HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06161992 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
100456
BOX: 15
Folder: PL PACKETS 1992
Document: PL PACKET 06161992
1
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 16, 1992
7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOTE: Bring previously distributed copies of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance
and the Planning Commission Bylaws.
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL
III. MINUTES.
A. MAY 19, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- NONE.
V. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. CONCEPT REVIEW -- LAND USE FOR SOUTH END REDEVELOPMENT.
B. CONCEPT REVIEW - HOSPICE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
C. REVIEW HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE - DRAFT #3, APRIL 30, 1992.
D. REVIEW PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES - DRAFT #2, MAY 27, 1992
INCLUDING BUSINESS COMMUNITY INPUT.
E. REVIEW PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS - DRAFT #1, MAY 11,
1992.
VI. .STAFF UPDATE.
A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
B. JULY MEETING.
VII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
t ,
1 CITY OF ST . ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 MAY 19, 1992
6
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER
9
10 Chairperson Faust called the Planning Commission Meeting to
11 order at 8 : 00 p.m.
12
13 He explained that the Meeting was " not commenced at its
14 traditional 7 : 30 p.m. time as today is School Board Elections
15 and State Statute mandates that no public meetings start
16 before 8 : 00 p.m. He apologized for any inconvenience this may
17 have caused the property owners in attendance .
18
19 2 . ROLL CALL
20
21 Commissioners Present : Thompson, Franzese, Gondorchin,
22 Werenicz, Madden and Chairperson Faust
23
24 Commissioners Absent : Murphy
25
26 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant
27 Urbia
28
29 3 . MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - APRIL 21 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION
30 MEETING
31
32 Motion by Madden , second by Gondorchin to approve the minutes
33 of the April 21 , 1992 Planning Commission Meeting with the
34 following corrections :
35
36 page 4 , line 17 : Change "family" to "friend"
37 page 5 , line 7 : Change "Franzese" to "Gondorchin"
38 page 5 , line 44 : Correct "not" to "no"
39 page 9, line 16 : Correct " in" to "on
40 page 11 , line 23 : Insert " favorable " before
41 "recommendation"
42 page 13 , line 6 : Correct "capitol " to "capital "
43 page 13 , line 47 : Insert after "front yard" "setback"
44 page 14 , line 6 : This line should read, "prohibition was
45 because of clutter and safety hazards . " .
46 page 1 5, line 33 : Delete " that "
47 page 16 , line 53 : Insert between " list" and "would" "and"
48 page 18 , line 32 : Correct "foot to "of"
49 page 18 , lines 45 & 47 : Correct the spelling of "raydon" to
50 "radon"
51
52 Motion carried unanimously
53
54
l
1'
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 2
4
5
6 4 . DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE JUNE 2 , 1992
7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
8
9 Commissioner Gondorchin will represent the Planning Commission
10 at the June 2 , 1992 City Council Meeting.
11
12 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
13
14 A. South End Redevelopment Options
15
16 The Public Hearing was opened at 8 : 08 p.m. by Chairperson
17 Faust .
18
19 The Chairperson advised that the location, under
20 consideration for development are the parcels located
21 north on Kenzie Terrace between St . Anthony Boulevard and
22 Kenzington development , which is an area currently under
23 a development moratorium. The proposal.- is to review
24 redevelopment options discussed by the Citizen South End
25 Task Force. 'The redevelopment options include public
26 right-of-way improvements , revision of the City' s Land
27 Use Plan and rezoning of parcels .
28
29 The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the May 6,
30 1992 edition of the Bulletin .
31
32 Chairperson Faust advised those in attendance how a
33 public hearing is conducted, noting that a staff report
34 is heard, staff recommendations are presented and then
35 questions of property owners are invited. The Public
36 Hearing is closed before members of the Planning
37 Commission commence their discussion and any
38 recommendations are formulated.
39
40 The City Manager stated that the City Council had formed
41 the South End Task Force. It consists of thirteen people
42 who reflect a broad base of interests and geographically
43 represents all parts of the City.
44
45 This diverse group was requested to review the land uses
46 on the south end of the City and give input to the City
47 Council .
48
49 Staff had two major concerns with the area , one being
50 that Rosie ' s Cafe and the Good Luck Cafe were commercial
51 operations which encroached on a residential area. The
52 second concern was with the traffic patterns and volume
53 of traffic which came from 27th Avenue, Coolidge and
54 Kenzie Terrace to one intersection . The problems which
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 3
4
5
6 resulted from this traffic congestion were of significant
7 concern .
8
9 BRW Consultants , the firm who had reviewed the City' s
10 Comprehensive Plan previously, was hired to draft
11 proposals which would be responsive to all of the
12 concerns expressed by staff and area residents .
13
14 Regarding the two restaurants in the area, the City
15 Manager suggested they were both in disrepair and gave
16 the neighborhood a blighted appearance. This had a very
17 negative impact on the . surrounding residential
18 neighborhood .
19
20 Four architect ' s renderings were done by BRW for Council
21 review. Each rendering had identical roadway alignments
22 but differed in location from some of the structures
23 already in the area and in the landscaping, berming and
24 crosswalks .
25
26 The plans were labelled A, B, C and D. Plan D was drafted
27 in response to the suggestions and ideas put forth by the
28 South End Task Force .
29
30 The City Manager reviewed all four plans . One of the
31 plans recommended removal of the liquor operation in
32 anticipation of the State legislating the sale of beer in
33 grocery stores . This type of legislation would have a
34 very negative affect on the liquor operation whereby it
35 may not continue to be profitable for the City.
36
37 Another plan proposed relocating the liquor store and
38, building a new fire station on the Rosie ' s Cafe site .
39 This could be very expensive as it would cost
40 approximately one million dollars to build a. new fire
41 station .
42
43 At one time the City Council had considered moving the
44 location of the fire station as its present location is
45 not very beneficial for residents in the northern most
46 portion of the City.
47
48 Another feature of one of the plans was to remove Rosie' s
49 Cafe and the Good Luck Cafe , clear the property and make
50 two large buildable lots which could be sold for single
51 fami ly homes . The City Manager noted that property in St .
52 Anthony is very expensive so the City could realize a
53 very nice profit from the sale of these two parcels .
54
,r
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6 Plantings , crushed rock and landscaping materials have
7 been received from Hennepin County which will be used to
8 enhance the aesthetics of the area.
9
10 An additional consideration of one of the plans was to
11 relocate the liquor store, the fire station and Bona ' s
12 Unocal Station . Noting that relocation of the liquor
13 operation would be disruptive to the business , the City
14 Manager felt this was not a viable option as this time.
15 Previously, the Council had also not favored stopping any
16 of the liquor operation as it is a very profitable
17 venture for the City.
18
19 Plan D is viewed as a compromise plan and was favored by
20 the Task Force . Rosie' s property would be used to create
21 two buildable lots and the Unocal Station would remain in
22 its present location . The addition of berming and
23 landscaping around the perimeter of the Station would
24 make it more acceptable to the , adjacent residential
25 properties . The liquor operation would remain on its
26 present site and the St . Anthony Shopping Center
27 management has indicated the theme of the Center could be
28 extended to include the liquor operation facility.
29
30 Although the City Manager was not prepared to cite what
31 the project costs may be, he felt the Tax Increment
32 District , which includes the Walker and Kenzie Terrace
33 could be extended to encompass this area.
34
35 The City would purchase necessary land, freeze the taxes
36 on the property and use any increment available to make
37 improvements and prepare the land for development .
38
39 The City Manager noted that the bond counsel saw no
40 problems with extending the Tax Increment Financing
41 District . It did not appear that it will be necessary to
42 extend the life of the bonds , which is presently at
43 twenty years . He - observed that the City Council has an
44 unwritten policy for a ten year bond period.
45
46 The County and the School District will be notified of
47 the City ' s plan to extend the Tax Increment -Finance
48 District . The City' s Housing and Redevelopment Authority
49 will hold the public hearings regarding this project .
50
51 The City Manager felt all of the plans would cost about
52 the same , which is between $800 , 000 to one million
53 dollars . This would include relocating of sewers ,
54 relocation of existing businesses and rebuilding the
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 5
4
5
6 roadway. He was of the opinion that Plan D would probably
7 be the least expensive of the plans in that it did not
8 include relocating the fire station .
9
10 Commissioner Madden inquired as to Bona ' s intentions
11 regarding the expansion of his service station . He
12 observed that all of the four plans show it as an
13 expanded facility. It was noted that Bona owns the
14 build.ing adjacent to his on the south which presently
15 houses a meat market.
16
17 The City Manager responded that Bona ' s original intention
18 was to expand his buil.d.ing to accommodate six bays for
19 vehicle repair .
20
21 The City Manager has been dealing with a local broker who
22 represents the owner of Rosie ' s Cafe.. He is hoping to
23 purchase the site in the very near future. He noted that
24 members of the Task Force had recommended moving the
25 berming on .the other side of the two parcels at Ros,ie ' s
26 Cafe and leaving this land zoned for commercial purposes .
27
28 Commissioner Franzese inquired what has transpired with
. 29 the owners of the Good Luck Cafe . The City Manager
30 responded that he has not contacted. these owners yet but
31 is concentrating on the acquisition of Rosie ' s property.
32
33 He noted that the owners of the Good Luck Cafe were
34 present at this hearing and has briefly advised them that
35 the City is interested in acquiring their property
36 through negotiations .
37
38 There are many access points into the St . Anthony
39 Shopping Center . Reducing the access .points in number and
40 installing green areas is being considered.
41
42 The resident at 2805 27th Avenue advised the Commission
43 his home is located adjacent to Bona ' s Station. He is
44 seriously opposed to any expansion of the business . The .
45 City Manager acknowledged his concern but noted that the
46 Commission has to look at a future use and future owners
47 of the property.
48
49 Commissioner Madden inquired it any costs had been gotten
50 for Plan A. The City Manager stated that costs have not
51 been pursued but this option could be done through
52 phasing.
53
54 The City Manager advised that the Planning Commission
i
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 6
4
5
6 will be discussing the City ' s Comprehensive Plan at its
7 June meeting. Rezoning of the Bona property could be
8 considered at that time . He also mentioned there appears
9 to be some confusion regarding some of the zoning in that
10 area .
11
12 Chairman Faust inquired if an expansion of the service
13 station coul-d be done without any reviewal by the
14 Planning Commission nor any authorization from the City
15 Council . The City Manager responded that there would be
16 no need to appear before either bodies for the owner to
17 expand the size of the building. This could not be done
18 until the moratorium has been lifted .
19
20 The resident at 2809 Pahl Avenue inquired if there were
21 timetables for working on the roadway. The City Manager
22 noted there is no firm timetable but felt the roadway
23 would probably be done within one year .
24
25 Dick Horst , who owns the Coast to Coast store in the St .
26 Anthony Shopping Center , inquired if there are any
27 considerations for moving the location of the liquor
28 operation . He questioned the wisdom of this and also
29 wondered if any considerations are being given to moving
30 the location of the Montessori School .
31
32 The City Manager stated the liquor store presently does
33 not pay rent and would have this added expense if it were
34 to be moved . The Montessori School will not be moved as
35 there is no space available to house it .
36
37 The City Manager said there could be a three phase
38 approach to this project ; 1 ) berming, 2 ) addressing other
39 areas , and 3 ) total elimination of the liquor operation .
40
41 Mr . Horst inquired if there are plans to block off the
42 alley behind the shopping center . The City Manager noted
43 that this had appeared on one of the plans but a possible
44 alternative would be to vacate Coolidge and give it over
45 for the use of shopping center merchants .
46
47 Chairman Faust inquired if any thought had been given to
48 pedestrian crosswalks . He observed the pedestrian traffic
49 in the area recently. It is his opinion that pedestrians
50 do not use the crosswalks where they are presently
51 located.
52
53 The City Manager responded that this issue will be part
54 of a concentrated study . It had been suggested that the
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19, 1992
3 PAGE 7
4
5
6 highly colored crosswalks would attract the attention of
7 pedestrians as well as motorists .
8
9 It was noted that the expanded parking lot near the
10 Kenzington is intended for the use of its residents .
11 There has been a long-time need for additional parking
12 for that development .
13
14 Commissioner Gondorchin felt that the purpose of Plan A
15 would be defeated if the Unocal Station were relocated to
16 the corner . The City Manager agreed and stated that for
17 major repair vehicles are frequently left for some time .
18 He felt if it were relocated it should be placed in an
19 industrial area rather than a commercial area .
20
21 The City Manager noted that there will be some tree
22 replanting done in the residential area and hopefully
23 they will be cared for by property owners . Trees which
24 are replanted on commercial sites or on the right-of-way
25 will be maintained by the City and associated costs will
26 be assessed back to the benefitted properties .
27
28 The resident at 2836 Coolidge inquired if the surplus
29 funds realized from the Tax Increment Financing District
30 are not used for this project would they revert back to
31 the City thereby reducing property taxes .
32
33 The City Manager responded that this money can only be
34 used to pay off debt . Surplus funds realized when the
35 bonds are paid off goes to the School District . At the
36 end of the twenty year bond issue there should be a zero
37 balance.
38
39 He explained that this money comes from the taxes paid by
40 the three developers involved with projects in the
41 District . No tax dollars will be affected by this
42 improvement or project nor will tax dollars be used.
43
44 The resident at 2709 Pahl Avenue stated his support for
45 the project and felt it would attract more businesses
46 into the St . Anthony Shopping Center .
47
48 The Chairman explained what will transpire after the
49 Public Hearing is closed. The Planning Commission members
50 will discuss the issue, formulate recommendations on the
51 information received at the Public Hearing, and refer
52 their recommendations to the City Council .
53
54 The City Manager stated that this matter will be on the
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6 agenda for the June 2nd Council Meeting and that any
7 resident at this public hearing is welcome to attend the
8 Council Meeting to state their positions and concerns .
9
10 The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 06 p.m.
11
12 Commissioner Gondorchin is supportive of Plan D with one
13 change . He felt the two parcels being recommended for
14 residential designation should be exchanged in placement
15 and designated as commercial .
16
17 Commissioner Madden also preferred Plan D and favored
18 flip flopping the buffer and use for a commercial site.
19 This would still provide a buffer from the residential
20 area .
21
22 Chairman Faust recalled that only six states do not allow
23 the sale of beer in grocery stores , therefore the liquor
24 operation may eventually be closed. He felt this would
25 leave a parcel which could be used for Unocal . He
26 questioned why some commissioners wanted this to remain
27 commercially zoned .
28
29 Commissioner Madden felt this was the highest and best
30 use of the property . He also felt when the relocation of
31 the fire station is considered, it should be moved to the
32 northern part of the City. Its present site is not
33 centrally located.
34
35 Regarding Rosie' s Cafe, the City Manager noted that the
36 owners are presently leasing the space. The lease costs
37 leave little room for profit . Also, Hennepin County has
38 issued a three page document citing public health
39 violations in the establishment . He noted that the last
40 purchase price being asked for Rosie ' s was $250 , 000 .
41
42 Commissioner Gondorchin felt the Planning Commission
43 needed more time to deliberate before any recommendations
44 could be made.
45
46 Commissioner Franzese suggested that a more generic
47 recommendation be made which addressed the City ' s
48 purchasing Rosie' s and making right-of-way improvements .
49 She felt the Commission should not be focusing on
50 eventual uses of the properties .
51
52 Chairman Faust questioned what input had been received
53 from BRW. The City Manager responded that the firm made
54
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 9
4
5
6 recommendations regarding the highest and best uses for
7 this property but only stated possibilities . He noted
8 that the Task Force had also. suggested considering
9 building a low rise building for senior citizens. This
10 building could serve as a transition area between
11 residential and commercial areas . He noted that at the
12 present time there is considerable senior housing
13 available but this still could be an option.
