent properties . The applicant told
8 Commissioner Faust that when Mrs. Shun had objected to the elevations
9 on the west side , the grade of the garage had been dropped by two course
10 of block. Mrs. Pirino also pointed out that there was an established
11 lilac tree on the east side which would shield the proposed garage doors
12 from view as long as it reamained in that location. She also supported
13 her husband ' s report that the concept which had been presented first to
14 the City had turned out to be too expensive. The proposed garage will be
15 on the same side as the one in Roseville and the "L" shaped driveway
16 was planned to present a more pleasant appearance from the street. The
17 Pirinos plan a brick ledge and plantings around the front to add to that
18 effect.
19
20 The hearing was closed at 9: 57 P. M. for discussion and action by the
21 Commission .
22
23 Commissioner Franzese indicated she still perceived a need for further
24 intrepretation of the intent of the 1973 Ordinance. Mr Burt reiterated
25 that the City Attorney was of the opinion. that such an intrepretation
26 should come. from the Planning Commission and' City Council. The
27 Commissioner insisted the issue was too emotionally charged at
28 this point for her to make a decision without further guide-
29 lines. She viewed this as a 1150/50 issue" on which she was "very torn. "
30.
31 Commissioner Brownell reviewed the language of the ordinance as presented
32 in the agenda packet noting the absence of "the greater of the two" .
33 He said he had to assume that by not stating otherwise the Council who
34 had adopted that language had intended that "the greater of the minimum
35 of 30 feet or the average of the two adjacent lots measured from the front
36 lot line" applied . To the Commissioner this meant a variance would be
37 necessary for the deviation of 32 feet which the proposed garage would
38 have with the adjacent front yard setback.
39
40 Commissioner Hansen agreed that the Council at the time the Ordinance was
41 adopted had no reason to add an additional wordage since they assumed their
42 intent was clear with the language as they left it..
43
45 Chairperson Madden and Commissioner Werenicz agreed with that assumption.
46 The latter guessed that the reason the language was not expanded farther
47 might have been because the Council at that time was aware that there
48 would be a number of non conforming properties which would be grandfatherec
49 in with the Ordinance. He also pointed out that if the Commissioners
50 looked carefully at those properties they would notice that none of them
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 14
1 had produced a "hop scotch pattern of homes sticking out in front of
2 adjacent structures in the same blocks . " He said even in this block
3 none of the homes which have shorter front yard setbacks jut out in
4 front of the homes adjacent to them.
5
6 Commissioners Faust and Franzese indicated for the record that they
7 went along with that intrepretation.
8
9 Chairperson Madden indicated he now perceived it was up to the Commission
10 to recommend either acceptance or denial of the variance request or
11 to table.
12
13 When Commissioner Hansen said he was still not clear on what had trans-
14 pired between the applicants and the City staff , Mr. Burt reported his
15 own history of events by saying he :
16
17 *had not viewed the structure which was moved from Roseville but
18 had been assured. by Mr. Hamer that doing so was a common practice in
19 St. Anthony as long as the structure and siting met all the City codes
20 and guidelines;
21
22 *was not aware that footings other than for the structure placement
23 presented in Exhibit A had been approved until Mr. Hamer mentioned it
24 to him and he started looking at the Ordinance and raising some questions
25 with the Public Works Director;
26
27 *thought this was shortly before Mr. McNulty returned from vacation
28 and voiced his objections to the placement of the garage which resulted
29 in the applicant being requested to bring his plans into the Manager ' s
30 office which he did March 23rd;
31
32 *researched the office files but did not find anything which would
33 shed further light on the intent of the language of the 1'973 Ordinance
34 dealing with front yard setbacks which both he and the City Attorney
35 agreed was not clear as to whether the greater of the 30 foot or the
36 equal distance between adjacent properties should prevail;
37
38 *there was agreement that the ordinance language needed intrepretation
39 and that the process should start with the Planning Commission.
40
41 Mr. Burt complimented the applicants on the way they had cooperated with
42 the City since that time working closely with Mr. Hamer and keeping him
43 informed on any further actions they were taking related to the project.
45 He said he believed the couple were really trying to solve the elevation
46 Problems on the west side, because ".drainage has to be contained on the
47 Pirino property so it doesn ' t adversely affect other properties . " The
48 City Manager indicated he could only speak about non conforming front
49 yards on which a record had been kept like Mr. Hances' on Silver Lake
50 and had to rely on Mr. Hamer's recollections over the 30 years he has been
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1990
Page 15
.1
2 with the City for the rest of the histories of precedents .
3
4 Commissioner Franzese reported speaking to a Commissioner who had
5 served over 30 years ago who had indicated that during that time there
6 had always been some sort of reviewal of structures before they could be
7 moved into the City . She said that person was very surprised to learn
8 that practice had not been continued . Mr. Burt reported he had been
9 unable to find a record of that practice in the files . He said coming
10 from another city he had been surprised that there .was no reviewal process
11 in place for St . Anthony now. He assured the Commissioners there would be
12 one considered during the recodification of the City Ordinance which
13 someone else was doing for St . Anthony now becuase he believed homes
14 which are moved in from another city can greatly affect the neighborhoods
15 into which they are brought.
16
17 The City Manager said he wasn ' t questioning the applicants ' or the con-
18 tractor ' s assertions about "multi inspections" of the footings of this
19 property but would have to rely on Mr. Hamer' s and the contractor ' s
20 recollections in the letter which had been distributed to the Commissioner
21 Commission Recommendation
22
23
24 Motion by Wanger , seconded by Hansen to recommend the City Council deny
25 the request for a 23 foot front yard setback variance for 2917 33rd
26 Avenue N. E. on the basis that the Planning Commission has intrepreted
27 the 1973 Ordinance to mean that the setback must be the greater of a
28 front yard having a depth of at least thirty feet or equal to the average
29 front yard of the two adjacent lots measured from the front lot line
30 which in this case is 53 feet 4 inches . The Commission also bases its
31 recommendation of denial on :
32
33 1-. the request does not meet the three required .conditions for grant-
34 ing a variance. A hardship does not exist since there is room
35 in the rear yard to construct a garage;
36 2. the fact that there were objections from the neighbors to the
37 substantial deviation from the average front yard setback of
38 adjacent properties;
39 3. the variance request was not included in the permit to install
40 the home moved from Roseville or the request to put in foundation
41 footings .
42
43 Before the vote was taken it was verified that the Ordinance would
44 allow a garage on the west side which was at least 10 feet distant from
45 the adjacent structure and that a garage meeting the Ordinance require-
46 ments could be constructed in the rear yard.
47
48 Commissioner Hansen indicated his concerns about the communications betweei
49 the City and the applicants had been satisfactorily answered and said he
50 now believed the staff had acted appropriately throughout the whole
process. He said he expected that there would always be a certain amount
of anxiety on the part of neighbors whenever a home different from what wa!
previously there is moved into a neighborhood which is not unlike that
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17, 1990
Page 16
1 which would occur if someone constructed a three story house
2 or something else radically different in a neighborhood . The Commissioner
3 also said he did not consider the 'time restraints in this insta.nce
4 constituted a good excuse for the applicants to follow normal communi-
5 cation procedures , but instead, thought the fact that events were
6 moving so fast should have called for more caution on the part of the
7 persons relocating the structure .