14
15 Commissioner Franzese stated there are many variables in
16 each of the plans she could support . She suggested that
17 the Council authorize the purchase of Rosie' s Cafe and
18 put some constraints on the Bona property relative 'to his
19 proceeding with an expansion of the business .on the
20 current site .
21
22 Noting that Plan D specifies two housing lots be made
23 from the Rosie ' s Cafe property, Commissioner Franzese has
24 no preference for how these parcels are used.
25
26 The City Manager clarified her statements when he stated
27 that the project should not be "fast tracked" through but
28 the Rosie ' s Cafe site should be purchased and not be site
29 specific . Commissioner Franzese agreed with the
30 clarification .
31
32 Burt feels the liquor businesses operated by cities may
33 not be addressed for perhaps ten years and he would not
34 recommend relocation of the liquor operation for quite
35 some time .
36
37 Commissioner Franzese also felt the Good Luck Cafe site
38 should be acquired and the roadway work be done_.
39
40 Motion by Faust , second by Franzese that the Planning
41 Commission favors Plan D from an aesthetic point of view,
42 that the acquisition of the sites where Rosie' s Cafe and
43 the Good Luck Cafe are located be made, the Planning
44 Commission has not addressed this land use issue as it
45 has not been determined what the highest and. best use of
46 these parcels may be at this point in time, and that
47 there should be no implicit go ahead on the Unocal
48 expansion .
49
50 Commissioner Werenicz suggested that the Commission
51 should probably recommend extending the moratorium - so
52 Bona could not expand without needing permission or
53 approval .
54
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 10
4
5
6
7 Commissioner Madden felt that adding the extension of the
8 moratorium was not necessary tonight as the Commission
9 was only addressing the physical properties of the
10 roadway and not land use .
11
12 The City Manager stated that BRW could make
13 recommendations regarding what the highest and best use
14 could be .
15
16 Motion carried unanimously
17
18
19 This issue will be discussed again at the June 16th
20 Planning Commission Meeting.
21
22 B. Proposed Chances to the Parking Ordinance
23
24 Chairman Faust noted that the general area for
25 application of the ordinance would be city wide .
26
27 The proposal is to review changes to the parking
28 ordinance. Proposed changes would be as follows :
29
30 Section 2 , Subd . 2 , paragraph 77 (a )
31
32 Vehicle - car, van , pickup, motorcycle, snowmobile,
33 motorhome, camper, trailer , boat , truck or similar item
34 licensed by the State of Minnesota for use on roadways or
35 waterways , but excluding bicycles- or mopeds .
36
37 Section 2 , Subd. 9, paragraph 13
38
39 All vehicles , as defined in Section 2 , Subd. 2 paragraph
40 77 (a) of this Appendix I , parked on any lot in an R-1 ,
41 R-Al , R-2 or R-3 district shall be parked on a surface
42 paved with asphalt or bituminous material , concrete,
43 cement , brick or other paved surface. No commercial ,
44 recreational vehicles , recreational trailers , watercraft
45 or utility trailers will be permitted to be parked on
46 front of the front yard setback in any R-1 , R-lA, R-2 , or
47 R-3 district for more than a 48 hour period.
48
49 Notice of this public hearing was published in the May 6 ,
50 1992 edition of the Bulletin . It was noted that some of
51 the verbiage contained in the public hearing notice
52 differed from that contained in the agenda material .
53
54 Using a videotape, the City Manager reviewed many of the
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 -MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 11
4
5
6 situations in the City which would be in violation of the
7 proposed ordinance. The videotape was done by City staff
8 and reflected sixty locations where there were potential
9 violations of the ordinance under consideration. This
10 ordinance was drafted in response to citizen complaints .
11
12 A previous ordinance requirement was that any of the
13 recreational equipment mentioned in the proposed
14 ordinance be parked on a solid surface. This had been
15 complied with by most residents but some of these parking
16 pads had been located in front yards or in front of the
17 homes . If this proposed ordinance is approved, these
18 items could no longer remain in front of the houses.
19
20 The City Manager felt the 48 hour limit may be di'fficult
21 to enforce. He also acknowledged there would be hardship
22 situations , especially where there is no access to rear
23 yards or side yards .
24
25 He noted that restrictions for enforcement had been
26 considered by weight , length and height . Other standards
27 are being researched .
28
29 The Public Hearing was opened at 9 : 23 p.m.
30
31 The resident at 2800 32nd Avenue stated he felt this
32 ordinance was making things very "picky" for people in
33 St . Anthony. He has a boat and an eighty foot driveway in
34 front of his home. His house sets back to the rear of the
35 lot and this ordinance may prove to be a hardship for
36 him.
37
38 This resident also stated that none of his neighbors had
39 been aware of this ordinance being considered. The City
40 Manager advised that there had been a press release
41 published in the Focus and the Northeaster as well as
42 appearing in the Bulletin. It did not meet the schedule
43 for publication in the City ' s newsletter. The next
44 newsletter will be distributed in July and an article
45 will be included in it which addresses the proposed.
46 ordinance .
47
48 A resident on Townview noted he uses his recreational
49 vehicle regularly in the summer months but parks it on
50 his property in the winter . He has no access to the back
51 of his property .
52
53 The City Manager observed that there could be a cost
54 consideration regarding those property owners who have'
I PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 12
4
5
6 already installed a hard surface on which to park their
7 vehicles or recreational equipment as required by a
8 previous ordinance . The matter of drainage . could also
9 become an issue .
10
11 The Public Hearing was closed at 10 : 02 p .m.
12
13 Commissioner Madden advised that the by-laws for the
14 townhome development where he lives do not permit the
15 parking of .recreational vehicles as some of the area
16 residents do not find them attractive . He suggested that
17 rental storage parking is available and affordable .
18
19 Chairman Faust observed that the prohibition of long term
20 parking of these vehicles is known before people purchase
21 townhomes in this development and a hardship situation is
22 avoided.
23
24 Commissioner Franzese felt these vehicles contributed to
25 visual pollution but the Planning Commission is being
26 requested to remedy a situation which has existed for
27 some time .
28
29 The City Manager noted he has only received one complaint
30 and that was for a commercial vehicle -which is parked all
31 year in front of a private residence . He acknowledged
32 that members of the Council , during the last election
33 campaign , received numerous complaints regarding the
34 parking of commercial and recreational vehicles .
35
36 Commissioner Werenicz felt that a problem has been
37 identified and really does exist . He noted he has not
38 heard any favorable comments regarding this type of
39 parking and is supportive of the ordinance as it has been
40 drafted .
41
42 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested that the ordinance be
43 enforced by neighborhood action only. He felt it could be
44 enforced in a similar fashion as the car parking
45 ordinance .
46
47 The City Manager felt it would be difficult to enforce
48 the ordinance based on neighbor complaints , especially if
49 staff sees a violation or infraction .
50
51 Chairperson Faust stated his concerns regarding
52 enforcement . The first concern addressed who would do the
53 enforcing. He felt it should be enforced by the Police
54 Department who should also determine when the forty-eight
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 13
4
5
6 hour period actually begins . He also felt owners of
7 recreational vehicles invest considerable money in their
8 purchases . Now they are being required to invest further
9 money to accommodate the ordinance .
10
11 The Chairperson noted that the homes in the R-lA district
12 face the lake and the front of these homes is to the
13 street . In this particular situation, the front yards are
14 used for storage of recreational vehicles and other such
15 items . He feels the ordinance as drafted is counter
16 productive except for commercial vehicles and also may
17 need to be extended from forty-eight hours to seventy-two
18 hours . He is of the opinion that the ordinance is frought
19 with ambiguities .
20
21 Commissioner Franzese felt there is a need to find a
22 balance between one ' s property and that of his
23 neighbor ' s . She thinks the City should be rid of visual
24 pollution and there should be a transition . period where
25 all sorts of vehicles must be viewed and which have been
26 allowed.
27
28 Motion by Madden , second by Werenicz that the Planning
29 Commission recommends to the City Council that a vehicle
30 in the ordinance be defined as a car , van , pickup,
31 motorcycle , snowmobile, motorhome , camper , trailer, boat ,
32 truck or similar item licensed by the State of Minnesota
33 for use on roadways or waterways , but excluding bicycles
34 and mopeds , and that all vehicles described above parked
35 on any lot in an R-1 , R-lA, R-2 , or R-3 district shall be
36 parked on a surface paved with asphalt or bituminous
37 material , concrete, cement , brick, or other -paved
38 surface. No commercial , recreational vehicles , .
39 recreational trailers , watercraft or utility trailers ,
40 will be permitted to be parked in front of the front yard
41 setback in any R-1 , R-lA, R-2 or R-3 district for more
42 than any forty-eight hour period .
43
44 Commissioner Franzese felt a transition period be given
45 or a time period be determined before the ordinance is
46 enforced, thereby accommodating the vehicles owners .
47
48 The City Manager recalled that when the paved surface was
49 required by ordinance there was a grace period for
50 enforcement . He felt the City Council may follow the same
51 procedure in enforcing this ordinance.
52
53 Commissioner Franzese felt it would be a hardship to
54 enforce immediately. She also felt these vehicles create
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 14
4
5
6 visual pollution as well as being safety hazards for
7 children .
8
9 Roll call : Thompson, Franzese, Gondorchin, Werenicz,
10 Madden - aye
11
12 Faust - nay
13
14 Motion carries
15
16 5. MISCELLANEOUS
17
18 A. Adel Alwan (Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant ) , 3800 Apache
19 aza , on i iona Use Permit Request Research
20
21 The City Manager advised this request has been before the
22. Planning Commission on two occasions and has been
23 recommended for approval twice . Both times it has been
24 denied by the City Council .
25
26 Mr . Alwan is now proposing to have only kiddie rides in
27 his restaurant . Previously, he had requested licenses for
28 amusement devices which would appeal to adults as well as
29 children .
30
31 Staff had been requested to obtain definitions of kiddie
32 rides and amusement devices . No local distributors had
33 definitions 'of either types of these amusement devices .
3.4 The City Manager contacted manufacturers of this type of
35 equipment and they were not able to supply definitions .
36
37 The City Attorney recommended staff determine which rides
38 and amusement devices would be allowed by the ordinance
39 and set standards so the ordinance could be enforced .
40
41 Sketches and explanations of the amusement devices being
42 considered by Mr. Alwan were viewed .
43
44 Commissioner Madden inquired if weight limits were placed
45 on - the rides . The City Manager noted there were
46 definitions of the games but not of the rides and no
47 weight limits were stated.
48
49 The City Manager observed that some games obviously
50 appealed to younger children and would be of no interest
5.1 to older children .
52
53 The City Manager requested the Planning .Commission
54 members to assist him in defining kiddie games and rides
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 15
4
5
6 and to draft a list for .proposal to the City Council .
7
8 Urbia suggested that when a game or kiddie ride becomes
9 obsolete or broken it could be replaced from the list of
10 approved entertainment devices .
11
12 Chairman Faust felt the Planning Commission is being
13 requested to describe something that the industry has not
14 been able to do, leaving the Commissioners at a loss to
15 pick and choose-. He suggested that Mr. Alwan bring in
16 pictures of all the amusement devices he would like to
17 have in his establishment .
18
19 The City Attorney felt a list of thirty amusement devices
20 be compiled for approval and that Mr . Alwan could choose
21 twenty from that list .
22
23 Commissioner Gondorchin noted that the restaurant
24 operation is being very dependent on these amusement
25 devices .
26
27 Commissioner Madden was of the opinion that Mr . Alwan is
28 being bounced back and forth between the City Council and
29 the Planning Commission .
30
31 The City Manager noted that the City Council is
32 requesting a definition rather than a recommendation from
33 the Planning Commission . He recommended the suggestion of
34 the City Attorney that being, to list out the kiddie
35 games and rides , be considered .
36
37 Chairman Faust felt staff should look at the equipment
38 and make recommendations to the Council to approve or
39 disapprove . Commissioner Franzese noted that there has to
40 be discretion on someone ' s part . She felt the staff
41 should determine what amusement devices are acceptable .
42
43 Motion by Franzese , second by Madden that Mr . Alwan bring
44 pictures of his choices for kiddie rides and games to be
45 located in his place of business , to City staff which
46 will be brought to the Council , that choices be made by
47 staff using its discretion , and furthermore , if an
48 amusement device needs to be replaced, that staff
49 approves the replacement .
50
51 Motion carried unanimously
52
53
54
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 16
4
5
6 B. James Sarna and William Vogt ( Stop-N-Shop Suyerette) ,
7 3813 Stinson Boulevard, Sian Variance Research
8
9 The City Manager -advised that this request for a sign
10 variance has been withdrawn . The owners of the business
11 stated their intentions to deal with representatives of
12 Conoco and resolve the problems .
13
14 C. Concept Review - 3821 Foss Road
15
16 Jon Lindberg of ReMax Associates , Inc. owns a three-plex
17 at 3821 Foss Road. Currently it is a rental property
18 zoned R=4 . Mr . Lindberg initially proposed subdividing
19 the property to allow for the building of a four unit
20 townhome complex. He was advised by staff 'of the
21 difficulty in subdividing this property. Another option
22 would be to treat the current and proposed units as
23 condominiums . If -he chose to do this , a backyard setback
24 of 59 . 8 feet would be required. From Mr . Lindberg' s
25 current proposal , a 22 . 3 foot variance would be needed.
26
27 The City Manager s°tated this type of request could be
28 received from owners of several lots in the City to
29 accommodate a similar situation and staff would not
30 recommend this be approved.
31
32 The City Attorney noted this could be done at the present
33 time by changing the lot line . The property fronts on
34 Mirror Lake.
35
36 Members of the Planning Commission questioned if this is
37 a Department of Natural Resources lake at the present
38 time. It was noted that if it is , then the structure must
39 have a seventy-five foot setback.
40
41 The City Manager advised the owner that he has concerns
42 with water runoff , drainage and the swail remaining where
43 it is .
44
45 He told the owner this issue would be discussed as a
46 concept by the Planning Commission before a variance is
47 requested.
48
49 Parking requirements would be one space inside and one
50 space outside. The developer is proposing two spaces
51 inside and two spaces outside .
52
53
54
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19, 1992
3 PAGE 17
4
5
6 Commissioner Madden inquired what the variance request
7 would be. The City Manager responded the request would be
8 for a rear yard setback of thirty-seven and one half feet
9 rather than fifty-nine feet . Mr . Lindberg would also have
10 to line his structures up with the adjacent townhomes .
11
12 Chairperson Faust is concerned with the disposition of
13 the three-plex already on the property. Urbia advised
14 that the developer intends to phase the three-plex out
15 during this project .
16
17 Chairperson Faust noted that the developer does not
18 reside in the three-plex and may not follow through on
19 removing it . The City Manager intends to ask the City
20 Attorney if this removal can be included as a condition
21 on approving the variance request .
22
23
24 D. Review of Proposed Plannina Commission By-Laws
25
26 The City Manager advised that the agenda for the Planning
27 Commission meeting in July appears to be relatively
28 short . He recommended that the By-Laws be reviewed and
29 discussed at the July meeting.
30
31 E. Review Housina Maintenance Ordinance
32
33 The City Manager also recommended that the Planning
34 Commission review the Housing Maintenance Ordinance at
35 its July meeting.
36
37 7 . STAFF UPDATE
38
39 A. Pirino Property - Status Report
40
41 The City Manager- stated that two violation letters have
42 been sent to Mr. Pirino. These two letters address the
43 twenty-six violations on the exterior of the property.
44 The interior has not been viewed at this time.
45
46 These letters have been referred to Mr. Pirino' s
47 attorney. The City Manager krznts to proceed with filing
48 the twenty-six violations and is waiting for direction
49 from the City Attorney .
50
51 B. Apache Plaza - CUB Food Store - Status Report
52
53 CUB Foods has presented two proposals to the management
54 of Apache Plaza. Both proposals have been rejected .
I PLANNING COMMISSION
2 MAY 19 , 1992
3 PAGE 18
4
5
6 A third proposal will be presented on May 20th.
7
8 The City Manager has repeatedly explained the limitations
9 the City has regarding the use of public funds for this
10 project as well as the responsibility the Council and, the
11 staff_ has to protect the City from any risk .
12
13 Staff has presented five different suggestions as to how
14 this project could be done. One of the options was to
15 issue bonds .
16
17 B . COMMISSIONERS ' COMMENTS
18
19 Commissioner Madden inquired if the sodding on the inlet to
20 Mirror Lake will be completed. The City Manager advised that
21 it is scheduled to be done very soon.
22
23 The City Manager stated that the Macalaster Project Hearing
24 has taken place and that Ramsey County is funding $380 , 000 .
25
26 The project is fully funded and three-quarters of the funds
27 are invested in property. The only drawback in this project is
28 that it will be in a different tax category and 'the property
29 taxes will decrease .
30
31 The subcommittee on the Sign Ordinance, which included
32 Chairperson Faust , Commissioner Franzese and Commissioner
33 Gondorchin, have completed their work. The final draft of the
34 ordinance with the subcommittee ' s suggestions will be prepared
35 by Dave Urbia .
36
37 Chairman Faust felt the Police Department should be made aware
38 of the ordinance requirements so they can participate in its
39 enforcement . He did not feel that the Public Works Director
40 should be expected to enforce it by himself .
41
42 9 . ADJOURNMENT
43
44 Motion by Madden, second by Faust to adjourn the Planning
45 Commission Meeting at 11 : 10 p.m.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously
48
49
50 Respectfully submitted,
51
52
53 Jo-Anne Student , - Planning Commission Secretary
54
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW--LAND USE FOR SOUTH END REDEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission at its May 19th meeting recommended to the City Council to
proceed with public improvements stated in Plan D, to acquire the sites where Rosie's Cafe
and the Good Luck Cafe are located, and that there should be no implicit go ahead on the
Unocal expansion. The remaining issue, addressing the land use, needs to be discussed.
NEXT STEP
The Planning Commission should address the land use issue,attempting to determine highest
and best use, and provide recommendation to the City Council.
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: HOSPICE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE
I called the LMC Research Division to inquire if hospices are treated as group homes by
State Statute. According to LMC, after. referring to statutes 245A.02 and 462.351, there
appears to be no statutes that treat hospices similar to group homes. The significance of this
is City zoning ordinances are over-ridden by State statutes for placement of group homes.
Since it appears this is not the case for hospices, the City has zoning authority over the
placement of a hospice in a residentially zoned district. It might be wise to double check
with the City Attorney on this matter.
Under current zoning, it appears this use is allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones under the
permitted conditional use of nursing care homes (Section 6, Subd. 3,2).
I contacted the inquiring company, and the currently have a hospice in a R-2 (duplex) zone
in South Minneapolis with six beds. State law allows for up to eight beds. There is a need
for overnight parking. The company is considering St. Anthony, as it is a low-crime, nice
residential community. They would be looking for a location zoned R-2, R-3, or R-4.
MdWeSt COWL 4 IOSPiCe In my work with people who are
dying, l realize that to look at death
(612) 926-2243 is to discover the importance of life:'
MARLENE GERBER- President —Marlene Gerber,R.N.,
Home Phone 544-8043 Midwest Community Hospice co-founder and director of
5525 Penn Ave. so. was started by two nurses who were faced Midwest Community Hospice
Minneapolis, MN 55419 constantly with the limited options for
terminally-ill, non-acute patients.They-saw
- - — the stress on families who had to provide
DONALD W. SKRIVSETH intensive home care and the difficulty
Funeral Director families faced with placing their loved ones
in nursing homes. Midwest was established
�
in 1985 as anon-profit corporation and has 4 % `(,rt,:. •._.
�. an active board of directors which includes - p
7600 191h AVENUE N.E.,MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55418 nurses, physicians, managers, educators, -
clergy and laypeople. It is supported
612-781-3391 primarily through tax-exempt private
CEMETERY FUNERAL CHAPEL • MAUSOLEUMS • CREMATORY contributions, foundations and memorials.Midwest's first HomePlace is located at
5527 Penn Ave. So., in Southwest
Minneapolis. It is the first hospice residence
in the Twin Cities.
Fees for patients at HomePlace are
reasonable and tend to be much less than HomePlace
hospital care.The daily room and board
compares favorably with nursing home fees
Imagine that you have just been told you and is less than 24-hour care at home.Al Hospice
have six months to live.You could be any hospice home care services will normally
age and in any state of vitality. One of the be covered by Medicare and may also be Residence
first things you would have to consider is covered by private insurance. Midwest
where you would live out your last days. If hopes that in the future, fundraising efforts
you were in need of acute care,you could will provide room and board for those who
stay in a hospital. If you had someone who can't afford it. a loving alternative
could tend you at home,you might qualify
for home hospice care through a local Midwest Community Hospice for the terminally
hospital. Or,you might be told the only 5527 Penn Ave. S. 111
option is a nursing home. None of these Minneapolis, MN 55419
options might really suit you. (612) 926-2243
0 Midwest Community Hospice, 1989
1 I IIIIIII u,•.
` loll.
1Nn.,j rd
Important People are encouraged to
remain in the persons life at HomePlace.
Emotional support is available to both
The process of dying is unique and patient and family and friends. Every effort
special to each person. It is common for is made to offer the dying person a
Photos are of home hospice patients terminally-ill patients to want to review their comfortable environment to meet their
lives and tie loose ends."The HomePlace individual needs for physical, emotional and
staff of professionals and volunteers spiritual support.
support the empowerment of each person
HomePlace Hospice Residence to make their own decisions so that the Hospice care was first offered in England
provides a home away from home for those traditional "just waiting to did'attitude can in the 1950s and spread to this country in the
in the last stages of terminal illness, but become transformed into an active, even 1970s. Currently hospice includes a team of
have no one at home who is capable,willing joyful process of living. If the patient is caregivers comprised of a Medical Director,
or able to tend to their needs. Most willing, he or she is given every Nurse, Chaplain, Social Worker, Home
HomePlace residents have no need for encouragement to become complete within Health Aide,and Volunteer.This team works
acute hospital care, but need 24-hour and to find peace.To HomePlace,the together to provide comfort and support for
attention.When a patient's care becomes process of dying is a most significant and those facing a terminal illness. Over 1400
more than a family member can give, creative part of life and each patient hospices exist nationally, of which fewer
HomePlace may be a welcome alternative. deserves the deepest respect. than 5%are freestanding residences.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 9, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE -- DRAFT #3, APRIL 30, 1992
The third draft of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance is still in process of being reviewed
by the Planning Commission. I asked for input by May 4th, and received the following input:
Commissioner Thompson: Address compost piles.
In addition, I will include your request for language regarding inspection (visual and/or
smoking house) at point of sale of sump pumps and drain tiles to insure they are not
connected to the sanitary sewer system. In addition, some form of language encouraging the
installation of check valves (auto and/or manual) in homes that have back up problems
needs to be included.
The Planning Commission should give their final input in June, so the ordinance may pass
on to the City Council.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM:. David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE
BACKGROUND
The first draft of the proposed sign ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission
in April. The Commission established a subcommittee consisting of Councilmember
Wagner, Chairperson Faust, Commissioner Franzese, and Management Assistant Urbia.
The committee met once in May for nearly four hours. I have made changes from the input
given by the subcommittee for review at the June Planning Commission meeting. A
memorandum is also included to address issues brought forward by the subcommittee but
must be answered by the City Attorney. Another memorandum is included regarding
business community input.
NEXT STEP
The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed sign ordinance, provide input, and
forward to the City Council.
DATE: May 27, 1992
TO: Bill Soth, City Attorny
Dorsey and Whitney
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
City of St. Anthony
ITEM: Sign Ordinance Issues
Issue #1: Is our language legal, or are there State of Minnesota
guidelines we should follow?
1400.08 SIGNS REQUIRING NO PERMITS: Signs described in this
Chapter, if they meet all other requirements of this Chapter, may
be erected without a sign permit.
Subd. 1. POLITICAL SIGNS: Freestanding political signs, not
exceeding a sign surface area of 16 square feet each,
displayed on private property for a period of not more than
four weeks prior to the pertinent election date and not more
than three days after that election date.
Issue #2: Amortization of legal non-conforming signs. Is
amortization legal in Minnesota? If so, what language should we
use?
Issue #3: If a sign has dangerous or hazardous waste, how can the
City ensure it does not become liable if it has to remove the sign?
Issue #4: If the City has to remove a non-conforming sign, and
does not receive payment for removal costs, can the City put these
costs onto the property tax?
Issue #5: IF the City were to require a sign deposit in order to
ensure performance, does the City have to return the deposit, plus
interest, when the sign is removed?
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: BUSINESS COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING PROPOSED SIGN
ORDINANCE
I sent a memo and copy of the proposed sign ordinance to the following business
organizations:
(1) Chamber of Commerce, President
(2) Apache Plaza Management
(3) Apache Plaza Merchants Association, President
(4) St. Anthony Merchants Association, President
(5) St. Anthony Shopping Center Management
I received input from the St. Anthony Merchants Association.. The association members
would like an additional monument sign for the Kenzie Terrace entrance (the size of the
current monument sign allowed). In addition, they would like a larger monument sign where
the current one is in place. Finally, they questioned why some commercial establishments
cannot have their franchise trademark sign (i.e. Dairy Queen, Kentucky Fried Chicken). I
explained that some of those signs are too large or are not in character with the City's intent
in the sign ordinance.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -1-
1 CHAPTER 14. SIGNS
2 Chapter 1400 - SIGNS
3 1400.01 TITLE. This ordinance shall be known as the "St. Anthony Sign Ordinance" except
4 as referred to herein, as "this ordinance".
5 1400.02 PURPOSE AND INTENT. It shall be the purpose and intent of this ordinance
6 to achieve the following objectives:
7
:.:...::. :.
9
.:.:..:..:.:.:.:r.:.......
. .. ...........i........:.....:..:x:..i::...re.:.::..:s::.::e:.:::.:.:.:.:.r:.:e....:::.:.:.a.:
<.l..:.:..c....a.t.:t: <c..bd:cau ei}.1 o f �x .T t5b .............
'
11 teat
12 ...::;.;::..............:............... . .... ..... ::::::............. ....
'``''sha .nal... e
:::::......:...::.:.._..:,...:,..:}}}:r}::}}:.;:.}i}i:...:::.,.:::...::::::::::,:>:.}:;:.............:...,.:..................}:...r.......r......r.........:.......:.....,.:r.....rN.:
13 rote :::the:: ae ofand.8tc. tn ..: #1� CO r :<ac
:. <.:..:..:..
•i'.iihh.....r::::::::: '}}i: .::........................................:}:}:^:4'r}}}ii:.iiih ii}}ii}:......h:..x..}.:}::}}}}}}::.........v..... M1rx'r•iiiii`}..::;Kv
15 1400.03 SCOPE. This ordinance applies to all signs in the City, and describes signs which
16 are prohibited, signs which may be erected only with a permit, and signs which may be
17 erected without a permit. This ordinance also contains certain requirements for all signs
18 erected, administrative provisions for issuance of ,permits, procedures with respect to
19 variances, and penalty provisions.
20 1400.04 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this ordinance, the words and phrases in the
21 Section shall have the meanings set forth in this Section.
22 Subd. 1. ADVERTISING MESSAGE: that copy on a sign describing products
23 or services being offered to the public.
24 Subd. 2. ANIMATED SIGN: a sign which includes action or motion.
25 Subd. 3. BILLBOARD: a sign erected for the purpose of advertising a product,
26 event, person, or subject not entirely related to the premises on which said sign is
27 located.
28 Subd. 4. BUSINESS FRONTAGE: the linear frontage of that portion of a
29 building facing the right-of-way and occupied by one separate business.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -2-
1 Subd. 5. CANOPY: a permanent roof structure attached to and supported by
2 the building.
3 Subd. 6. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: any sign which is characterized by
4 changeable copy, letters, or symbols, regardless of method of attachment.
5 Subd. 7. DIRECTIONAL SIGN: an on-premises sign designed to guide or
6 direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
7 Subd. 8. ELECTRIC SIGN: any sign containing electrical wiring but not
8 including signs illuminated by an exterior light source.
9 Subd. 9. FLAGS: devices generally made of flexible materials, such as cloth,
10 paper, or plastic, and displayed on poles, strings or wires, but excluding the flag of
11 any country or state.
12 Subd. 10. FLASHING SIGN: an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights
13 or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity.
14 Subd. 11. GROUND SIGN: any sign which is freestanding by virtue of being
15 structurally independent of any structure or object, is affixed to the ground by means
16 of a base with no visibility between the bottom of the sign and the base on which it
17 is attached and may make use of landscaping to enhance the appearance of the
18 signage.
19 Subd. 12. HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATION SYMBOLS: those symbols which
20 have historically been identified with the service the establishment provides, are
21 common to similar enterprises in all other localities and are not a particular
22 trademark or business identification.
23 Subd. 13. ILLUMINATED SIGN: a sign designed to give forth any artificial or
24 reflected light,either directly from a source connected with the sign or indirectly from
25 an artificial source, so shielded that no direct illumination from it is visible except on
26 the sign and in its immediate proximity.
27 Subd. 14. IDENTIFICATION SIGN: a sign which contains no advertising but is
28 limited to the name, address and number of a building, institution or person and to
29 the activity carried on in the building or institution or the occupation of the person.
'.i:•::}i' -0i;; .:iiii: is q'}:. .. 'p`:"': .. :. '. :.iii:.i:::.i:.i:'.F}:}}•..}'.:::::::.}:.}'.}'::::.}".:if:::L.i'.iii•:..':.;::{::.ii:•.:4:.i:.::{:.:.•:y ::::.
::.�:•i".•:::::: :
30 U L 5 :MAJt R:ANswHOR :sit le ft'11 Ili :li :?B S 10 .. .ui C itfi± t'tI] t IS. t. e..
::: ...:::...;. 1�1� 9..::.::... .:
31 . 0= 504s`'t: ie<<fe:;:V.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft 12 -- May 27, 1992 Page -3-
1 Su +6 !i ►R+RtJE :.<::;;:an >:: rrnaent ro � e strut '; pletjn... . yn,>:>>
2 bt�tldln Dr ecten�l� Box anti rn c be nd the vvallrurg ; ney
►tea:. Q.U. �:.v�fi"rT.::::ari:::s. :.':dteCL?�:;'!._::: ;..:.::.::::::::::::.::.t..:.::..;.:::::: :::.:::.::.
T�.:::: ..:::::::::::::::::::;;:...::::................ ......:............:.......... ..................:..P .....
.................... ..........::...................
5 RNO
6 Subd. 18. PEDESTAL: A foundation or base of a ground sign which either
7 directly supports the signage or completely screens the supporting members of the
8 sign.
9 Subd. 19. PERSON: An individual, firm, association, organization, partnership,
10 trust or corporation.
11 Subd. 20. POLITICAL SIGN: Any sign which states the name or picture of an
12 individual seeking election or appointment to a public office, or pertaining to a
13 forthcoming election or referendum, or pertaining to or advocating political views or
14 policies erected on private property, which are erected by a bona fide candidate for
15 political office or by a person or group supporting such a candidate and which
16 contains the name of the person or group chairman responsible for the erection and
17 removal of the sign.