8
9 Commissioner Wagner commented that, in spite of the fact that he had
10 made the ,motion, he viewed what had happened as very unfortunate. He
11 said he had a hard time understanding how the project could have pro-
12 cessed this far without a lot more attention from all parties involved,
13 City, neighbors and builders . The Commissioner indicated he thought
14 the Ordinance although it .might not have been as explicit as it could
15 have been, certainly should have raised some doubts in the minds of those
16 who were involved. However, he reminded Commissioner Franzese that
17 although this issue was very perplexing, it wasn ' t the first instance
18 where the Commission had recommended a variance be denied based on the
19 objections of neighbors .
20
21 Chairperson Madden indicated his vote in favor of denial would be based
22 on his own belief that to allow a variance of this size could destroy
23 the character of that particular neighborhood. He aslo cautioned that
24 judgment based on aesthetics wss not part of the Commission ' s assign-
25 ment even though what he saw when he inspected the subject property from
26 all side "had not appealed to his own artistic senses either. "
27
28 Voting on the motion :
29
30 Aye: Wagner, Hansen, Faust, Madden Brownell , Werenicz .
31 Abstention: Franzese.
32
33 Motion carried
34
35 MISCELLANEOUS
36
37 Agenda Time Designations Requested
38
39
40 Chairperson Madden requested time slots be again instituted for the
41 agenda listings of hearings with the most controversial issues listed
42 last. He said that way persons interested in matters coming up at the
43 end of the agenda would not have to sit from 7 : 30 P M. to 9: 00 P. M.
44 when the hearing they were interested in started as had happened that
45 evening. He told staff that over the four or five years he had served
46 on the Commission there had only been a few times when the agenda had
47 progressed so fast that there was a lag between hearings .
48
49 Staff Report on Pending Matters
50
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17, 1990
Page 17
1 Mr. Burt advised that the gas storage tanks had been removed when
2 the Clark Station on 33rd Avenue had closed in 1987 . He also reported
3 the florist who had been interested in the property now owned by Mr.
4 Fisher was no longer interested but he anticipated that as soon as the
5 property owner got another prospect he ' d be back to the City with it .
6 The City Manager indicated he was still trying to find out who owned
7 the 40 foot lot next to Mr. Fisher ' s
8
9 Ms. VanderHeyden indicated that as far as she knew the underground
10 tanks next the Kenzington were still being monitored . Staff agreed to
11 research the progress as well as the removal of the trash sitting
12 outside the Kensington apartments .
13
13 Imo• Burt told Commissioner Madden the H.R. A. would be meeting with
14 the LaNel Company representatives regarding the pedestrian ramp across
15 Kenzie Terrace which would be constructed in the median cut in the drive
16 way next to Autu.mnwoods Apartments Building C. He said the H.R.A. was
17 prepared to pick up the tab for the ramp in exchange for the developers
18 granting all the easements the City has requested and addrssed appropriate
19 grading for the apartment property.
20
21 The City Manager indicated the banner Video Update was carrying to ad-
22 vertise lottery ticket sales as well as other simialar banners around
23 town fell under the temporary signage classification in the City Ordinance
24 which would have to be removed after a short period . This brought to
25 mind the flashing sign which the video store had been, forced to remove
26 from its windows which then reminded other Commissioners of illegal
27 flashing signs at the Crown Shoe Store in Apache and ,the display of
28 lighted Christmas tree lights around the window in the paint store
29 in the St . Anthony Shopping Center.
30
31 Staff agreed to look into the advertising propped up on a two wheel traile
32 parked in front of the Northgate Office Park. Commissioner Wagner
- 33 commented that the Burlington Northern Credit Union sign on which the
34 Commission had been overruled was "getting bigger and worse all the time. "
35
36 Before adjournment Mr. McNulty suggested the need for another step
37 in the review of property changes like the one which was occuring next
38 to him so matters won ' t get as far as they did the next time.
39
40 ADJOURNMENT
41
42 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Faust to adjourn at 10: 35 P. M.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46
47 Respectfully submitted,
48
49 Helen Crowe, Secretary
50
ain " te ho u
illa
DATE : A P PROVA L =
A ril 10 1990
TO :
Planning Commission Members
FROM : Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
I TEM : SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 2608110 - 37TH AVENUE N.E.
Ms. Barbara Zielinska and Mr. Z. H. Zawieruszynski , owners of the
property at 2608/10 - 37th Avenue N.E. are requesting a variance to the
front yard setback requirement of the City Ordinance to be allowed 'to
build two double garages at the front of the double bungalow.
The property under consideration as well as the two adjacent properties
all maintain a front yard setback of 35 feet. If the garages are
constructed, they would have a 15 foot front yard setback, therefore,
requiring a 20 foot variance.
The ordinance states that a front yard setback must be at least 30 feet
• or equal to the average front yard of the two adjacent lots. The
bungalows on both sides and 2608/10 have a front yard setback of 35
feet.
Staff is not aware of precedence ever being established for a similar
request. There are homes in the City that have garages that extend in
front of the setbacks of the adjacent properties which have been
grandfathered in. In the area damaged by the tornado, there are some
new homes that do have garages which extend in front of the setbacks of
adjacent structures. Homes damaged during the storm were permitted to
rebuild on their original foundations.
Public Works Supervisor Lorbeski, after examining the proposed
construction area, believes that the underground utilities could be
adversely effected by the construction because there would not be
sufficient ground cover over the utility lines.
:cjk4.17.90 .
Date• 3 - ` -( Fee:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15.00
other. . . . . . . . . . . . .$25.00)
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Applicant: 3a reL ti kQ- 4Z 7r(:,5,rX'1'LSkPhone: 7Y/-d50�/789 - 00,3y
I S� f�� lti� "z 1T AI .��//02/
Address• � U� -� D �/� v� /Y' �
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc. ) :
Street address and/or legal description of property petitioned for
variance:
Zoning district in which property is located:
Request: �GS�' 2c�9L� LUG ^,,�� h l,�L �G C��G"ZGJ �C' C%�l" (2 1-k �?CG�i
Pursuant to Section 15, Subd. 5 , of the City of St. Anthony Zoning J "
Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted for any use not permitted in
the zone in which a particular parcel lies.
• Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following
conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please
respond to these conditions using additional sheets, if necessary.
1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved, the proposed
variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience,. should the applicable ordinance' be strictly enforced.
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.
�e-s
r _
. Signature of applicant a' �c 12 S , 1'-�► $S
4d 6a dt t�allm",tce /
1. U
0, Ila E s , o� �o f�o� o u�' coo ��e b� o-
wecz z&x-47e
� 9
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE REQUEST
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, April
17 , 1990. Public Hearings begin at 7: 30 P.M. and are held in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall , 3301 Silver Lake Road (enter
northeast corner of the building) . The Planning Commission will
• meet to:
Consider a request from Barbara Zielinska/H. C.
Zawieruszynski , 2610-37th Avenue N.E. to allow a 15 foot front
yard setback from the 30 foot front yard setback required by
the City Ordinance ( 15 foot variance) .
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.
Thomas D. Burt
City Manager
Publish: St. Anthony Bulletin
April 4, 1990
Apache Animal Hospital American Monarch Fred Witzigman
2501-37th Ave. N.E. 2801-37th Ave. N.E. 2600/02-37th Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421
Sharon Watson Douglas Tanner Jerry Fruin
2604/06-37th Ave. N.E. 2206 St. Anthony Pkwy. 2131 Mississippi Circle
St. Anthony, MN 55421 Minneapolis, MN 55418 New Brighton, MN 55112
RE: 2612/14-37TH Ave. N.E. Re: 2700/02-37th Ave. N.E.
Robert Gideo Joseph Koenigsmark Walter Patrek
3625 Edward 3629 Edward 3633 Edward
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Kenneth Girard Harvey Herzog Rodney Kruegar
3621 Harding 3627 Harding 3631 Harding
St. Anthony, MN 55.418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
William Sauer Jim Mancino Carl Jarvi
3620 Harding 3626 Harding 3632 Harding
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
i
L
mom
dom ____-_
,57 � NIry
�N j-0 I/ le s0g - Q/-gz
File No.59 81011 — Exhibit a .
PLAT DRAWING
(THIS IS NOT A SURVEY) O
3 7�
7: �3 d 30.00 --
m
go
s
o
a
0 p
Property Address: 0z ?„G 10 �� '77! � " ,�• , �� �
'The location of the improvements shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspection of O
the premises. The lot dimensions are taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for informational
purposes and should not be used as a survey. It does not constitute a liability of the company and is intended for
mortgage purposes only."
TIM 2165 rev.7179
. t in thou iffla a P'p PROVAL :
DATE :
April 10, 1990
TO :
Planning Commission Members
FROM :
Thomas D. Burt City Manaaer
I T EM : SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, JAMES PIRINO, 2917 - 33RD AVE. N.E.
The applicants, James and Harriet Pirino, 2917 - 33rd Avenue N.E. are
requesting a front yard variance of 20 feet from the average front yard
setback (53 feet 4 inches) of the two adjacent properties.
The applicant moved a home into St. Anthony from . The original plan
which was submitted to the building department (Exhibit A) showed the
construction of the garage on the west side of the property equal to the
setback of the two adjacent properties. During the week of March 5th,
Mr. Hamer, the Public Works Director) observed the applicant had begun
construction of the foundation for the garage in the front of the home.
Mr. Hamer subsequently stopped construction of the garage. On March 23,
1990, the applicant submitted plans (Exhibit B) for the construction of
the garage on the front of the home.
Mr. Hamer has allowed the applicant to finish the garage foundation so
that they will be able to move forward on grading the lot and finish
work on the home. The applicant understands that all of the block work
is at his own risk (Exhibit C) and it may be ordered out, pending the
outcome of his request.
The ordinance states a front yard must have a depth of at least thirty
(30) feet or equal tc. the average front yard of the two adjacent lots.
The neighboring homes on the east and west sides of the applicants have
a setback of 5314" . Staff is not aware of precedence ever being
established for a similar request. There are homes in the City that
have garages that extend in front of the setbacks of the adjacent
properties which have been grandfathered in. In the area damaged by the
tornado, there are some new homes that do have garages which extend in
front of the setbacks of adjacent structures. Homes damaged during the
storm were permitted to rebuild on their original foundations.
The applicant does have enough room to construct a single car garage on
the west side of his home that would not require a variance and there is
also space in the ,back yard for a garage.
:cjk4.17.90 .
`q
Date: —`n7 L) Fee: o_
(R-1 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .$15.00
• other. . . . . . . . . . . . .$25. 00 )
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
IIII PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Applicant: ,���,��Ii. ►+��- � r � :.� Phone: - 5 -�/ 72�,,_:.��;��
r
Addresst;�-/
i
Status of applicant owner` buyer, renter, agent, etc. ) : 04,76,"-
Street address and/or le al de_ scraption of roperty petitio ed for
variance: r?4/ '7 2 A� F e /ll�. [ W J �-7G �' C.P->/,�'- „�� 14A; 712x7
Zoning district in which property is located:
Request: •V ariamc - c y�r� 5e:�b • �z��. i":�e .1-7e7
l L
Pursuant to Section 15 , Subd. 5, of the City of St. Anthony Zoning
Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted for any use not permitted in
the zone in which a particular parcel lies .
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following
• conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please
respond to these conditions using additional sheets , if necessary.
1 ) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved, the proposed
variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance 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. I
YGS
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.
i
YeS ,
Signature of applicant ,
p
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE REQUEST
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, April
17 , 1990. Public Hearings begin at 7 : 30 P.M. and are held in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall , 3301 Silver Lake Road (enter
northeast corner of the building) . The Planning Commission will
meet to:
Consider a request from James and Harriet Pirino, 2917 - 33rd
Avenue N.E. to allow a 33 foot front yard setback from the
average front yard of the two adjacent lots of 53 feet ( 20
foot variance) .
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.
Thomas D. Burt
City Manager
Publish: St. Anthony Bulletin
April 4 , 1990
0
James Storch Dr.Russell Engstrom Dr.. Thomas Emond
3322 Belden Drive 3326 Belden Drive 3330 Belden Drive
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
•
Nancy Morin Richard Porter Arthur J. Smith
3331 Belden Drive 3.329 Belden Drive 3321 Belden Drive
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Donald Anderson John E. Hensel Nativity Lutheran Church
3319 Belden Drive 3317 Belden Drive 3312 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
W. H. McPherson Edward Glockzin George Wynn
3320 Silver Lake Road 3216 Silver Lake Road 3212 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Steven Rekuski C. A. Clift William Karkula
3215 Silver Lake Road 2815-33rd Ave. N.E. 2901-33rd Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
OArnold Bauer Gary Schafer Michael Shun
2905-33rd Ave. N.E. 2909-33rd Ave. N.E. 2913-33rd Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
James McNulty' Leroy S. Peleske Thomas Allen
2921-33rd Ave. N.E. 2812-33rd Ave. N.E. 2900-33rd Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, HN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Charles Chambers Arnold Carlson Norman Nafstad
2904-33rd Ave. N.E. 2908-33rd Ave. N.E. 2912-33rd Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Janaz Bren Lael Pfeifer Robert Meyer
2916-33rd Ave. N.E. 2920-33rd Ave. N.E. 3000-33rd Ave. N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Bruce Anderson K. N. Ugargol James McConville
2901 Hilldale 2905 Hilldale 2909 Hilldale
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Larry Tracey Roman Hentges Paul Gabler
2913 Hilldale 2917 Hilldale 2-921 Hilldale
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
O
1+.r
• .. �`� �0` ;:.. :;�: 'f''• .+.' a —. �. _..._.-...____--_.._-.�._..-_ �,��• -
.• \ yy y'
� �`i,;..••�r ' '•c' i�� _...___.— -fir - _ qtr ------ � .... ..