18 Subd. 21. PYLON SIGN: Any sign which is freestanding by virtue of being
19 structurally independent of any structure or object other than uprights, braces or
20 poles, without guywires or pedestal.
21 Subd. 22. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign other than a wall sign, which is affixed
22 to a building and projects outward more than 15 inches from the building wall or
23 structure.
24 Subd. 23. PUBLIC SERVICE SIGN: Any sign primarily intended to promote
25 items of general interest to the community.
26 Subd. 24. REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign pertaining to the sale, lease or rental
27 of the real estate upon which it is located.
28 Subd. 25. ROOF LINE: The uppermost line of the roof of a building, or in the
29 case of an extended facade, the uppermost height of the facade.
30 Subd. 26. ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon the roof or parapet of a building,
31 the entire face of which is situated above the roof level of the building to which it is
32 attached, and which is wholly or partially supported by the building.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -4-
1 Subd. 27. SHOPPING CENTER: Any group of four or more multiple occupant
2 retail ster-es or service establishments on one or more contiguous tracts of land in
3 single ownership, compromising 4$998 O O0 or more square feet of floor area with
4 parking provided on the tract or tracts ofland for use in common by patrons.
5 Subd. 28. SIGN: Any structure, device, advertisement or visual representation
6 intended to visually advertise, identify or communicate information, or to visually
7 attract the attention of the public for any purpose unless located within a building
8 and not visible from the exterior of the building. Without limiting the generality of
9 the foregoing, the term includes any symbols, letters, figures, illustrations or forms
10 painted, or otherwise affixed to a building or structure, any beacon or search light
11 intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose, and any structure or
12 device the prime purpose of which is to border, illuminate, animate or project visual
13 representation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term sign shall not include official
14 notices issued by any court or governmental body, notices posed by a public official
15 in the performance of official duties, or traffic control signs established pursuant to
16 governmental authority.
17 Subd. 29. SIGN SURFACE AREA: The area in square feet of the smallest
18 rectangular figure which circumscribes the area enclosed by the actual copy of a sign
19 including both sides of a sign with copy on both sides and including border and trim
20 of the sign. The supports, uprights or structures in which any sign is supported will
21 not be included in determining the sign area.
22 Subd. 30. STREET: A public highway, road, alley or thoroughfare.
23 of . < : ic>< o
::.::.::..?•r;•:'••>:.:::.:.:.»:.:.>:::?:..:.::...:::.>:.. :.i:::.:.::.:.::.>:.......... •:.:.::.:;r:•:?•;•:;?•;•:;;•;•:;•x•:•;•:•.:.i:.i:.i is.>:>::::.:?.::.......>:::;::?::':>:v:::::
:::::::A:ii::::i:':;.:i::;:';'::;:::;:?.:.>:;::x:::;:':;:K;;::i:
24n >: bsht ::: n:::t�n .: ::tr :: t
..
.....i.•.Q::R:;.:.i':i::::iii:::.ii:.?i:.{:ri}i:'O:::::n:::::::i yi'.:�.:i?ti:::yi}vv::::::::.:v:::::::::{4:?ti: ........
4ii'x".ii::•?::::...:...::.:..:.::::.tv::.n::..r}.v.X4::::•::v::. :v.:::....:w:::::.v::nv:::::::n.....w:.:::.::::?::.:u..................... ..:...........:......::iii:ii:}iii:4iiiiiii:Ji:A
......
:?::?::::.:i'r'.Yii:::::?.,.j• i.'.v.:'i}:}=:. .'. Y. ;i:i;:•i';4:xvi:i''{S; ::ii:;•xYr'i :: ::?p•:??:{::{::v.'i'.i;i;:.i}�.,':i::i:•!:'{'}:. :.v::'?•;::..
25 h I[)i1Si1 I�ftftid #3# ; i
M. ....i::..: :•...:...•}•'ii. w::i�:.i:�i'f.;ii::::iY.::{y:i':.i':;::.:.{.::i:•{.i?i?%i;_ is?.}.�i}iii:;:}'ii.;??::i:;v:: ............. ..................... .. ..........
2 6 vats 1a ; Qs _ _;cooatr �as
:::vnti:•ii::::...:.:.....n..:::nvi;:•::::::i::: }.....
27 Subd. 32. TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign, banner, pennant, valance or
28 advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric or cardboard, wallboard
29 or other light materials with or without frames; intended to be displayed for a limited
30 period of time only.
31 Subd. 33. WALL SIGN: A flat sign which does not extend-eed more than 18
32 inches from the face or wall of the building upon which it is affixed, painted or
33 attached, running parallel for its whole length to the face or wall of the building, and
34 which does not extend beyond the horizontal width of such building.
35 Subd. 34. WALL SURFACE: The total surface area of the building face to
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -5-
1 which the sign is attached, including windows and door areas, measured to the
2 extreme outer limits of the wall surface.
3 Subd. 35. WINDOW SIGN: A sign affixed to or inside a window in view of the
4 general public, but excluding merchandise on display.
5 1400.05 APPLICATION.
6 Subd. 1. CONFORMITY: No sign may be erected, placed, altered or moved
7 unless in conformity with this Chapter.
8 Subd. 2. OTHER CODE PROVISIONS: Nothing in this Chapter may be taken
9 to relieve any person from complying with the provisions of any other Chapter of the
i o City Code.
11 1400.06 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
12 Subd. 1. SIGN PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: The changing of the advertising
13 message of a painted or printed sign, theater marquee or changeable copy sign, and
14 the painting, repainting and cleaning of signs will not require a sign permit, but will
15 otherwise be done in compliance with the Chapter and any other applicable law or
16 section of this Code.
17 Subd. 2. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS SIGNS: No sign may by reason of
18 its location, color or intensity, create a hazard to the safe and efficient movement of
19 vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign may contain words which might be
20 construed as traffic controls, such as "Stop", "Caution", "Warning", or otherwise
21 resemble any official marker erected by a governmental body or agency, unless such
22 sign is a directional sign.
23 Subd. 3. FRAMEWORK OF SIGNS: When possible, the framework for the
24 lateral support of a sign must be contained within the sign's body or within the
25. structure of the building to which it is attached so as not to be visible.
26 Subd. 4. PLACEMENT OF SIGNS: No sign, or attachment to it, may be
27 erected, placed or maintained by any person on rocks, fences, or trees, nor in such
28 a manner as to interfere with any electric lights, power, telephone or telegraph wires,
29 or the supports thereof.
30 Subd. 5. MAINTENANCE: All signs, together with all of their supports,braces,
31 guys and anchors, must be kept neatly painted and posted. Every sign must be
32 maintained by the owner or person in charge of the sign in a clean, sanitary, and
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft 12 -- May 27, 1992 Page -6-
1 inoffensive condition and free of litter, rubbish and weeds.
2 Subd. 6. INSPECTIONS: All signs for which a permit is required may be
3 inspected by the City Manager, and a permanent record, including photographs, may
4 be maintained. The City Manager or the City Manager's designated representative
5 may, after notice to the owner, enter upon any property to ascertain whether the
6 provisions of this Chapter are being complied with. The City Manager may order the
7 removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with this Chapter. In
8 addition, the following inspections will be made:
9 (1) All signs requiring footings must be inspected to insure that suitable
10 footings, as determined by the City Building Inspector in accordance
11 with appropriate building codes, have been used. Footing inspections
12 will be required for all ground signs and pylon signs before the sign is
13 installed.
14 (2) Electrical inspections will be required for any electric sign.
15 1400.07 PROHIBITED SIGNS. Signs that are not specifically permitted in the Chapter are
16 hereby prohibited. Without restricting or limiting the generality the provisions of the
17 foregoing, the following signs are specifically prohibited:
18 Subd. 1. BALCONY SIGNS: Balcony signs and signs mounted or supported on
19 a balcony.
20 Subd. 2. OBSTRUCTING SIGNS: Any sign that obstructs any part of a
21 doorway or fire escape.
22 Subd. 3. EXTERIOR SIGNS: Signs, including those intended for viewing only
23 from the interior of a building but which can reasonably be viewed from exterior of
24 the building, which by reason of position, shape, wording, color, or any other
25 characteristic would interfere with the proper function of a traffic sign or signal, or
26 otherwise constitute a traffic or safety hazard.
27 Subd. 4. SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC
28 EASEMENT.
29 Subd. 5. , FLAGS OR WHIRLING DEVICES.
30 Subd. 6. SIGNS ON GLASS-DOORS: Signs on glass doors which total sign
31 surface area exceed 20% of the glass area of the door. The sign surface area of
312 nameplates and address identifications and pedestrian directives such as"pull","push",
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -7-
1 "entrance" "exit" "use other door" "caution" and other instructions shall be included
2 with the sign surface area of all other signs on a glass door for the purpose of
3 determining the total sign surface area of such door.
4 Subd. 7. SIGNS NEAR LOTS: Signs other than wall signs which have any
5 surface area or structural member closer than 10 feet to a side lot line.
6 Subd. 8. SIGNS NEAR PROPERTY LINES: Signs which project beyond the
7 property line of the property upon which the sign is located.
8 Subd. 9. SIGNS NEAR ROOFS: Signs projecting more than 5 feet above the
9 roof line of the structure to which it is affixed.
10 Subd. 10. ADVERTISING SIGNS: Signs intended to be for the purpose of
11 advertising in R-1,FM R-2, R-3, and R-4, including those intended for viewing only
...............
12 from the interior of a building but which can reasonably be viewed from the exterior
13 of the building.
14 Subd. 11. SIGNS ON WALLS: Wall signs having a sign surface area exceeding
15 15% of the area of the wall surface to which it is affixed.
16 Subd. 12. PROJECTING SIGNS. ss:
17 ::8::.::....:....................b'...... ......................
18 Subd. 13. FLAT SIGNS! Signs eenstpaeted se that the fnessage of
19 .
20 Subd. 13. SIGNS AFFIXED TO UTILITY POLES AND FENCES.
21 Subd. 14. EMITTING SIGNS: Signs which emit sound, odor or visible matter.
22 Subd. 15. ANIMATED SIGNS.
23 Subd. 16. FLASHING SIGNS: Flashing signs except any portion giving time,
24 temperature or weather.
25 Subd. 17. SIGNS ATTACHED TO A VEHICLE.
ides wtth ucorpnrated or attache g
27 sai :xatbe::::::axtec ti <at <zoe :foxiore ai8 hours:
28 Subd. 18. BILLBOARDS.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -8-
IG :fli�i.«B.US<::S
5..::..:::::::: ::::::.:::::::::::: ::::.:.::::::::::::
2 sceusi: <;dnatnnaton
3 1400.08 SIGNS REQUIRING NO PERMITS: Signs described in this Chapter, if they meet
4 all other requirements of this Chapter, may be erected without a sign permit.
5 Subd. 1. POLITICAL SIGNS: Freestanding political signs, not exceeding a sign
6 surface area of 16 square feet each, displayed on private property for a period of not
7 more than four weeks prior to the pertinent election date and not more than three
8 days after that election date.
9 Subd. 2. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Directional signs having a surface area not
10 greater than 5 square feet.
11 Subd. 3. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS: Signs denoting the architect, engineer, or
12 contractor, when placed upon work under construction, provided that the total sign
13 surface area of all such signs does not exceed the greater of 12 square feet or a ratio
14 of one square foot of sign surface per 100 square feet of floor space in the
15 construction project, up to a maximum of 32 square feet.
16 Subd. 4. MEMORIAL SIGNS: Memorial signs or tablets, or names of buildings
17 and date of erection when cut into masonry surface or constructed of metal or stone
18 and attached to the building, not exceeding a sign surface area of 4 square feet.
19 Subd. 5. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: One identification sign per residential
20 dwelling unit, which shall not exceed a sign surface area of 4 square feet per surface
21 and shall have no more than two sign surfaces, and one address sign on the curb in
22 front of each dwelling unit.
23 Subd. 6. THIRTY DAY SIGNS, Signs whieh de net have a sign sufMee area
24
25 net te emeeed 30 days 1 11
26 Subd. 6. FREESTANDING SIGNS: Freestanding signs for garage sales or
27 similar event occurring within the corporate limits of the City, not exceeding 4 square
28 feet in sign surface area, erected on private property with permission of the land
29 owner, and displayed for not more than 3 consecutive days.
30 Subd. 7. WINDOW SIGNS: Temporary or permanent window signs duly
31 authorized by zoning and other laws of this City, provided that all such signs on a
32 frontage shall not have a total sign surface area greater than 50% of the glass area,
33 excluding doors, on such frontage and provided that a minimum of one-half of the
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -9-
1 open window space must be below a horizontal line which is 5 feet above the interior
2 floor of the commercial establishment. Merchandise displays in windows shall not be
3 considered a part of the sign area if such display is not intended to be continued for
4 a period of more than 8 weeks.
5 Subd. 8. ON-SITE TEMPORARY SUBDIVISION SIGNS: One on-site temporary
6 sign advertising a group of lots for sale within a subdivision or group of houses for
7 sale within a housing project, provided that the total area of such sign shall not
8 exceed 64 square feet with no single dimension in excess of 16 feet. The display of
9 such sign shall be limited to a 6-month period. At the expiration of such period, the
10 applicant may request a further extension of time, otherwise the sign must be
11 removed.
12 Subd. 9. TEMPORARY SIGNS, OTHER THAN POLITICAL SIGNS: Temporary
13 signs, other than political signs, pertaining to drives or events of civic, philanthropic,
14 educational or religious organizations, provided permission of the Council must be
15 obtained to erect such signs upon or over public property and provided further that
16 such signs shall not be erected or posted for a period of more than 14 days prior to
17 the date of the event and must be removed within 3 days after the event. iMrii
18 °` m stun:.. .rii`t' aUtame] .lrnm° e: .Q;. ..Nian p .3.he s� sal<I e< ern $
::.i:.i:.::.i:.i:.i :;.i:. i:.:;. i::.iii:. i:.iii:.ii:.:;:;.::.::.::.:::::.;:.::.;:.::.>:.::.::.::.:: :.::::.:;:-:;:: .......................... ..................................
...................
.:..................................:......................................................................................................................................................
.....
19 tnrtl
20 Subd. 11. FLAGS AND EMBLEMS: Flags and emblems of political t t-a
21 civic,philanthropic,educational or religious organizations. F.la.ig
::: ::: ::::::.
:._.
22 ... . ... RE
_ :.:;<.:;:.::.::.::::.:.i::.:i:.i:.::.:;.i:.:;.i:. ii:.;:;:.:....::;::.;:.::.:i: :.i:;:;. i:;.:':.;:;;:.i:ii:.i:.:. i:.:.:;;..:'i:.:::.i:»:i....>:;;:.;:::;.:::::>:;:>:>::::
: >:;:..::> >::<:>'::�:::
2 3 Sraes and>:;ari :. att�e8dfl ted ox sa #sQnxl:: ..;an;:<�Iete : fe .. a€ :bq
Y1; Y .............:.:::.::.Y:::.::::
:.::;.;:.::.<:.i:;.::.:;.; .: ...::::.::::::::::.:........ .:......... .:::: :.: :::.:;::;.::.�.::.:
24 ��� �.iext.. ur�sd�c���rt�i. .,ro�r�ded t�at,.,s�c�,.i� �f� !cec� 6� �
25 read s :itiot:' a floes>:fro:::`'a<:°v e f fo ``vw b Ys mfl han 4t3.f . :n
1 :......::.::::::::: i..:..::
..................::..
P..............:...
26
I 'i`I > T`hese<fla'smtif>be ftaw > nicrizdane> tI >`���it�t�. ol... . . bl�she ... ......
................P.;;:.;:. i:.i: i:.i:.i:.::.;:.i:.i:.:;.i:.i:........ ............
7
2 "Co .:._:' .....:, ,«.,.::.;:":'s >:.<;i:,:>:>:.
n x sx of tier ed States fax>ih .; taxs attdtxt A fla trot<; lia"' ':
:{.;}}s viJi::i•i:;ni:•:'..:i 'i.}:is^};iii:•:"L?LC:"::!:-.iii}ii:i•i}ii}i:ii:'it L: iiiiii::'.:}i:.: ::. ?::i%i:::i::l:}i:;ii:iii:i:.......i'+i?:::..:.i..}iii:•
28 ai'thes <condt�oris shad bens�dered:` ;<tem ara � .. ndsli:U XIC
29 04.5 to re u attars ass chi : t'S' !.:::::::>:: ;..:.. :::..
30 Subd. 12. REAL ESTATE SIGNS: Real estate signs, provided the combined sign
31 surface area of such is not greater than 6 'X2' square feet. Real estate signs must be
32 removed within 7 days after the closing date.
33 Subd. 13. SIGNS AFFIXED ON BENCHES AT PUBLIC BUS STOPS
34 1400.09 SIGNS REQUIRING PERMITS
35 Subd. 1. PERMITS REQUIRED: No person shall erect, place, rebuild, alter or
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -10-
1 move a sign, other than those described in Subsection 1400.07.
2 Subd. 2. PERMIT FEES: A sign permit fee must be paid in accordance with the
3 €elleyAn schedule
4 Total Gests Total Fee
5 ,
..........b = -fib--) _
7 $1.00 to $500.00 $25.009
8 Oyer- $590.00 _ $26.00 ..lu — 00
9 $100.00 e f
10 ef-$-500.00
11 Subd. 3. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: Every application for a sign permit
12 must be accompanied by a plan or plans drawn to scale and including:
13 (1) The dimensions of the sign and, where applicable, the dimensions of
14 the wall surface of the building to which it is to be attached.
15 (2) The maximum and minimum height of the sign.
16 (3) The proposed location of the sign in relation to the face of the building
17 in front of which or above which it is to be erected.
18 (4) The proposed location of the sign in relation to the boundaries of the
19 lot upon which it is to be situated.
20 (5) If the sign is to be illuminated, the technical means by which this is to
21 be accomplished and the hours of illumination.
22 (6) Where the sign is to be attached to any existing building, a diagram or
23 photograph of the face of the building to which the sign is to be
24 attached.
25 (7) The name and address of the owner of the sign and the address of the
26 property where the sign is located.
27 (8) Where a ground level sign is proposed with berming, a diagram
28 showing grade level and dimensions of the berm.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -11-
1 (9) Where a shopping center's comprehensive sign plan is submitted, the
2 plan must include the location, size, height, color lighting and
3 orientation of 6 signs.
4 (10) Where a ground sign is submitted, the plan must include the location
5 of the sign in relation to the lot lines and the building height, including
6 any difference from the established grade, size, color, lighting and
7 hours of illumination.
s Subd. 4. PERMIT ISSUANCE.
9 (1) Each application must be reviewed for compliance by the City
10 Manager or the Manager's designee.
11 (2) If the proposed sign complies with this Chapter, a permit will be issued
12 within 30 days after the application date.
13 (3) A sign permit will become null and void if the work for which the
14 permit was issued has not been completed within one year of its
15 issuance, or renewed. Application for renewal will consist of the same
16 procedures as the initial application for permit, including payment of
17 any fee.
18 Subd. 5. SHOPPING CENTERSIMIEjjUM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN:
19 A comprehensive plan must be provided for the whole of a shopping center
20 development. This plan includes the location, size, height, color, lighting and
21 orientation of all signs, and must be submitted for preliminary plan approval. When
22 a comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the regulations of this Chapter may
23 be permitted if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity
24 with the intent of this Chapter and if such exception results in an improved
25 relationship between the various parts of the plan as determined by the Council.
26 Comprehensive Sign Plans will be reviewed by the City Planning Commission who will
27 forward a recommendation to the Council on the appropriateness of the proposed
28 plan.
29 1400.10 GROUND SIGNS: Are permitted in all districts, subject to the following:
30 Subd. 1. PERMIT APPLICATION: A permit is applied for in accordance with
31 Subsection 1400.08.
32 Subd. 2. HEIGHT:
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -12-
1 (1) The sign does not exceed 5 feet in height, except as permitted under
2 Subd. 4 of this Subsection.
3 (2) The berming of a sign location will be considered in the height of a.
4 sign if the berm is more-than 3 feet in height.
5 (3) For every foot a sign is less than the maximum height permitted, there
6 will be allowed an additional 4 square feet of sign surface area, up to
7 a total of 12 additional square feet.
8 Subd. 3. SURFACE AREA:
9 (1) Signs having one copy surface may have up to 20 square feet of surface
10 area, plus any bonus under Subd. 3 of this Subsection.
11 (2) Signs having two or more copy surfaces may have up to 32 square feet
12 for all surfaces, plus any bonus under Subd. 6, E� 3 of this Subsection.
13 Subd. 4. LANDSCAPING:
14 (1) Signs which are landscaped in accordance with this Chapter, will be
15 entitled to a height bonus of 3 feet (total maximum height of 8 feet).
16 (2) The minimum required landscape area, excluding the pedestal area to
17 qualify for the height bonus, must be at least 1.5 times the sign surface
18 area.
19 (3) Landscaping must consist of shrubs, plants, rocks or other
20 decorative materials located around the pedestal.
21 Subd. 5. DESIGN AND LOCATION:
22 (1) Signs must maximize the use of natural materials in construction and
23 should conform to the material design of the principal structure.
24 (2) Signs must be located at least 5 feet from any street or other easement.
25 (3) To qualify for a permit, the pedestal width of a ground sign must be at
26 least equal to the sign width.
27 (4) The principal structure of a parcel of land will be allowed one ground
28 sign, regardless of the number of tenants in the structure.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 May 27, 1992 Page -13-
1 1400.11 WALL SIGNS: The sign surface area of a wall sign may not exceed 15% of the
2 area of the wall to which it is applied.
3 1400.12 DISTRICT SCHEDULES: Signs shall be permitted as set forth in the following
4 provisions:
5 Subd. 1. RESIDENTIAL: The following signs are permitted in a residential district:
6 (1) One identification sign per dwelling unit. The sign may net exee
7 sign suffaee area ef 2 squafe feet per- suffeee and may hEwe ne fa
8 . Additionally one
9 address sign on the curb in front of each dwelling unit or on a
10 freestanding mailbox.
11 (2) Each multiple dwelling complex »i ? r` a ; h
J.
will be allowed
12 one freestanding sign identifying the complex. The sign may not
13 exceed 50 square feet in sign surface area. The sign structure including
14 the sign surface area, may not exceed 150 square feet in area. The
15 highest point of the sign may not be more than 10 feet above ground
16 level.
17 (3) Each church located within the corporate limits of this City, subject to
18 approval of size, location and type by the Manager, may erect and
19 maintain a maximum of three directional signs on municipal rights-of-
20 way. No church may erect or maintain more than one such sign at any
21 intersection.
22 Subd. 2. COMMERCIAL AND LIMITED BUSINESS: The following signs are
23 allowed in a "B" Service Office Limited Business District and "C" Commercial
24 Districts and may be erected after obtaining a permit and paying a required license
25 fee.
26 (1) One identification sign per commercial establishment. The sign may
27 have no more than 2 square feet of surface area per lineal foot of
28 business footage, up to a maximum of 150 square feet. The total area
29 of all wall signs affixed to a wall may not exceed 15% of the total area
30 of the wall.
31 (2) A gasoline station will be allowed, in addition to all other authorized
32 signs, one pylon sign to identify the gasoline brand. This sign may not
33 exceed 30 feet in height, and must have a minimum clearance of 12
34 feet from the basic grade level to the lowest element of the sign
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27 , 1992 Page -14-
1 surface and may not exceed ISO square feet, including both sides, in
2 sign surface area. Such an establishment.will also be allowed one price
3 sign, not to exceed 8 square feet in sign surface area, for each frontage
4 having a curb cut. Such freestanding sign and price signs will be in
5 addition to those signs allowed in Part A of this Subdivision.
6 b ect:>...::. :.:' aCoc 'andz�ntaa oam res
REM Q:. .. ... ...... . . ::......................:::.:... .:.::.:....:...::.::...:...::.
. :. � ::::::::::.::::::.::.�:::,:.::.:::....::::::.:..
s :.i .i hr:.:r
d::
:
9Q ; ::.:.._a :::: .::nit; rc :.i:.i:.i:.::.i::.:::.;::.;:.
10 >::::>:::::Sub�eirf>#oi. ' °:ava : :........... ............... ............... .............. ..........4? ..t .......R..t...
J : ::::::PP:.::::::::::::.::::::::::.::.:::::.:...............................:::.::.........:::::::.:.:.::::.::.....:::.:::.... ......:::.:::......::...:::
11 sign:p ri sb Aging C . flveF �, qua f F b a i vvec
_:... :::.:.:i:4:;iii:; :;iirl i.ii:•;n:?i i:.i}i:;_yi}::iii:::iii:.;":::::.;-:..;::.,::::•.::::.:n;.:•._.�:: ::::::.}':.}�::.::::�.'L::.:..{:::.}':.}':.}'. ::}':.}'.;. .:..:::v:{:n.
i
w e ....nee ::atta .
12 c rho a .::::a 1: ns Qx unexc stablxs .. .............................::..::::
::::::::.::::::::::g:::: ::::::::::,:::;:.ii':::i:. i .: ..::::::::.::;:.
:.>:,..: rcia
14 s� :. �a� � < �flaa�:. �...:.:............:............................................
".:.:.>_:.;i;:'.::.;::. .;:.
......... ... ...............................
15 tabl�ShmE >atd:;sr� t; lcwedsra >s , ar�aiCltl
«i:<:.::iii:;::::::::i:.:;;.:;.::::: :: ::::::.:::.:::::.::::..::::.:::::::::::.............:::::::::::::::.:::::::...:..... ............
16 v11 t riVUe.
................................................................
17 ( A commercial establishment located within a shopping center, having no
18 outside frontage, will be allowed a surface sign area of one-half of that which
19 it would be allowed if it had outside frontage.
20 S: Commercial establishment will be allowed, in addition to all other authorized
21 signs, one historical identification symbol, not exceeding (5) five square feet
22 in sign surface area.
^::r.i: Y.:{Y..iiiiiii}: ;4i}i ii}::4:4:4ii:tiiv:?i:i+ti?G:Y.i:•:
. :: tfOli :a1S :>a€:rn G
. :,<a:i:.. as.. ... . nd
23 « #'a`'a <rova :o .. .. ......................tz......................4............................................... ....
:.;;:.;:.ii:.: i;:;.;;i:.;:.:;.:i::.i:.i:.i:.i;:.;; <:::.........................................................................................................
24 :mar:u <: dtal:s .:. ; r : aM
25 <.i:.::; ,„i ; _ . : Wit:
s : :<: x : i: (l�.;s uare ::::::::.i:.:
::: .i.<.i:i:.::iii•.:<.::'.>:.;:;.:.::.i:.i:.i:.:.::.i:.:>;: .:<.:.:;'.<::..i:.i:.ii:: :.i:.i:.i:.i:.:.:.:.:.<.:::.:<.:<:.:::.i:.:.i:.:'.:.:;:.i:.:.;”.i'.:i:::.:.:.>i: :.:.;:.:i:<.:i:.i:
.i:.;.:.:.i:.::.;.:..
26 ::. ° . ui ec ::::tQa rcnra: �:: nc nd:sbrntfal>;? a:;:coesve
27
28 i::°:''arid:;>sr i`:::. ntl� a surface sgraea nat toceedI50 square felt.
29 ttb ectQ d IOTA .U€.tl! .tQ1tTtC . .11d. tlbtilltdtl `.' iYlL' it' 1SI�E:
;.>.: ;: < :;< : >.::::::.i:.. .. .i.............:i ; . ;:: : <; , :>':<.:;::.:.;':.>':::::;..:.<:::
3 o sr$nan < <maQr anearltex�ante S ,OOt sga�re leer a si�Qppng
:.<.
31 center fiver�.O( im.� ua�e�eet>�iay have a wall 5ig11 th8t S i ;tE�twtCd
32 :::s� ::::s ::::;::are' ><:> : <:; h<<� ::>_ gwet €€> Q ::>At l :: min''or W.
Vie urfaCe "VV Ci:. a ::::: :::::::::::::..................
:lei t:.;:.i::.;i:.;::.i::.;.;;:.;::;:: ::::: ..............::::::::::::::::.
33 stabus;hme- t
........
.........................................
........................................
.........................................
4 >'< : ub ect>::ta : royal..9f..:fhe.:Cfluncil' :a :sai�ctili`:t: s tmi a o
1P :.:_.::::.............:..... ::: ..::::::.:::::::::::::::::::. .:.:::::::.::. ..::::...:: ::::..:.:::::::::.::.
P P .::::::......:::::.::::::::........
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -15-
i special evert
2 Subd. 3. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: The following signs are permitted in a Light
3 Industrial District and may be erected after obtaining a permit and paying required
4 license fee.
5 (1) One business or identification canopy or wall sign pertinent as
6 regulated in Subsection 1400.11, Subd. 2B, or one freestanding sign as
7. regulated and permitted in Subsection 1400.09
8 (2) In a district zoned for light industrial businesses, signs containing one
9 square foot for every 100 square feet of ground floor space will be
10 allowed up to a total sign surface area of 150 square feet.
11 .. t >> '< : : :::::> :: > : ::::SPfICE:<::::<1'Ii ..fbl wi
...:....:.::.:. RGRI ATIUIt .:OP....1�T:.,.:..:.::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::.::: ::.::
.. :...:.......:..:M:..:.....: :i ...:..:....i ......................................�.......... .....:.. ..........;.:..:...5::......;...: ...:..{:
12 $.R a l<;Q::::x : :: cfe:> s ct ild.xna ..be r� a :after b...ta gala :: :< :.:.: ..
13 Pangcucnsfee
>>;::i3'- Win':<€adall:> 3 n
4 .::<:::<.i�� cil�``�rr�on m
15 ::......:...:. ,.�....::: . :<:<: ::;:annuoets� <ara> hav >as xa
exd.
17 sti m8y trot eCed 1 :10 ol'tli8 ae8 t3f tli mall tch �s apc
18 1400.13 ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
19 Subd. 1. COMPOSITION: The commission of adjustments and appeals will be
20 comprised of all e€ the members of the planning commission.
21 Subd. 2. POWERS AND DUTIES: The commission will hear and make
22 recommendations to the Council regarding:
23 (1) Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
24 requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative
25 officer in the enforcement of this Chapter.
26 (2) Petitions for variances from the literal provisions of ordinances in
27 instances where their strict enforcement would cause hardship because
28 of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.
29 The commission may recommend the granting of such variances only
30 when it appears upon evidence presented that:
31 1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the other
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27 , 1992 Page -16-
1 property in the neighborhood or City; and
2 2. A particular hardship to the applicant would result if the strict letter
3 of the regulations are adhered to; or
4 3. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based
5 are unique to the sign or to the parcel of land for which the variance
6 is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the
7 same land use classification.