i'
�• +►':w:l.a •',r __ .... _ ..... .. ... .. .. _ -.-.�.—.��-r.rr�...w...r•r�..�ww.+gr.....+.r+r'""r��.. .�.+r
--4 -- - -
Iv
208.71' --
or
4
7-7-
17A 13�k C
Apr i1 27 1380
Mr . La-rry Hamer , :-;uilding Inspector
St . Anthony Villa.3e
St . Anthon-,,, , Minne-zota
Cea.r La.rry ,
Muring -:-ur --:.-:nvsrse.ti-.n of Thvrsda.y , April I ex,ressed a desire
L C
to proceed with com.pietion :,-F t'a 9 =-.rz-?e ic-cz-.t=-J at
EB17 3---,rJ Ave N.E. , the location whicm recently
R-.4 e s t ion=.1 . I i nd i c aLt e j t h BA the inai.b il J.tv t D comp 1-ate t`e
;_.rase f o u n d.at i--,n -z F r e-c a-n 1%s d :-k s--2 r i ou,s t-3 1 a7' .n cur c o n s t r:j c t 4.o n
r-,r;D,j- e,:t since it pr=vsnts the lot from ta- ina Lnich in -.6rn
r ::csei ,.rg with their
prevents the car;:entsrz ---.n.J -Ft—m
K
�, :,,j :E :Vjj -,s t•z ;r -c---e-,J with c-zr;pletinj the
-=.s 11: ns ---s it 1.as lhaA a.n , BA-jiti--na.1 WorK c.)
t` e t`%e time V-e tl---cK lay=rs •sre or".4a.r -2-4 to stcop wcrK
r:t i 1 t e .:L r, .f g r e BA i c.n is r. c.1,, ed .s d,:. _J BA our
t
r ;.S K Ne =--c c P t t-h is c r. it ic n B.r.ej o
• ;roceed with cor..-!p"Letion of jhe
—'', is la'+zr il- intz-n-.= 2 ,.,e
a.nj acc-- Z or Such
. t t'JiB n d c! e f!.4 1 rr!e-B t s c.u r r-2 e S t.
L..r i t t a n r r d
sincel-e:/ ,
%,r s F =i^ i 1%o
Split level dwellings which have finished rooms on the lowest level
may consider the area of those rooms towards the first floor area
•,; minimums, provided they are in compliance with the building code.
5. Front Yard-There shall be a front yard having a depth of at least
thirty feet or equal to the average front yard of the two adjacent
lots measured from the front lot .line.
6. Side Yards
a. Dwellings shall have two side yards the total width of which
shall not be less than fifteen feet with a minimum side lot width
of five _feet.
b. A side yard adjacent to a street shall not measure less than
thirty feet in width.
7. Rear Yard-There shall be a rear yard measuring in depth a distance
equal to 20% of the depth of the entire lot but in no case less than
twenty-five feet.
Subdivision 6. General Regulations
Additional regulations are set forth in Section 12.
SECTION 5
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-2
• Subdivision 1. Purpose
1. To ;rovide for areas which are best suited for a higher density
of usage than single family residential; and/or
2. As a transitional use district from commercial and/or industrial
districts to single farrily residential districts.
Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses
Within any R-2 Residence District, no building or land shall be used
except for one of the following uses:
1. Any use permitted in Section 4, Subdivision 2, as regulated therein.
2. Two family detached dwellings.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Conditional Uses
Within any R-2 Residence District, no structure or land shall be used
for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit :
1. Any use permitted in Section 4, Subdivision 3.
Subdivision +. Permitted Accessory Uses '
Within any R-2 Residence District no accessory uses are permitted
except:
1. Any accessory use permitted in Section 4 , Subdivision 4.
Subdivision 5. Building Height, Lot Area, Bulk and Placement Regulations
1. Height-No dwelling hereafter erected or altered shall exceed the
lesser of two stories or twenty-five feet.
-12-
HARRY BAERT CONCRETE, INC.
6300 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612) 474-7796
•
April 16 , 1990
James & Harriet Pirino
2917 33rd Avenue N. E .
St . Anthony, MN
RE : 2917 33rd Avenue N . E .
St . Anthony, MN
PID# 06-029-23-24-0010
Jim and Harriet ,
The following is a re-cap of city inspections by the
inspector Larry Hamer ( 789-8881) of City of St . Anthony:
1 . February 6 , 1990 - Footing inspection
-Viewed footing , footing was not completed but
were given verbal approval to pour partial
footing by Larry Hamer .
2 . February 13 , 1990 - Footing inspection
-The house footing being completed Larry Hamer
gave verbal approval to pour footing .
3 . February 23 , 1990 - Footing inspection-garage
-Viewed garage footing , gave verbal approval .
The inspector on each inspection gave verbal approval , he did
not sign the permit that I was aware of, and I can give no
explanation why that procedure was not followed by the
inspector, only that verbal approval was given to go ahead
and pour the footing as he inspected per his plan .
Respectfully yours ,
HARRY BAERT CONCRETE, INC .
Harry D. Baert
• President
HDB : lmb
0
o i
W
N
o I �
0
CA
r
rn
• r�.,
r p
v
_ I
� I U
O � (A
Z_� °_°
I
I
�--(j
O 1J
r � I Q
zWl
-1
to I I
m CA I m i
rr,-1
I
•
•
�. 7O'
� r
Ca 4-I
4c�J
ZLI 17
•
z913 �t agzl
f
I
♦I tr)
CuRg
1 qD
75 ---
f e ` ` (�' ✓ ' V
NA
l
• 'J 1
29/3- 33` Ave. -'� � z
'{ G,. 2
..z vim. ZJ
`= ' �� • NG Use
i '
St
AQ
�
�- 1G
U.�`
-Q� � mod' '�r�.�;���� ����� G '�•L�,��,,�
1 yrr�i
Tt
TA/
O
�'��Y�v �-� �'�7p��� ' .�� sip.-►�'1 .mow
-W v�
P
motif/!• � � ��� � !�Z��
/I,LFW_ Q li-I .P e �tt� �yK.� s.E 4
�-�ALL•t�L V l.�6i./� , `' � -�//`'z 1
�.0 71ZW .�
0 C ain thou
te
DATE : APPROVAL =
April 20 , 1990
TOc
City Councilmembers
FROM :
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
ITEM : . PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS
In the 1990 budget there is . $12 ,000 budgeted for the purchase of
computers. This budget figure was based on information from the
previous City Accountant and did not represent the total computer needs
of the City. I have received quotes from three sources to insure the
lowest price to the City.
It is my intent to purchase a computer network that will meet the needs
of the City in the future. Because the City plans on the purchase of a
system that will serve its needs for several years, I have reservations
on many of the clone computers on the market. Service reliability is a
major concern, so the City must consider purchasing from a company that
• we can be assured will be in business in the future.
I received bids from three vendors. Each quoted IBM due to the recent
price reductions on the product.
State Bid
Currentech AmeriData InaComp
1 . IBM Model #80 $4 , 208 $5,793 $4 ,290
IBM Model #55sx 2,461 2 ,571 2,529
2 . IBM Model 30 $1,466 $1 ,614
3 . IBM Color Monitor $ 398 $ 500 $ 417
IBM Mono Monitor 178 185
Mountain Backup $1,400 $1,688
HP Las erjet III $1,472 $1 ,795
I recommend that we purchase the computers from Currentech for a total
of $13 , 845. This is over the $12,000 that has been budgeted, however,
other purchases of equipment have come in under budget.