8 1400.14 VARIANCES
9 Subd. 1. VARIANCES GRANTED: Variances may be granted by the Council after
10 a hearing is held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation is made to the
11 Council. Notices will be given, and a public hearing will be held, in the manner
12 provided in Section xx, Subd. xx, Item xx, of this Code's Zoning Chapter 16. ' 'fe
13 .;»>;>f at a :<.;:. .:: :, ..:ust f";: >:.:.:I ...
5.:a1.::::::::: .::. . :: :.:.. ..:: .::::::::.::ak::::::::::::::.::::: .: .:::.::. .:: :::::::::::.::: r;:.:::::;:.:::::::::::: c .:: .:
..... .:.::.:.:::::::.::.:. .......
15 Subd. 2. MAJORITY VOTE: A majority affirmative vote of Council members
16 present is required to approve a variance.
17 Subd. 3. FEE: An application for a variance must be accompanied by the fee
18 provided in Section xx.
19 1400.15 NON-CONFORMING SIGNS
20 Subd. 1. LEGAL CONFORMING: All signs existing as of March 10, 1983
21 conforming to the requirements of this Chapter and not requiring permit under the
22 provisions of this Chapter, may be maintained so long as they continue to comply
23 with the provisions of this Chapter, as it may from time to time be amended.
24 Subd. 2. LEGAL NON-CONFORMING SIGNS: All signs existing as of March 10,
25 1983 which would be prohibited by this Chapter, or which would require a permit
26 under this Chapter but have not received a permit, will be deemed to be legal non-
27 conforming signs. Legal non-conforming signs may continue to exist without a permit
28 and without constituting a violation of this Chapter until one or more of the following
29 occurs:
30 (1) The sign is structurally altered (except for normal maintenance) in a
31 way which makes the sign less in compliance with this Chapter than it
32 was before the alteration.
City of St. Anthony Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
Draft #2 -- May 27, 1992 Page -17-
1 (2) The sign is relocated to a position making it less in compliance with
2 this Chapter than it was before the relocation.
3 (3) The sign is replaced.
4 -(4) Any new primary sign is erected or placed in connection with the
5 enterprise using the legal non-conforming sign.
.6 1400.16 ENFORCEMENT: If a sign is in violation of this Chapter, or is in danger of
7 falling, or is otherwise a menace to the safety of persons or property, the City Manager may
8 give to the owner of the property on which the sign is located, written notice specifying the
9 violation, ordering the cessation of the violation and requiring either the removal of the sign
10 or remedial work in the time and manner specified in the notice. In the event of failure to
11 comply with the notice within 30 days, the City Manager may remove the sign or cause such
12 remedial work to be done.-The cost of the work performed by the City must be paid to the
13 City by the owner of the property by certifying the costs to the County Treasurer for
14 collection in the same manner as real estate taxes. If a sign which has been removed is-not
15 reclaimed and costs paid within 30 days after its removal, the sign may be sold or otherwise
16 disposed of by the City. If a sign is found to be an immediate danger to the public because
17 of its unsafe condition, it may be removed without notice, and written notice of removal and
18 reasons for the removal will be given to the owner of the property on which the sign located
19 as soon as possible.
CITY OF ST . ANTHONY
3 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
4
5 MAY 12 , 1992
6
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9
10 Mayor Rana llo called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p .m. and led
11 the Pledge of Allegiance .
12
13 2 . ROLL CALL
14
15 Council Present : Mayor Ranallo, Councilmembers Marks ,
16 Enrooth , Fleming and Wagner .
17
18 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and City Attorney Soth
19
20
21 3 . APPROVAL OF MAY 12 , 1992 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
22
23 Motion by Wagner , second by Marks to approve the agenda for
24 the May 12 , 1992 Council Meeting with. the addition to New
25 Business of a -discussion regarding the Silver Lake Road
6 Reconstruction Project as suggested by the Mayor and an
addition to the Manager ' s Report of a discussion regarding the
parcel of land where Rosie ' s is located.
29
30
31 Motion carried unanimously
32
33
34 4 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
35
36 Approval of Minutes of the April 28 , 1992 Reaular Council
37 _Meeting
38
39 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve the minutes of
40 the April 28 , 1992 Regular Council Meeting with the following
41 correction:
42
43 page 3 , line 8 : Delete "will be" and replace with "was"
44
45
46 Motion carried unanimously
47
48 Approval of Minutes of the Apri-1 28 , 1992 Board of Review
49
50 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve the minutes of
51 the April 28 , 1992 Board of Review as presented and there were
no corrections .
54 Motion carried unanimously
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 2
4
5
6 5 . LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
7
8 Contractors ' Licenses
9
10 Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to approve the contractor ' s
11 license application for DeMars Signs , Inc . of Fridley, Mn .
12
13
14 Motion carried unanimously
15
16
17 Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to approve the contractor ' s
18 license application for E . Wolf Construction of St . Paul , Mn .
19
20
21 Motion carried unanimously
22
23
24 Heating Licenses
25
Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to approve the heating
license application for Brady Mechanical Services , Inc . of
28 Little Canada , Mn .
29
30
31 Motion carried unanimously
32
33
34 Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to approve the heating
35 license application for Construction Mechanical Services of
36 St . Paul , Mn .
37,
38
39 Motion carried unanimously
40
41
42 Temporary 3 . 2 Beer & Wine Permits for the City Parks
43
44 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the temporary
45 3 . 2 beer and wine permit application submitted by Thomas
46 Lutgren for the use of Central Park on June 21 , 1992 from
47 11 : 00 a .m. until 5 : 00 p .m.
48
49 Roll call : Enrooth , Fleming, Wagner, Ranallo - aye
50 Marks - , nay
51
0 Motion passes
54
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 3
4
5
6 Motion by Wagner , second by Enrooth to approve the temporary
7 3 . 2 beer and wine permit application submitted for the Village
8 Fest for the use of Central Park on July 24 , 25 and 25 , 1992 .
9
10 Roll call : Enrooth , Fleming, Wagner , Ranallo - aye
11 Marks - nay
12
13 Motion passes
14
15 Amusement Devices
16
17 Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to 'approve the amusement
18 device license application as submitted for the St . Anthony
19 Liquor operations at the Stonehouse and at Apache Wells .
20
21
22 Motion carried unanimously
. 23
24
25 5 . PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS
4 A. Hance & LeVahn
28
29 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to approve payment in
30 the amount of $2 , 400 . 00 to Hance & LeVahn law firm for
31 professional services rendered for the month of May 1992
32 relative to St . Anthony prosecutions .
33
34 Motion carried unanimously
35
36 B. Merchants State Bank
37
38 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve payment in
39 the amount of $5 , 500 . 00 to Merchants State Bank in
40 Lewisville, Mn . for the purchase of a repossessed vehicle
41 for City use.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously
44
45 C . Dorsey & Whitney
46
47 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to approve payment in
48 the amount of $712 . 00 to Dorsey & Whitney law firm for
49 professional services rendered through March 31 , 1992
50 relative to various matters .
51
The City Manager advised that costs for the actual repair
of a damaged fire hydrant were received from the company
54 whose vehicle damaged it . He felt it would be unlikely
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6 that associated legal fees would be recovered.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously
9
10
11 D. Verified Claims
12
13 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth 'to approve payment of
14 the five . pages of verified claims as submitted by the
15 Finance Director .
16
17 Motion carried unanimously
18
19
20 7 . REPORTS
21
22 A. Planning Commission - April 21 , 1992
23
24 Commissioner Madden was in attendance at the Council
25 Meeting representing the Planning Commission .
Madden stated he feels that the Planning Commission has
8 been excluded from the Council proceedings and
29 deliberations regarding the conditional use permit which
30 has been requested for the Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant at
31 Apache Plaza Shopping Center .
32
33 He recalled that the Planning Commission had recommended
34 approval of the request on two occasions . He reviewed the'
35 history of the rejections for approval by the City
36 Council and observed that the matter is again on the
37 Council agenda for tonight ' s meeting .
38
39 The City Manager advised that a recommendation from the
40 Planning Commission can always be brought back for
41 discussion and reconsideration.
42
43 Stop-N-Shop Superette, 3813 Stinson Boulevard , Sign
44 Variance Request
45
46 This business had received prior signage approval when it
47 was the intention to provide gasoline from Phillips 66 .
48 Now the firm is planning on providing Conoco gasoline and
49 this company has different signage requirements than
50 Phillips .
51
Is Conoco has requested that their brand signs be placed on
the north and south ends of the canopy sign on the side
54 closest to the road and that the identification signs of
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 5
4
5 Stop-N-Shop be removed from the canopy sign . There is no
6 provision in the Sign Ordinance for the type of canopy
7 sign that is being requested . The Sign Ordinance defines
8 a canopy sign as permanent roof structure attached to and
9 supported by the building.
10
11 Also , Madden advised that the request did not meet the
12 three requirements for signage and the Planning
13 Commission had to deny the request .
14
15 At the Planning Commission meeting there was a
16 contradiction noticed in the letter received from Conoco
17 regarding their requirements .
18
19
20 In one part of the letter it was stated that Conoco brand
21 requirements mandate. the installation of the Conoco
22 capsule sign on a canopy fascia . The policy does not
23 permit co-mingling of their trademark sign and any
24 proprietary sign on a shared basis . .
25
In another part of the Conoco letter it was stated that
accommodations would be made for local signage codes
28 whereby pole-mounted capsule signs would be allowed over
29 canopy or building capsule signs .
30
31 Madden stated that the Planning Commission had felt the
32 problems being encountered were created by the oil
33 company and not the Sign Ordinance . He noted that all
34 members of the Planning Commission hoped something could
35 be worked out with the Superette as it would be a good
36 addition to the community.
37
38 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to deny the request on
39 the same basis as the Planning Commission , the three
40 conditions on the application as required by law had not
41 been met and that the matter be returned to the Planning
42 Commission for clarification of the matter referred to in
43 the last paragraph of the Conoco letter which addresses
44 signage on the pylon sign and signage on the, canopy .
45
46 Motion carried unanimously
47
48
49 The City Manager advised if the brand of gasoline were
50 referred to on the canopy sign it would make the sign
51 non-conforming. He noted that presently there is a
subcommittee made up of members of the Planning
Commission reviewing the Sign Ordinance .
54
• REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 6
4
5
6 It had been suggested to the owners of the Superette they
7 might consider purchasing gasoline on a wholesale basis
8 and market it under their label . The owners noted they
9 were very dependent on credit card customers and could
10 not do this .
11
12 Marks inquired if the application has been completed by
13 the owners of the company. He was advised that this has
14 not yet been done but the fee will be collected when it
15 is .
16
17 The Mayor noted that the Council desires that this
18 situation becomes workable but laws cannot be violated to
19 accomplish that end . Marks also noted the suggestions
20 made should not be interpreted as encouragement to
21 request additional signage .
22
23 B . Council Reports
24
25 1 . Proclamation : Re : Flaa Day/Pause for Pledge of
Allegiance
Motion by Marks , second by Ranallo to approve the
29 proclamation which recognizes the significance of June
30 14 , 1992 as Flag Day and encourages residents of St .
31 Anthony to pause for the Pledge of Allegiance at 7 : 00
32 p.m. on that date .
33
34 Motion carried unanimously
35
36 2 . Letter From Resident , Re : Single Contractor for Trash
37 Pick Up and Silver Lake Road Sidewalks
38
39 A letter was received from the resident at 3104 Townview
40 Road requesting Council consideration for having a single
41 contractor for the City' s trash pick up and completion of
42 sidewalk installation on Silver Lake Road .
43
44 Wagner had contacted this resident .
45
46 3 . Report of Councilmember Marks
47
48 Marks circulated photos he received today of some of the
49 youngsters from Salo, Finland who will be visiting St .
50 Anthony in July .
51
The Sister City Committee had sent a list of suggested
activities/events in which it was felt the visitors from
54 Salo may be interested . Marks noted that this list
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING,
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 7
4
5
6 included many sports-types of activities . Presently , the
7 visitors are defining what programs there is special
8 interest and prioritizing them.
9
10 4 . Report of Councilmember Enrooth
11
12 Enrooth advised that the Association of Metropolitan
13 Municipalities ' Annual Meeting is scheduled- for
14 Wednesday;, May 20th . He indicated he will be attending.
15
16 Enrooth advised the Council of the date for the
17 Metropolitan Governance Task Force meeting . The Mayor
18 noted this may conflict with the joint meeting of the
19 City Council and the School Board .
20
21 5 . Report of Councilmember Wagner
22
23 Recently, Wagner met with the Apache Merchants
24 Association . He noted he will not be attending the
25 meeting on May 13th . .
.0 5 . Report of Councilmember Flemina
29 Fleming attended the May 11th Village Fest Meeting where
30 the Bulletin was chosen as the official paper for the
31 Village Fest .
32
33 Village Fest will participate in the Bulletin tabloid
34 which will be published in July . '
35
36 The costs for the electrical needs for the Village Fest
37 have increased thirty percent for 1992 .
38
39 Fleming noted that the Village Fest Chairperson, Barb
40 Olsonoski , was disappointed that no civic groups have
41 indicated in interest in participating in the Village
42 Fest or serving on one of committees .
43
44 June 8 , 1992 at 7 : 15 p.m. is the date and time for the
45 next meeting of the Villag Fest Committee.
46
47 Fleming will be attending conferences on May 18th and on
48 May 21.st which will address family violence as well as
49 hate, discrimination and bigotry . She noted that the
50 registration fees for these two conferences have been
51 provided for so no City funds will be used .
0 Fleming purchased a book entitled "Impressions" from a
54 door-to-door campaign by local students . The articles
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6 in the book were authored by students . Fleming was
7 concerned with the violent tone of some of the articles
8 and noted that the book had been reviewed by school staff
9 and parents .
10
11 She met with the Superintendent of the School District ' to
12 discuss her concerns . He acknowledged he had not seen the
13 book , but he shared her concern .
14
15
16 6 . Report of Mayor Ranallo
17
18 The Mayor received a letter which advised that two St .
19 Anthony youngsters may again be playing ball for the
20 Little : Gophers . Both Jeremy Rice and Tony d'Agostino
21 played last year and it is quite an honor. to play again .
22
23 Mayor Ranallo attended the recent Cable Commission
24 meeting where he received some information regarding
25 cable television which the Council has not received in
26 the past .
27 •.
28 The Mayor received 'a .very large book which addressed the
29 transfer of ownership of the cable company . He felt the
30 City' s franchise may be placed in a position of liability
31 with this transfer . He requested that staff review the
32 book very carefully and highlight areas in the material
33 which may be significant for Council discussion . He
34 suggested that the time used by staff to do this be-
35 charged to the cable franchise fees .
36
37 Funds were approved by the Cable Commission to purchase
38 a large screen television .: Classes have been scheduled to
39 teach residents- how to use cable television equipment.
40 These are four week sessions and the fee is $15 . 00 for
41 residents and $30 . 00 for non-residents . Persons using
42 cable equipment must be certified to use it .
43
44
45 C. Report of the City Manager
46
47 1 . Sheik ' s Restaurant , Apache Plaza, Re: Amusement Devices
48
49 The City Manager noted that he had relayed to the owner
50 of Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant and to his legal counsel ,
51 the Council ' s message regarding concerns that his
52 proposal for numerous amusement devices is too large in •
53 number and some of the Councilmembers felt the devices
54 should strictly focus on younger children .
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 9
4
5 Also, the Council requested a definition of kiddy rides
6 and amusement devices . Howard Knutson , Alwan ' s legal
7 counsel , responded by letter that he was unable to obtain
8 a definition of a kiddy ride or game . Accompanying his
9 letter were advertisements describing certain kiddy
10 devices but none of the distributors of this equipment
11 was able. to define what constituted a kiddy game or ride .