Staff is now in the process of selecting software which will determine
what type of network and operating system we will need to purchase
• later. The money to purchase the software will come from money we were
under budget on other equipment.
:cjk4 . 24 .90
ain thou
HE e
DATE : APPROVAL :
April 18 1990
TO : City Councilmembers
FROM : Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
=TEM : COMMUNITY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Mr. Bill Bruce will be in attendance to discuss the proposed transfer _o -
community television programming responsibilities from Hauser
Communications to the Cable Commission.
Attached is a summary of the impacts of the proposed changes as well as
a copy of a letter from the Cable Commissions legal counsel to
Roseville's City Manager.
•
•
:cjk4. 24. 90
NORTH SUBURBAN-CABLE COMMISSION
3585 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH• SUITE 240•ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA 55126•(612)482-1261
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 30, 1990
TO: North Suburban Cable Commission .
FROM: Tom Creighton, Legal 0
J Council h) -1
( I
RE: Summary of Resolution Transferring
Community Television Programming Responsibilities
1: The company has proposed divesting itself of all responsibility for
providing community access cable television programming.
2. The North Suburban Cable Commission has studied the ramifications
of this divestiture for over two years.
3. The Commission and the company have negotiated terms to effect the
transfer which include:
A. The Commission will assume all responsibility for community
access cable television programming within the ten Member
Cities. That function will be delegated to the non-profit
access corporation which has been in existence since 1985.
B. The company will be relieved of its community television
responsibility except for the maintenance, repair and technical
performance of the system.
C. The company will transfer equipment valued in excess of
$1,000,000 to the Commission.
D. The company will make available 12 channels for government,
education, and public access. The Commission will have complete
and unrestricted access to these channels.
Arden Hills• Falcon Heights• Lauderdale • Little Canada • Mounds View • New Brighton • North Oaks • Roseville • St.Anthony • Shoreview
Memorandum
North Suburban Cable Commission
March 30, 1990 •
Page 2
E. For capital improvement funding, the company will provide to
the Commission $178,000 upon the effective date of the agreement.
The company will pay $650,000 upon sale of the system or renewal
of the franchise (approximately 1997) . The company will pay the
Commission $50,000 annually after renewal.
F. As operating funds the company will provide $450,000 in 1990,
payable quarterly. This amount will be escalated annually by
the greater of the cost of living or a special escalator tied to
the company's increase in gross revenues whichever is greater.
G. Studio and office space:
The Commission will sublease from the .company the access studios
and office space currently at Lake Owasso Elementary School in
Roseville. -The sublease will be at the preferred rate currently
offered by the school district to the company. The studio
currently at Edgewood Community Center will be moved to Irondale
High School. The company will pay all reasonable costs of
relocating the equipment from Edgewood to Irondale.
H. The company will reimburse the Commission for all of its •
expenses during the. transfer up to $20,000.
I. The company will provide $2,500 to change the logos on the vans
and offices and will provide ad insertion time on the other
cable channels to promote community programming.
J. The Commission will reduce the payment of performance bonds
currently in place to $50,000 naming all 10 cities. The bonds
shall be replenishable so that if any one city draws on them
the bond will be replenished so that $50,000 is available at
all times to each of the other cities. The Commission or any
Member City in its sole discretion may require the amount of
the bond to be increased to up to $250,000.
There are other minor nuances to the transfer but these are the general terms
and conditions for your City Council. I did not get into some facts about the
history of the negotiations but they are in general:
1. The company asked to do this at the time they bought the system.
The Commission refused to discuss it for 1 year.
2. The company's first offer was 45c per month per subscriber and no
money for equipment. (That's about $108,000 per year) .
•
r
Memorandum
• North Suburban Cable Commission
March 30, 1990
Page 3
3. The company's franchise commitment was disputed but was (if memory
serves me) around $6-700,000/year.
4. If we had not settled we would have probably been in federal court
providing our allegation that the company had underfunded access
to the tune of $3-400,000 over a period of years.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Good -luck.
TDC/cjp
•
O'CONNOR 6t HANNAN
w.*t eoo
DAD.CMM3.4C.A 0M-3M.'.i.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1201,MO*o. o.c.:000e].s]
izot�esz•�.bo
• etMVCe ornct
suT[uoo
M y.CC BAN.(tMTC.
3800 IDS CENTER oc° ca cO eoro�.Tb.r
.]o].eio noo
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS? MINNESOTA 55402-2254 V;LAtoutz e.
O31D SbA1M
16121 341-3800 *Clt.t]e.]
,2,00 I�{j/[ADAM .IUE s
TELEX 2 9-05 84 UIlt PDpTAMD AV(MU(SOUTH
9yllt ]]
TELECOPIER 16121 343-1256 ei�ea:o�a""csoTASS]]z
THOMAS D.CREIGHTON
16121 343-1298 INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM MACINTOSH S COMMERS
April 12, 1990
VIA MESSENGER
Steve Sarkozy
City Manager
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: North Suburban Cable Commission
• Dear Mr. Sarkozy:
You have requested input from the North Suburban Cable
Commission ( "Commission" ) regarding alternatives which were
available to and studied by the Commission in the preparation of
its recommendation to its Member Cities regarding the divesting
of the community programming function from the company to an
entity designated by the Commission. That proposal has been
forwarded to you and is currently under consideration by the
Roseville City Council. The Commission has requested that I
respond to your inquiry. Please find below a summary explanation
of the process undertaken by the Commission and -the issues
identified and dealt with by the Commission in that process.
BACKGROUND
For the entire eight year history of the Franchise Ordinance,
the Commission has been approached numerous times by the cable
company requesting a downgrading of the community programming
offering. Throughout that period the Commission has been the
only major metropolitan cable commission to refuse to allow any
such downgrade, deciding instead to aggressively regulate the
existing Franchise requirements.
•
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990
Page 2
During the approval process of the transfer of ownership to
Hauser Communications, Hauser Communications requested the trans-
fer of the community programming function to the Cable
Commission. The Commission refused to entertain any such
dialogue and placed a one year moratorium on any such
discussions. Approximately a year and a half after the transfer
of ownership, Hauser Communications returned with its request to
transfer the community programming function to the Commission and
its Member Cities. The Commission, in its response to Hauser ' s
request, determined that an in-depth study of community
programming in the North Suburban area was required, prior to
negotiations. Mr. Hauser originally proposed $.45 per subscriber
per month and the transfer of the existing equipment. The
Commission refused to enter into negotiations until the
completion of its study.
Paramount in the Commission' s review was the question,
"Should the Commission consider the assumption of the community
programming function, or should the Commission continue to
aggressively administer the performance of the Franchise
Ordinance by Hauser Communications (doing business as Cable TV
North Central)?" This, apparently, is also an important question
to the City of Roseville.