12
13 Councilmember Marks observed that each of . the ads
14 specified how the equipment was put together and would
15 appeal to a certain age group . He felt the industry
16 should have a scheme for use of certain equipment or a
17 reasonable definition .
18
19 The City Manager responded that he had requested
20 defninitions from Knutson but was advised that there were
21 none available . He suggested that he may be able to
22 obtain this information from some distributors out of
23 state and would puruse this avenue .
24
25 Mayor Ranallo still felt this operation would become a
6 hangout for youngsters . He noted that several youths who
were loitering in the shopping center were arrested last
week .
29
30 Councilmember Fleming felt that to have nineteen
31 amusement devices in the restaurant was an alarming
32 number . She noted that the four presently on the premises
33 appear not to be used.
34
35 Councilmember Wagner stated his support for strictly
36 kiddy games and amusement devices .
37
38 The Mayor requested the City Manager to gather additional
39 information regarding this matter and ,return it to the
40 Planning Commission for its consideration . He stated this
41 issue should not require another public hearing.
42
43 2 . Storm Water Drainancie Utility
44
45 The City Manager had presented the draft of an ordinance
46 which addressed storm water drainage utility for the City
47 Attorney' s review. The City Attorney recommended that it
48 be reviewed by an engineer.
49
50 Motion by Enrooth , _second by Marks to direct the City
51 Manager to spend up to $500 for a storm water drainage
utility engineering consulting firm.
54 Motion carried unanimously
I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 10
4
5
6 3. Parking Issue
7
8 The City Manager advised that twenty=six parking warnings
9 were issued on Sunday for vehicles in the area of St .
10 Charles Church which were parked in crosswalks or
11 restricted parking lanes . He noted that these vehicles
12 can create safety problems . Public Works crews plan to
13 paint the corners and curbs yellow to prohibit such
14 problems , but this hasn ' t happened yet . It was felt the
15 painting would be as effective as signs and considerably
16 less expensive.
17
18 Various suggestions were made regarding how the parking
19 problems in this area which were experienced exclusively
20 on Sundays I could be addressed . ' One suggestion was to
21 contact the Pastor of the Church and advise him, to,
22 suggest to his parishioners that they may be liable for
23 t ickets and f Ines . The Ci ty Manager noted that the Church
24 parking lot is not full during Sunday services .
25
26 The City Manager noted there is an unique parking problem
27 for the resident at 2424 27th Avenue Northeast . He ,
28 prepared a memo which addressed the- specifics of -the
29 problems and the few alternatives available to the
30 resident for parking her vehicle . Warning letters will
31 continue to be issued only because complaints are still
32 being received .
33
34 4 . Rosie ' s Cafe '
35
36 The City Manager stated that negotiations are presently
37 going on regarding the purchase of Rosie ' s Cafe . The
38 broker who represents the owner of Rosie ' s Cafe has given
39 permission for the City to have an appraisal done of the
40 property.
41
42 An appraisal will cost approximately $2 , 200 and the funds
43 will come from the H.R.A. The City Attorney recommended
44 that the Council formally authorize this expenditure on
45 behalf of the H.R.A.
46
47 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to authorize up to
48 $2 , 200 for an appraisal of the
49 parcel known as Rosie ' s .
50 Motion carried unanimously
51
52 B . PUBLIC HEARINGS
53
54 There were no public hearings .
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 11
4
5
6 9 . NEW BUSINESS
7
8 a . Ordinance No . 1992-004 , Re : Surface Use of Water on
9 Silver Lake ( 1st Readina)
10
11 Mayor Ranallo advised that this ordinance was first presented
12 approximately one year ago . No Council action was taken at
13 that time . He also noted that if the St . Anthony City Council
14 takes any action on this matter , that similar action must be
15 taken by the City of Columbia Heights and by the Minnesota
16 Department of Natural Resources .
17
18 The Mayor invited anyone in attendance to speak on behalf of
19 the ordinance or in opposition to it .
20
21 The resident at 2505 Silver Lane stated he served on the
22 survey committee who circulated a petition regarding the
23 management of the surface water on Silver Lake. He stated that
24 a survey letter went to all Silver Lake residents . The survey
25 letter included a ballot on which property owners could
indicate their preference for more or fewer restrictions on
the water surface usage of Silver Lake . These letter/ballots
were hand delivered to each home on the Lake . Fifty-three were
29 delivered and forty-nine responses were received .
30
31 This residents stated some reasons for passage of the
32 ordinance . The ordinance addressed hours when motorized craft
33 would be restricted and the speed at which motorized craft
34 could travel .
35
36 In response to the Mayor ' s inquiry regarding surveying of
37 other St . Anthony residents , this property owner responded
38 that only property owners on Silver Lake were surveyed. The
39 Mayor stated he has already received calls from St . Anthony
40 residents who do not live on Silver Lake and their concerns
41 regarding restrictions .
42
43 Lowell Thompson , President of the Silver Lake Homeowners
44 Association , advised that the Association has never taken a
45 position of opposing the ordinance, but rather wants the
46 ordinance adopted. He felt this is an "orphan" lake , that the
47 water quality is deteriorating, and that the political
48 boundaries of the lake prohibit an active interest in the
49 future of the lake .
50
51 The City Manager noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District
has been petitioned to conduct a water quality study . He
thinks the Wexford Heights development has impacted on the
54 lake and there will be concerns of the impact a CUB store
I REGULAR, MEETING •
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 12
4
5
6 could have on its water quality . This impact would be relative
7 to the water runoff expected from the parking lot of a large
8 sized grocery store . There will have to be either redirection
9 or filtration .
10
11 The City Manager stated that the City Council is very
12 proactive in the matter of water quality . Mayor Ranallo
13 advised that the Recycling Task Force agenda will be expanded
14 to include an Environmental Task Force to look at the Lake and
15 to recommend positive direction .
16
17 The resident at 2907 Silver Lane supports passage of the
18 ordinance and feels it does nor restrict anyone ' s rights to
19 use the lake . He feels quite the converse is true ; in that
20 present usage restricts his rights and those of his family to
21 pursue passive usage of the lake . In. addition , 'he feels the
22 motorized boating activity stirs up the sediment on the lake
23 bottom and further damages the water quality . He observed that
24 property owners around the lake have restricted their usage of
25 fertilizer on their lawns .
26
27 The resident at 4033 Silver Lake Terrace stated he has his
28 home located on the point which extends into-the Lake .- He does-
29 not support the ordinance and feels there is really no problem
30 with its present use . He is not aware of any problems which
31 have been reported to the Police Department and feels the
32 ordinance would be unenforceable . This resident also observed
33 that no one at the Salvation Army Camp had received a
34 letter/survey.
35
36 He noted that public funds are used for Silver Lake and that
37 areas which receive public funds should not be restricted in
38 their use . Self policing was in evidence when there is
39 considerable activity on the lake according to this resident .
40
41 Another resident noted that her family ' s boat is frequently
42 the only boat on the lake and usage of it should not be
43 restricted during peak hours .
44
45 A fourth resident has observed very limited use by non-
46 motorized craft , but the use of jet skis has been bothersome
47 at times . It was noted that legislation has been recently
48 passed which addressed jet skis .
49
50 Another resident had reservations as to the source of funding
51 for enforcement and felt the mechanics of the ordinance would
52 not work very well .
53
54 One resident recalled the public outcry when closing the
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 13
4
5 swimming beach was being considered . He felt this reflected
6 that property owners around the lake did not consider it
7 " their" lake . He suggested that the rules of the ordinance be
8 posted at the boat landing and felt this would be effective .
9
10 Another resident felt restrictions on the lake would reduce
11 property values of homes located on the lake . A concern for
12 having all motorized activity restricted to certain hours was
13 expressed as a potential safety problem.
14
15 One resident stated he . would agressively videotape all
16 activity which did not comply with the ordinance and noted
17 that Silver Lake was the last lake in the metropolitan area
18 which did not have restrictions placed on it .
19
20 Discussion continued regarding potential lawsuits against
21 those who attempted to self-enforce the ordinance, the
22 procedure used in the survey which did not include the
23 Salvation Army Camp and how the ballots were distributed. where
24 there was more than one vote per household .
25
A representative of the Salvation Army Camp indicated that he
felt there were no problems with the present usage of the lake
and to leave things .as they are .
29
30 Councilmember Fleming noted she can understand resident
31 concern with the lake ' s water quality but could not understand
32 any benefits the ordinance may have for the residents around
33 the lake . She inquired if any homes were purchased by people
34 who did not know that motorized watercraft were permitted on '
35 the lake .
36
37 Councilmember Marks inquired if there had been any studies
38 conducted by the Department of Natural Resources which
39 addressed speed of motorized watercraft and the impact this
40 may have on the sedimentation in the lake. He was advised
41 there were studies done on the shallow depth of the lake but
42 they did not address speed of motorized watercraft .
43
44 Councilmember Marks felt there was no clear mandate from the
45 lakeshore property owners or from other residents who use the
46 lake. The Mayor noted he feels there should not be any more
47 government restrictions which may be devisive and that
48 enforcement was a big concern .
49
50 The City Manager advised that the City of Columbia Heights has
51 indicated it is looking for St . Anthony to take the lead on
this matter . The Department of Natural Resources will also
have to be consulted .
54
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 14
4
5
6 The Mayor questioned if a sign which addressed the jet ski
7 problem could be enforceable and solve the problem. The City
8 Attorney advised that jet skis cannot be banned as this lake
9 is viewed as public water and the State owns the surface water
10 according to State Statute .
11
12 A resident stated that jet skis can be restricted by the age
13 of their users and closeness to property. He noted that there
14 can be no restrictions on noise nor speed .
15
16 Councilmember Marks observed that this is a first reading of
17 the ordinance . It can still have changes and modifications
18 before it receives a second reading. He is supportive of
19 passage of the first reading.
20
21 Councilmember Wagner sees the ordinance as a compromise .
22 Councilmember Enrooth questioned what impact the ordinance
23 would have on the lake ' s water quality .
24
25 Mayor Ranallo, noting that this is the first reading, felt
26 there could still be some modifications made , particularly in
27 the areas of enforcement and restrictions .
28 - -- 0
29 The City Attorney noted that cities ordinarily do not have any
30 authority over lakes and that only special statutes allows
31 this type of ordinance to be enacted .
32
33 A resident stated he sees no problem with enforcement by the
34 St . Anthony Police Department and the Columbia Heights Police -
35 Department .
36
_ 37 Another resident felt there are already enough laws on the
38 books and all that is needed is their enforcement .
39
40 Motion by Marks , second by Ranallo to direct the City Manager
41 to gather additional information regarding restrictions on
42 other lakes, contact Columbia Heights regarding its position
43 on this matter, investigate the position of the Department of
44 Natural Resources , and determine the affect , of motorized
45 watercraft on water quality.
46
47 The City Manager stated he will also research the number of
48 calls received regarding disturbances on the lake in the last
49 three years , the potential effect restrictions may have on
50 property values and how 'restrictions are enforced by other
51 municipalities .
52
53
54
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 15
4
5
6 The date for the second reading of the ordinance will be
7 published in the Bulletin .
8
9
10 Motion carried unanimously
11
12
13
14 . B. Resolution No 92-026 ; Re: Parkina Restrictions on 37th
15 Avenue Northeast
16
17 . The .City Manager advised that to use state aid funds on the
18 ' widening of 37th Avenue it must meet specifications and be
19 ' made forty-four feet wide with parking prohibitions on both
20 sides of the street all the way to Silver Lake Road.
21 . Presently, 37th Avenue is not wide enough to meet these
22 requirements .
23
24 He also stated that it is not required that residents on this
25 section of 37th Avenue be notified of the no parking ban but
he will advise them.
Motion by Fleming, second by Wagner to adopt Resolution No.
29 92-026 being a resolution restricting parking on 37th Avenue
30 between Silver Lake Road and Stinson Boulevard Northeast .
31
32
33 Motion carried unanimously
34
35
36 C. Resolution No 92-027 ; Re: Aareement with Columbia
37 Heights for Supplemental Enaineerina Services
38
39 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to adopt Resolution No. 92-
40 027 being a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager
41 to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
42 St . Anthony and the City of Columbia Heights for supplemental
43 engineering services .
44
45 Motion carried unanimously
46
47
48 D. Ordinance No . 1992-003 ; Re : Amusement Devices ( 1st
49 Readina)
50
5i One hundred and six licenses can be issued by ordinance .
is - .
Presently , there are seventy four issued .
54 Motion by Marks , second by Ranallo to approve the first
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 16
4
5
6
7 reading of Ordinance No. 1992-003 being an ordinance
8 relating to licenses for amusement devices ; amending
9 Section 401 : 00 to limit the number of licenses for any
10 one establishment .
11
12 Motion carried unanimously
13
14
15 E. Authorization to Call for Bids for Carbon Change at GAC
16 Plant
17
18 The Mayor inquired where the bid sources were . The City
19 Manager responded that there are only three suppliers in
20 the United States and the City publicly advertised .
21
22 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to authorize staff to
23 call for bids- for carbon change at the GAC Plant .
24
25 Motion carried unanimously
26
27 10 . UNFINISHED BUSINESS
28 -
29 A. Ordinance No . 1992-002 ; Re : Increase in Water Rates ( 3rd
30 Reading)
31
32 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve the third
33 reading and- passage of Ordinance No . 1992-002 being an
34 ordinance relating to water rates ; amending Subds . 2 and,
35 3 of Section 550 : 00 of the 1973 Code of Ordinance of the
36 City of St . Anthony.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously
39
40 B. Engineering Proposal for Analyzing the County Road E
41 Drainage System
42
43 The City Manager stated this analysis should advise what
44 impact will be had on Silver Lake by additional water
45 flow from the Wexford Development , any development at
46 Apache Plaza and the reconstruction proposed for Silver
47 Lake Road regarding water quality and increases in the
48 level of the water .
49
50 He advised the costs for this analysis will be assessed
51 back to the developer of Wexford Heights who has created
52 some of the problems through a Joint Powers Agreement
53 with the City of St . Anthony, Ramsey County and the
54 Department of Natural Resources .
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 17
4
5
6 The Mayor felt that the water shed from New Brighton may
7 also be part of the problem.
8
9 A resident observed that the developer of Wexford Heights
10 has materially altered the land and the drainage on
11 County Road E was not 'installed, correctly . He feels this
12 impacts on Silver Lake as well as the Salvation Army
13 Camp .
14
15 A proposal for a study has been received from Barr
16 Engineering which will cost approximately $3 , 000 .
17
18 The City Manager felt no costs for the study should be
19 assessed - to the Salvation Army Camp as it does not
20 benefit .
21
22 Motion by Marks , second by Ranallo to approve the
23 proposal received from Barr Engineering contingent upon
24 the completion of a Joint Powers Agreement with New
25 Brighton that all of the costs will be borne by the
0 8
6 developer of Wexford Heights .
Motion carried unanimously
29
30 The City Manager inquired if the water flow should be
31 strictly viewed from Wexford Heights or from County Road
32 E, Columbia Heights and Anoka County.
33
.34 The City Attorney . cautioned that if there are to be-
35 assessments the assessment procedures must be followed in
36 a format which will include public hearings and notices .
37
38 C. Silver Lake Road
39
40 The City Manager met with Dave Childs, the New Brighton
41 City Manager , to discuss the proposed reconstruction of
42 Silver Lake Road by Ramsey County .
43
44 Childs advised at this time New Brighton has no direction
45 and is still considering reducing the roadway to three
46 lanes . Mayor Ranallo stated he is not supportive of this
47 reduction to three lanes .'
48
49 Before the Council Meeting on May " 26th, the St . Anthony
50 and New Brighton Councils will meet at 5 : 30 p.m. to
51 discuss this matter . It will also be included on the
agenda for that evening' s Council Meeting.
54 A resident stated he considers Silver Lane to be very
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 MAY 12 , 1992
3 PAGE 18
4
5
6 dangerous . The City Manager will be meeting with
7 representatives regarding the "turn back" of Silver Lane .
8
9 11 . ADJOURNMENT
10
11 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to adjourn the meeting at
12 10 : 30 ., p.m.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously
15
16
17 Respectfully submitted ,
18
19
20 Jo-Anne Student , Council Secretary
21
22
23
24
25
26 Mayor Clarence Ranallo
27
28 _
29
30
31 ATTEST :.
32 City Clerk
33
34 '
35
36
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
3 MAY 26, 1992
4
5 I CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge
8 of Allegiance led by Mayor Ranallo.
9
10 II ROLL CALL
11
12 Council present: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Fleming and
13 Wagner
14
15 Staff present: Tom Burt, City Manager and Roger Larson,
16 Finance Director
17
18 III APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA
19
20 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth approve the agenda for
21 the May 26, 1992 Council meeting with the addition of one and
22 a half pages of verified claims to be considered under VI.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
2.5
26 IV APPROVAL OF MAY 12, 1992 COUNCIL MINUTES
27
28 Motion by Marks, seconded by Wagner to approve the minutes of
29 the May 12, 1992 Council meeting with the following correction:
30
31 Page 3, line 40: Add "lift" after "vehicle" .
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 V LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
36
37 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve the following
38 as listed in the May 26, 1992 agenda packet:
39
40 Contractors Licenses
41 Hal Brennan, 8501 4th Avenue South, Mpls .
42 MN Able Fence Inc. , 114 East Acker Street, St. Paul MN
43 Norsk Concrete Construction, Inc. , Spring Lake Park, MN
44 Kleinman Realty Co. , Mpls . , MN
45
46 Multiple Dwelling Licenses
. 47 Equinox Apartments/Sentinel Management Company
48 Highcrest Manor/Wesley Robertson, Owner
49 Caravelle Apartments/Sheldon Mortenson, Owner
50 Autumnwoods Apartments/Lanel Limited Partnership
51 Plaza Apartments/Frances Sandberg, Owner
52 Chandler Place; SAGE Company
53 Lakehill Apartments/Metes and Bounds Management Company
54
55 Motion carried unanimously.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 2
4
5
6 Temporary 3 .2 Beer Permits for City Parks
7
8 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Fleming to approve the temporary
9 beer and wine permit applications submitted by the following:
10
11 Randy Hodson for the Day family going-away-party to be
12 held in the Central Park pavilion May 29 from 6:00 p. m.
13 to midnight;
14
15 Patricia Fagerlee for the use of the Central Park
16 pavilion and baseball diamond for the Robertson family
17 picnic to be held from noon to dark on June 6;
18
19 Patricia Fagerlee for the use of the Central Park and
20 baseball diamond for the Kravetz family picnic to be
21 held from noon to dark on July 11.
22
23 Roll call: Wagner, Fleming, Ranallo, Enrooth - Aye
24 Marks - Nay
25
26 Motion carried.
27
28 VI PRESENTATION OF- CLAIMS -
29
30 Verified Claims
31
32 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of all
33 verified claims as listed in the May 26, 1992 Council agenda
34 packet and as presented for approval prior to that Council
35 meeting.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 VII REPORTS
40
41 A. Council Reports
42
43 Councilmember Wagner
44
45 The Councilmember reported attendance at the May 21 Community
46 Services .Advisory Committee meeting vhere 'it vas determined- that it
47 would be very difficult to balance the budget without dropping
48 some of the activities whose fees don't cover the cost of the
49 activity. Mayor Ranallo reported receiving several complaints
50 from parents from outside St. -Anthony about proposed
51 elimination of the toddler portion of the daycare services.
52 Councilmember Wagner indicated those users of the toddler
53 services were going to try to market the -program to generate
54 enough participants to justify its retention without a drain
55 on the budget. Alternatives to discontinued programs will be
56 sought, he said.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 3
4
5
6 Councilmember Fleming
7
8 The Councilmember reported responding with a letter of protest
9 to the negative article carried by the St. Anthony Bulletin on
10 the D.A.R.E. program which the City has supported and
11 encouraged. When Police Chief Engstrom called her attention
12 to a Wall Street Journal article which also raised questions
13 about the program. Councilmember Fleming said she had written
14 a note to Sgt . McGanley who is in charge of the Minneapolis
15 D.A.R.E. program requesting that he let the City know if there
16 are problems other communities are experiencing of which St .
17 Anthony might not be aware. She also told the Mayor she is
18 trying to find out who wrote the Bulletin story to identify
19 the source of that information.
20
21 Councilmember Fleming had her notes on the conferences she had
22 attended the previous week duplicated for the other
23 Councilmembers. She had attended a conference on "Hate .
24 Discrimination . Bigotry . Racism . Crime - Right here in the
25 Suburbs" held May 18 . in the Minnetonka Radisson. The program
26 addressed diversity of race, income, and family structure
27 which call for communities making long term commitments to
28 change to meet the challenges of having populations projected
29 to reach a 45% mix of minority and ethnic by 2080.
30 Cooperation of business communities, especially Chambers of
31 Commerce will be essential, according to the various speakers
32 at the conference and the Councilmember said .it was also
33 considered necessary for cities to have Active Human Rights
34 Commissions. The roles neighborhood Crime Watch programs can
35 play was also underscored. The Mayor recalled that the City
36 Council had been forced to undertake the responsibilities of
37 the City' s Human Relations Commission after such commissions
38 in the past had failed to function.
39
40 Councilmember Fleming also summarized her notes on the
41 Community Leadership Forum on Family Violence sponsored by the
42 Ramsey County Communities at the Earle Brown Center May 21 .
43 She said she thought this conference especially was worth the
44 time and money spent on it and indicated she was surprised to
45 see hundreds in attendance. The conference called for
46 cooperation between communities in the effort to stem the tide
47 of family violence. The Councilmember noted that District
48 #282 Superintendent of Schools had already received
49 instructions on setting up a Non-Violence Program in the
50 school district. Councilmember Fleming reported being
51 particularly edified to hear almost every speaker acknowledge
52 that the problem would never he solved without God ' s help.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 4
4
5
6 Councilmember Enrooth
7
8 The Councilmember reported that the City had actually come out
9 $3 .29 ahead on the May 2nd Clean Up Day. He thanked Mayor
10 Ranallo and Councilmembers Wagner and Fleming for helping to
11 make the activity such a success.. Councilmember Enrooth
12 indicated there would be another Clean Up Day held in
13 September and his Committee . plans to sponsor similar clean ups
14 twice a year in the future. The efforts of the Public Works
15 Department personnel were also gratefully acknowledged.
16
17 Councilmember Marks
18
19 The Focus had carried a story on the Sisters Cities visitors
20 from Salo, Finland and the Councilmember reported receiving
21 the first offering of housing for the visitors .
22
23 Mayor Ranallo
24
25 The Mayor reported reception of a letter that same day from
26 the Chairman of the Hennepin County Commissioners in which Mr.
27 Derus requested St. Anthony representation at the public
28 hearing on "Diversity of programs available to families in
29 Hennepin County" which will be conducted by the U. S. Advisory
30 Committee on Families at the Hennepin County Center from May
31 26 through May 29, 1992 .
32
33 Mayor Ranallo reported that on May 20 he had presented the
34 Chamber of Commerce .Bob Sundland Memorial award to Pat
35 Sommerville of St. Anthony who will be attending classes on
36 Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. The Mayor said
37 he also gave his State of the City address at the meeting
38 after which one of the members approached him to ask why the
39 City didn' t use tax increment funding to a greater extent. The
40 Mayor said- he told the questioner all the problems the City
41 has run into trying to set up this type of funding for
42 prospective businesses like CUB and SuperValue. The man was
43 referred to the City Manager for further information and that
44 discussion apparently convinced him .that tax increment
45 financing was not the safest route to pursue to get more
46 business for the City.
47
48 Mayor Ranallo indicated his State of the City address on cable
49 had also included information on tax increment financing and
50 no viewers had accepted his invitation to pursue the subject
51 further with City staff . As a matter of fact, in spite of
52 heavy coverage, of the talk prior to the telecast and the
53 repetition of the program seventeen times on cable, the Mayor
54 indicated he had heard from only five persons who had viewed
55 his presentation.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 5
4
5
6 B. City Manager Reports
7
8 Mr. Burt indicated that because the DNR had been slow in
9 getting necessary information back to the City, the hearing on
10 the Lake Ordinance could not be held until the June 23rd.
11
12 The Manager responded to questions related to changing the
13 speed limits near Gross Golf Course by telling the Council
14 staff had great concerns from a safety standpoint related to
15 pedestrian traffic and potential damage to boulevard trees if
16 that were done. He said drivers in that area on a regular
17 basis go off the road because they are watching the golfers
18 rather than the road. The Manager indicated the Police Chief
19 was also concerned that, since so many drivers reach speeds of
20 between 40 and 50 now, they might just drive even faster if
21 the limits are raised. Mr. Burt also pointed out that if
22 residents perceive the City changing the speed limits in this
23 area, they might figure limits could also be lowered on City
24 streets which would tend to bog down traffic all over the City.
25
26 City Manager Burt reported he was making slow progress in his
27 negotiations with Apache Management related to a definitive
28 plan for tax increment financing . He said he perceived a need
29 for further input before he proceeds with these negotiations
30 and suggested a lunch with the Mayor and legal counsel
31 following precedents set by the former mayor might be
32 helpful. Mr. Burt than indicated a "client/attorney" advisory
33 letter could be directed to the rest of the Council telling
34 them of any new tactics which might result from that meeting.
35 He was directed to schedule such a .luncheon meeting the
36 following week.
37
38 The City' s 1991 Audit had been distributed that day to the
39 Council and Stu Bonniwell, the City Auditor, urged
40 Councilmembers to contact Mr. Larson on any items on which
41 they had questions . Copies of Mr. Larson' s May 14 memorandum
42 and recommendations on "Unappropriated Fund Balances " with
43 supporting data had been included in the Council agenda .
44
45 Mr. -Bonniwell congratulated the City on a good year in spite
46 of cuts in state aid. He told Councilmember Marks he
47 perceived no outstanding procedural changes needed to be made
48 in the day-to-day accounting operations . His recommendations
49 related to the transfer of the funds in the debt service for
50 the 1968 Bond Fund into a capital projects fund as well as the
51 earmarking of funds to cover various employee compensation
52 funds will be addressed by staff recommendation at a later
53 date. The Auditor congratulated staff on the prudent handling
54 of $9, 000, 000 . 00 in cash investments for which the market
55 values all exceeded the costs, at least at this date.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 6
4
5
6 Mr. Bonniwell indicated he recalled the Council ' s intent of
7 letting the audit out for bids this year and thanked the Mayor
8 for telling him he had done an excellent job on the 1991 audit.
9
10 The agenda was suspended to take up the item under "A" NEW
11 BUSINESS.
12
13 IX NEW BUSINESS
14
15 A. Approval of City' s Insurance Carrier for 1992
16
17 Mark - Flaten of American Risk Services, Inc. , was present to
18 discuss the League of MN Cities insurance renewal proposals
19 for insurance coverage for the City from June 1, 1992-May 31,
20 1993 as discussed in the City Finance Director ' s May 21
21 memorandum to Mr. Burt which had been included in the
22 Council ' s agenda packet.
23
24 Mr. Flaten told the Council that the City had again "plowed
25 new ground" when he and Mr. Larson had met with the League of
26 MN Cities Insurance Trust Representative a year ago and the
'27 Finance Director had told him he had read someplace where
28 "lime yellow firetrucks were-easier- to see than-red-
29 firetrucks" . Mr. Larson' s suggestion that the League give a
30 discount for that color translated into a 10% discount on auto
31 liability for trucks of that color including St. Anthony' s .
32
33 Mr. Flaten drew attention to the City' s largest increase
34 which was for Workers Compensation. The decision to go to a
35 guaranteed cost rather than to a retroactive program proved to
36 be a wise decision he pointed out, because the City' s
37 experience this year was far worse than in prior years. The
38 Council agreed with staff that in view of anticipated
39 claims,the guaranteed cost program should be retained for
40 another year. Mr. Burt reported the City had established a
41 Safety Committee this year to work with the League' s Loss
42 Prevention Representatives in an attempt to decrease these
43 types of claims, especially for back injuries .Mr. Flaten
44 perceived an improvement in premiums for the next year due to
45 the League' s proposed deductible -program and legislative
46 action this year.
47
48 The insurance representative indicated attendance of City
49 liquor servers at the League training sessions for liquor
50 servers could result in a $5, 000 .00 cost saving for the City.
51 Mr. Flaten recommendations were accepted in the following:
52
53 Motion by Marks, seconded by Wagner to accept the League of
54 Minnesota Cities insurance proposal as recommended in the
55 Finance Director ' s May 21 memorandum to the City Manager.
56
57 Motion carried unanimously.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 7
4
5
6 VII CONTINUATION OF CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
7
8 Letter of Intent to Purchase Restaurant EQUipment
9
10 Mr. Burt' s May 18, 1992 Letter of Intent to the St. Anthony
11 Park State Bank had been duplicated in the agenda packet and
12 the City Manager discussed possible effects of the action on
13 the Stonehouse operation.
14
15 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve the Letter of
16 Intent to purchase restaurant equipment from Mannings
17 Restaurant as presented.
18
19 - Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 VII PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
22
23 X UNFINISHED BUSINESS
24
25 A. Approval of Ramsey County' s Reconstruction of Silver
26 Lake Road
27
28 Mr. Burt reported expressing to New Brighton officials St.
29 Anthony's concerns about reconstructing the roadway to
30 anything less than four lanes because of anticipated increases
31 of business at Apache Plaza. The Manager indicated he had
32 pointed out the City' s fears that the vehicular turning
33 accidents already being experienced on that roadway would only
34 be increased with sharp traffic count increases which will
35 surely follow from the type of businesses being considered for
36 Apache and all the new construction along New Brighton' s
37 section of Silver Lake Road.
38
39 Councilmember Marks reiterated that he personally always
40 philosophically opposed increasing traffic through residential.
41 areas but from the standpoint of supporting Apache Plaza had
42 come to accept that a four lane roadway was the only design
43 the City could support . The other Councilmembers agreed that
44 providing vehicular safety at intersections called for an
45 upgrading of the existing roadway with no changes in actual
46 road width except for turning lanes at intersections. St.
47 Anthony had already suffered similar intersection changes with
48 the upgrading of County Road D. It was also noted that the
49 reconstruction would be paid from federal monies in this
50 case.
51
52 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Fleming to approve the Ramsey
53 County reconstruction of Silver Lake Road as presented with
54 recognition that construction of a sidewalk on the west side
55 will depend on water flow approval by other governmental
56 agencies .
57
58 Motion carried unanimously.
1 Council Meeting
2 May 26, 1992
3 Page 8
4
5
6 B. Approval of Second Reading of Ordinance 1992 -003
7
8 Motion by Marks, seconded by Wagner to approve the second
9 Reading of the ordinance limiting the number of licenses at
10 any one establishment.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 RI ADJOURNMENT
15
16 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to adjourn the May 26,
17 1992 Council meeting at 8:49 p.m.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21
22 Respectfully submitted,
23
24
25
26
27 Helen Crowe, Acting Secretary
28 _.
29
30
31
32 Mayor Clarence Ranallo
33
34
35
36 ATTEST:
37 City Clerk