The Commission began an in-depth, two-prong study of
community programming in the North Suburban area. One dimension
of this study was the creation of. a model for community
programming with the consulting help of Anita Benda Stech, the
original consultant who developed the request for proposal for
community programming in the North Suburban area. The second
dimension of the Commission' s study was to conduct an in-depth
analysis of the performance of Cable TV North Central in the
community programming area so as to determine the level of
compliance with the existing Franchise Ordinance.
You have already received the result of the Commission's
study with Ms. Stech. I refer you to that report both as to the
goals and objectives of such a community programming function, as
well as to the summary contained in that study as to the most
feasible entity to undertake community programming should the
company divest itself of such programming. Please note, that in
•
O'CON NOR & HAN NAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990
Page 3
the Stech study the Commission was only developing a model, and
had not made any determination as to whether or. not the
Commission would recommend such a model to its Member Cities.
That determination was reserved until the second dimension of the
study was completed, whether to actively- administer the Franchise
requirements related to community programming or to recommend the
assumption of community programming by the Member Cities.
AGGRESSIVE REGULATION VS.
DIVESTITURE OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING BY COMPANY
It would be a mistake to assume that the Commission has not
in the past aggressively administered the Franchise as it relates
to community programming. Over the eight year history of the
Franchise such regulation has been one of the three major time
consuming efforts of the Commission along with regulating the
• educational uses/institutional network and transfers of
ownership. From my experience I would guess that regulation of
community programming has consumed the most of the Commission' s
time. As stated earlier, the Commission has constantly dealt
with requests from the company to downgrade community
programming, has monitored community programming staffing and
equipment repair and replacement, has monitored the production of
community programming, and has over the years often notified the
company of impending sanctions if performance were not brought in
compliance with the Franchise.
However, the Commission has always been faced with the
reality that community programming is not a priority of the cable
company. Further, as the Commission determined, community
programming has not achieved the potential originally envisioned
for the North Suburban area. This failure is not for lack of
interest on the part of the public. The most attended public
hearings held by the Commission have been those public hearings
related to community programming. Additionally, the Commission' s
subcommittee of access users has been an active subcommittee for
many years. The problem continues to remain, however, that
community programming is a nonprofit-making arm of a profit
making corporation. The Commission has been able to make the
company perform, but it has not been able to make the company
care about community programming. Although it -ma'y sound trite,
the Commission has been faced with the realty that, "You can lead
a horse to water, but you can' t make him/her drink. "
O'CON NOR & HAN NAN '
ATTORNEYS AT LAW •
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990
Page 4
As it began its dimension of study of community programming
related to aggressive regulation versus. divestiture, the
Commission employed its accounting firm, George M. Hansen, and a
special telecommunications accounting consultant, Kevin Cattoor,
to perform an extensive audit of the expenditures of the company
related to community programming. The Commission' s study
revealed that in the Commission' s opinion, the company had not
spent the required resources on community programming. At the
conclusion of the community programming expense audit over a year
ago, the Commission determined that in fiscal years 1987 and 1988
the company had failed to provide approximately $366,000 of
required funding for community programming.
The company immediately disputed these allegations arguing
that the Commission had failed to consider depreciation expenses
and interest expenses on borrowed money for community programming
on behalf of the company. The Commission failed to concur with
the company and in a letter dated June 15, 1989 formally notified
the company that the Commission had determined that the cable
company was in violation of its Franchise by failing to provide
required funding. The Commission further notified the company at
its July 6, 1989 meeting, that it would levy fines both prospec-
tively and retroactively for each of these alleged violations.
This is the most aggressive regulatory option available to the
Commission, short of termination of the Franchise.
The company responded on June 26, 1989, with a ten page
letter from John Eddy, Chief Operating Officer of Cable TV North
Central, in which he clearly laid out a blueprint for legal
action against the Commission should the Commission proceed with
fines. Additionally, Mr. Eddy requested modification of the
community programming functions pursuant to Section 625 of the
Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ( "Cable Act" ) .
47 U.S.C. § 545.
While the Commission refused to base any decision on
threatened litigation, it was faced with two major problems.
First, it was clear that proceeding to fine the company would
result in a Federal Court battle with the company. Such a court
battle would have cost the Commission and its Member Cities over •
$100,000. Additionally, the success of such an effort was not
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
• Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990
Page 5
clear . At least three Federal Courts in California have held
that the imposition of community programming requirements on a
cable company violates that cable company' s First Amendment
rights. In those court cases the company was held not to have to
provide any community programming. Other Federal Courts have
held to the contrary, however, the Supreme Court has not
addressed the issue. Therefore, the outcome of a Minnesota
Federal Court challenge was unclear .
The Section 625 request for modification was based on the
federal Cable Act ' s allowance that if a franchise requirement was
commercially impracticable, a cable company need not provide the
service. The company was prepared to argue that the Franchise-
required level of performance for community programming was not
commercially practicable, excusing its performance. No Federal
Court has dealt with the commercial impracticability standard,
however, one Federal Court has forbidden a city to impose fines
during a dispute over commercial impracticability. This fight
• could have delayed the further development of community
programming for a year or more as the issue wound its way through
Federal Court.
THE COMPANY'S ARGUMENT
The Commission was presented the following arguments that the
company was prepared to make in Federal Court:
1. COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY, see above.
2. THE AMOUNTS IN THE ORIGINAL OFFER OF THE COMPANY FOR
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING WERE ONLY ESTIMATES. The company
argued that the monies proposed over eight years ago
were merely an estimate as to the amounts that would be
required for an adequate community programming effort.
The company argued that the amounts pledged to the North
Suburban area were in excess of virtually any amounts
pledged throughout the country and were not required for
a successful community programming effort. They had
argued previously that the subscribers would not
tolerate the knowledge that over $2.00 of their monthly
cable bill was going for community programming.
•
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
• ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990 •
Page 6
3. DECREASED NUMBER OF USERS. Mr. Eddy argued that since
the numbers of producers and programming had not reached
the level proposed, the commitment should be reduced.
This argument is, of course, circuitous. The Commission
believed that the reduced number of access producers was
a direct result of the failure by the company to commit
adequate resources and energy to the development of
community programming.
4. DECREASED PENETRATION. The company argued that the
proposal monies for community programming were based on
the assumption that there would be many more cable sub-
scribers in the North Suburban area than are currently
present. The company argued that the cable penetration
in the metropolitan area is the lowest of almost
anywhere else in the country. Therefore, the company
was prepared to argue to a court that the community
programming commitment should also be lowered propor-
tionately.
5. INFLATION RATE. The company argued that the original
proposal was inflated 9% annually, while the consumer
price index had not increased by that rate over the
previous years. Therefore, the commitment should be
reduced.
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO COMMISSION
The Commission then considered a number of negotiating alter-
natives available to it. Generally the three perameters of
alternatives considered by the Commission were:
( 1) Successfully negotiate the turning over of the community
programming function to the Cable Commission or its
designee.
(2) Fail to negotiate a settlement with the company, and do
nothing, maintaining the status quo. In this
alternative, the company could still implement a
Section 625 modification request of the community
programming requirements, bringing . into the effect the
arguments listed above.
O'CON NOR & HAN NAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990
Page 7
( 3) Fail to negotiate the transfer of the community program-
ming function to the Commission, and aggressively
regulate the providing of community programming
services, including imposition of fines for the under-
funding of the community programming commitment. This
would no doubt result in an immediate filing of federal
litigation as well as a formal Section 625 request for
modification.
The Commission determined that alternative number one, above,
was in the best interests of the Member Cities, the subscribers
to the cable system, and the access producers and users.
They then proceeded to negotiate the settlement before you at
this time.
CONCLUSION
• The Commission and its Member Cities have, since the -
inception of the Commission approximately ten years ago,
developed a strong belief in the potential of government, educa-
tional, and community programming in the North Suburban area.
From the original development of the Request for Proposals which
included extensive requirements for government, educational, and
community programming, the Commission has worked diligently to
enforce the cable Franchise and to encourage development of com-
munity programming by the cable company.
Those goals have not been realized. After over two years of
study (unprecedented in the metropolitan area) , the Commission
has determined that an entity funded by the cable company but
managed by representatives of the Member Cities would be the best
vehicle for the effective development of community programming in
the North Suburban area. Cities throughout the nation have
arrived at the same conclusion and are proceeding to take over
the community, programming function in their areas.
Additionally, the Commission determined that in light of the
split in the Federal Court jurisdictions over whether cable
companies could be required to provide community programming at
all, a lengthy, expensive, and risky Federal Court battle with
•
O'CON NOR S. HAN NAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Steve Sarkozy
April 12, 1990 •
Page 8
the cable company would only result in the further deterioration
of the development of community programming to its full potential
in the North Suburban area.
The Commission has proceeded over the past years with public
hearings, extensive deliberations, healthy skepticism, and the
employment of four major consultants (legal, community
programming specialists, and accounting) , resulting in the
proposal you find before you today.
The Commission' s study process has resulted in a proposal to
divest the cable company of its community programming responsi-
bilities, while still requiring extensive funding and equipment
commitments on behalf of the company to an entity managed by
representatives of the Member Cities of the North Suburban
area. The. resulting proposal is per capita one of the most
extensive commitments in the country. Yet, the Commission has
achieved such a proposal without expending in the past or
requiring for the future one dollar of general tax revenues. The
Commission recommends your approval of the proposal currently •
before your City Council.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Representatives of the Commission or any of their consultants are
available to discuss these issues further with the Roseville City
Council.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Creighton
TDC/be
cc: Bill Bruce,
Interim Cable Administrator
Directors of the North Suburban
r Cable Commission
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 1990-002
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY BEER
LICENSES; ADDING A NEW SUBD. 4 TO SECTION 800 : 05;
AMENDING SECTIONS 800 : 05., SUBD. 2 ; 800 : 25, SUBD. 2 ;
AND 800 :25, SUBD. 9 OF THE 1973 CODE OF ORDINANCES
The City Council . of the City of St. Anthony ordains:
Section 1. A new Subd. 4 is hereby added to Section 800 : 05
of the 1973 Code of Ordinances to read as follows :
Subd. 4 . Temporary licenses.
(a) The City Council may issue a temporary On-Sale license
for the sale of beer to a club or charitable,
religious, or nonprofit organization.
(b) The temporary license may authorize the sale of beer
in any school or school buildings.
• (c) Any such temporary license is subject to any terms
and conditions established by the City Council in
granting the license.
Section 2 . Section 800 : 03 , Subd. 2 of the -1973 Code of
Ordinances is amended to read in full as follows:
Subd. 2 . Retail On-Sale licenses shall permit the licensee
to sell beer for consumption on the premises only. Except
for temporary licenses issued under Subd. 4 of this
Section, On-Sale licenses shall. be granted only to a
restaurant.
Section 3 . Section 800 :25, Subd. 2 of the 1973 Code of
Ordinances is amended to read in full as follows :
Subd. 2 . Except for temporary licenses issued under
Subd. 4 of Section 800: 05, licenses hereunder shall be
issued only to persons who .are citizens of the United
States and who are of good moral character and repute,
who have attained the age of 21 years and who are
proprietors of the establishments for which the licenses
are issued. Temporary licenses issued under Subd. 4 of
Section 800:05 may be issued only to a club or charitable,
religious, or nonprofit organization.
Section 4 . Section 800 :25, Subd. 9 of the 1973 Code of •
Ordinances is amended to read in full as follows:
Subd. 9 . All licenses for the sale of beer shall be issued
for a period of one year, except for temporary licenses
issued under Subd. 4 of Section 800 : 05, and except that
for the purpose of coordinating the time of expiration
of all annual licenses in the City licenses may be issued
for a shorter time to expire at a given time of the year,
in which case a pro rata fee shall be charged.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective as of its date
of publication.
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Published: St. Anthony Bulletin on the day of
1990.
First Reading: April 10 , 1990
Second Reading: April 24 , 1990
Adopted:
r
2 _
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA
APRIL 24 , 1990
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I . CALL TO ORDER.
• II. ROLL CALL.
III . APPROVAL OF APRIL 10, 1990 H.R.A. MINUTES.
IV. CLAIMS.
A. First Trust - $79,694.54.
V. MISCELLANEOUS.
VI . ADJOURNMENT.
•
ST. ANTHONY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
APRIL 10, 1990 MEETING
• 1 1 . CALL TO ORDER
2
3 The meeting of the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority was
4 called to order by Commissioner Enrooth.
5
6 2. ROLL CALL
7
8 Present : Commissioners Ranallo, Marks, Makowske, Enrooth
9 Absent: Commissioner Sundland
10
11 3. APPROVAL OF .JANUARY 23, 1990 H.R.A. MINUTES
12
13 Motion by Ranallo, second by Marks to approve the minutes of the January
14 23, 1990 meeting of the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
15
15 Motion carried unanimously
17
18 4.- CLAIMS
19
20 A. Dorsey b Whitney
21 Motion by Ranallo, second by Makowske to approve payment in the amount of
,22 $1 ,966.95 to Dorsey & Whitney for services rendered from December 1 , 1989
�3 through December 31 , 1989 for the Evergreen Development Corporation Town-
24 houses and the Lang-Nelson Project.
• �5
26 Motion carried unanimously
27
28 B. Dorsey & Whitney
�9 Motion by Ranallo, second by Makowske to approve payment in the amount of
30 $197.87 to Dorsey & Whitney for services rendered from January 1 , 1990
31 through January 31 , 1990 for the Lang-Nelson Project.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously
34
35
C. Dorsey 6 Whitney
36 Motion by Ranallo, second by Makowske to approve payment in the amount of
37 $456.25 for. services rendered from February 1 , 1,990 through February 28,
38 1990 for the Lang-Nelson Project.
39
39 Motion carried unanimously
41
42 5. LANEL - REQUEST FOR SURPLUS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FUNDS
43 The City Manager explained the request noting that the taxes due on the
44 individual units in the Autumn Woods development are still well below
45 the $1 ,200 per unit figure used as a benchmark for considering the return
46 of surplus tax increment funds.
47
48 Councilmember Enrooth had understood previously this matter would be brought
49 back to the Council only if the taxes on the development exceeded $60,000.
• 50 This has not been the case as the taxes in 1988 were $60,028.64 and. in 1989
H.R.A., Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 2
1 were $50,335. 12. .
2
3 Paul Brewer, a representative of the developer of Autumn Woods, requested
4 the Council take no action on this request at the present time but rather
5 discuss it at a Council work session.
6
7 It was noted that tax increment funds cannot be transferred from -one TIF
8 District to another. but may be used . in the same district for further
9 development.
10
11 The City Manager observed that this matter can be deferred for one year from
12 this date when there will. be a tax statement available for a full year.
13
14 The City Attorney agreed and felt there would be no problem if this matter
15 were deferred until- a later date for further consideration. Councilmember
16 Enrooth felt this was the intent of the Council previously.
17
18 Mr. Brewer requested this matter be considered at the Council work session
19 on May lst. He would be prepared to make additional presentations to support
20 his request and stated he preferred this matter not be delayed for a year.
21
22 Motion by Marks, second by. Ranallo to lay the matter of the LaNel request
�3 for excess TIF money over for one year, to be brought back up again in •
24 April 1991 after the 1990 tax statements are out.
25
26 Roll call : Enrooth, Ranal lo, Marks - aye
27 Makowske - abstain
28
29 6. LANEL - CURB CUT ON KENZIE TERRACE
30
31 LaNel is requesting that money be made available through H.R.A. funds for
32 a curb cut. The City Manager indicated that the cost would be approximately
33 $25,0.00 and this amount is available in the H.R.A. fund.
34
35 Commissioner Ranallo inquired as to what LaNel has planned for pedestrian
36 access.
37
38 Mr. Brewer responded that LaNel intends to install a pedestrian access or
39 a ramp. The developer is hoping for some cooperation from Kraus-Anderson
40 in the area. He noted that if they don't cooperate the access will have
41 to be built up against their wall .
42
43 The City-Manager suggested this pedestrian access could be tied into the
44 Walker property as there is a natural incline in that location.
45
46 Commissioner Enrooth indicated that the location of this access would be
47 more conducive for traffic flow. Brewer assured that the pedestrian access
48 is definitely in the plan.
49 •
50 He noted that LaNel is looking at improving access for emergency vehicle
H.R.A. Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 3
1 traffic.
2
3 The City Manager indicated he has received numerous complaints regarding
4 the silt from this development that comes onto Lowry Avenue. He has had
5 frequent calls from Councilmember Dziedzic.
6
7 It was noted that all of the easements involved with this development will
8 be returned to the City.
9
10 Commissioner Makowske inquired who would actually do the work on this
11 project. LaNel has obtained the cost estimates and intends to do the work
12 as it would be less costly. The City will reimburse them for the work.
13
14 Commissioner Enrooth inquired where this curb cut will be located in relation
15 to the other curb cut in the area. Mr. Brewer advised that as- part of the
16 permit process it is required that this curb cut does not interfer with the
17 one already in place and does not interfer with the stacking process of
18 vehicles. The actual location of the curb cut was viewed on a wall map in
19 the Council Chambers.
20
21 Tom Burt advised that the $200,000 in the H.R.A. fund can be used some where
22 else. TIF funds can only be used in the District. The H.R.A. will be refunded
�3 by TIF funds. Commissioner Enrooth observed that this is a logical use of
• 24 H.R.A. funds. The City Manager stated that the funds are being used for a-
25 public safety purpose and are justified.
26
�7 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth that we use money from the TIF District
28 where the LaNel project is located in the construction _cost of the curb
29 cut on Kenzie Terrace which is approximately $25,875, and as .part of this
30, we expect that LaNel will complete the-pedestrian access to the east, and
31 the emergency vehicle access to the south end of the project be graded
32 for ready access for emergency vehicles and that easements prepared and
33 submitted by City staff to LaNel be signed and submitted to the City Council
34 for approval .
35
36 Roll call : Enrooth, Ranallo, Marks - aye
37 ' Makowske - abstain
38
39 7. NEW BUSINESS
40
41 A. H.R.A. Resolution No. 001-90, Re: Specifying signatures on H.R.A.
;42 financial accounts
43
44 Commissioner Makowske recommended that the name of George Marks, Secretary/
45 Treasurer of the H.R.A. , be substituted for that of the Chair, Robert
46 Sundland.
47
48 Motion by Makowske, second by Ranallo to approve the adoption of Resolution
49 No. 001-90 with the recommended changes.
50
H.R.A. Meeting
April 10, 1990
page 4
1 Motion carried unanimously
2
3 8. ADJOURNMENT
4
5 Motion by Ranallo, second by Marks to adjourn the H.R.A. meeting at 10:04
6 p.m.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously
9
10
I1 Respectfully submitted,
12
13
14 JoAnne Student, H.R.A. Secretary
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 •24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
. 50
I� 1 First Trust
a
First Bank Place East
• P.O.Box A55
Minneapolis,MN 55480
April 18, 1990
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of St. Anthony, Minnesota
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418
Attention: Lois Davis, Executive Director
Re: $6,350,000 City of St. Anthony, Minnesota
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
(St. Anthony Nursing Home Project) Series 1985
Dear Ms. Davis:
Pursuant to Section 6. 1 of the Development Agreement, the
Agency shall, from time to time, advance the actual tax
increment payments of the Tax Increment Loan to the Trustee
for deposit in the Reserve Fund, excluding the first $25,000.
These deposits shall continue until the aggregate principal
amount provided by the Agency for deposit in the Reserve Fund
• equals $700,000. Thereafter, the Partnership will maintain
the Reserve Fund balance according to Section 3.3(b) of the
Loan Agreement.
From my conversation with Joe Guertin, the next tax payment is
due May 15th for approximately $79, 694. 54. Please remit
payment to First Trust at:
First Trust National Association
200 South Sixth Street
10th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Attn: Nancy Drees
Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any questions,
please call me at 370-4875.
incerely,
Nancy R. Drees
Assistant Vice President
cc: Sage Company
6490 Excelsior Boulevard
• Minneapolis, 'Minnesota. 55426
Attention: Joseph L. Guertin
#20504
wPP/WB-2/ND8
Member First Bank System
i
May 71 1990
TO: Council Members
Village of St. Anthony
FROM: Joan M. Remus
Eberhardt Property Management Company
RE: St. Anthony Villagefest
St. Anthony Shopping Center
Dear Council Members:
The Eberhardt Property Management Company as managing agents for
the St. Anthony Shopping Center would like to request a permit to
hold a wrestling exhibition in conjunction with the St. Anthony
Villagefest. The exhibition would be held on July 21, 1990 from
3 :00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. in the parking lot of the St. Anthony
Shopping Center.
Gary Vados of Game Farm Amusement will be packaging the promotion
and arrangements have been- made with the St. Anthony Fun Center for
public use of their rest rooms.
All advertising in conjunction with this promotion will be
submitted to the Chairmen of the Villagefest for review.
All insurance requirements will be met by both the Shopping Center
and the party representing the wrestling group.
We are all very excited to participate in this year's Villagefest
and hope that it will be as successful as last year's.
�berhardi
WAN N