Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC PACKET 08272002
Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 102973 Box: 29 Folder: CC PACKETS 2001-2004 Document: CC PACKET 08272002 H.R.A. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. J CITY OF ST. ANTHONY J Our mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure. CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA August 27, 2002 7:00 PM Council Chambers Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, Discussion, and Possible Action on All of the Following Items: I. Approval of August 27, 2002 City Council Meeting Agenda. Action requested. II. Proclamations and Recognitions. III. Community Forum. Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct that the matter be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. IV. Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. A. Consider August 13, 2002 Council meeting minutes. (pp. 1 - 5) B. Consider licenses and permits. (pp. 6 - 7) C. Consider payment of claims. (pp. 8 - 13) D. Resolution 02-063, re: Amend Resolution 02-062 to approve additional member to the Facility Task Force. (pp. 14 - 15) V. Public Hearings - None. Page 2 VI. Reports From Commissions and Staff. A. Planning Commission report on August 20, 2002 meeting. (pp. 16 -23) 1. Ordinance 2002-002, re: Amendment to City Ordinance relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of garages in residential districts. 3"d reading. Action requested. (pp. 24 - 33) VII. General Policy Business of the Council. A. Presentation by Northwest Youth & Family Services. (p. 34) VIII. Reports From City Manager and Councilmembers. IX. Information and Announcements. X. Miscellaneous Informational Documents. XI. Adjournment. 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 4 5 August 13, 2002 6 7 CALL TO ORDER. 8 Mayor Hodson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 Mayor Hodson invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 Present: Mayor Hodson; Councilmembers Horst, Sparks, Thuesen, and Faust. 15 Absent: None. 16 Also Present: City Manager Mike Mornson. 17 18 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 19 ITEMS. 20 21 I. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 13, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 22 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Faust, to approve the City 23 Council Meeting Agenda of August 13, 2002. 24 25 Motion carried unanimously. 26 27 II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS. 28 None. 29 30 III. COMMUNITY FORUM. 31 Mayor Hodson invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items 32 that are not on the regular agenda. 33 34 Richard Schwaab, 2913 Northeast Stinson Boulevard,indicated that he lives on the Southeast 35 corner of the Old Village Cemetery between 27`h Avenue and Stinson Boulevard. He stated that 36 there has been standing water on the Southeast corner of the cemetery nearly all summer long 37 due to the great amount of rainfall-this season. 38 39 Schwaab stated that with the Blue Nile and encephalitis scare,he decided to contact the 40 maintenance supervisor and suggested that they dump some dirt in the area to bring up the level 41 and provide more ground surface to soak up the water. 42 43 He added that the maintenance supervisor suggested that one possible solution would be to run a 44 sewer line in the area, which is about a$10,000 cost. Schwaab felt that was unnecessary, and 45 that dumping dirt in the area should help the problem. 46 47 Mayor Hodson assured Schwaab that they would look into the problem. 48 2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 2 1 IV. CONSENT AGENDA. 2 1. Consider July 23, 2002 Council meeting minutes. 3 2. Consider licenses and permits. 4 3. Consider payment of claims. 5 4. Resolution 02-0060, re: Election judges for 2002 State Primary. 6 5. Resolution 02-061, re: Defer 2002 Street Improvement special assessment. 7 6. Ordinance 2002-003, re: Ground signs. (3rd readingl 8 7. Ordinance 2002-004, re: Candle manufacturing. Wd reading). 9 10 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Sparks, to approve the Consent 11 Agenda. 12 13 Motion carried unanimously. 14 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS. None. VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF. None. VII. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL. A. Resolution 02-059, re: Application for Livable Communities Demonstration Program. City Manager Mike Mornson reviewed the resolution with the Council. Mornson indicated that they were applying for 3.2 million dollars under the Livable Communities project for the Apache Plaza redevelopment project. He added that they were applying for 1.8 million dollars for sanitary sewer improvements for the project, as well as an abatement grant for which the Metropolitan Council has funding. Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Faust, to adopt Resolution 02-059, re: Application for Livable Communities Demonstration Program. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution 02-062 re: Establishing a Public Works/Fire Facility Task Fore and appointment of members. City Manager Michael Mornson reviewed the resolution with the Council. Mayor Hodson indicated that they had a significant number of interested residents in joining the task force. Mornson indicated that there are 18 members on the on the Task Force and that they are from varied areas of the community including the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, and new residents. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 3 August 13, 2002 Page 3 Momson stated that the Task Force would be meeting the first Tuesday of every month, beginning with September 3, 2002. Momson stated that there would be a tour of the Fire Station and the Public Works building, as well as a few other Fire Stations and Public Works buildings in other areas, on September 28, 2002 from 9:00 a.m. to noon in order for them to gain a flavor of how St. Anthony Village is compared to other communities. Mornson stated that the Task Force will be reviewing the options to consider after the tour at the October 1, 15 and November 5, 2002 meetings. Mornson indicated that they would be discussing how to finance the options at the November 5, 2002 meeting, with Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates. They plan to select an option at the December 3, 2002 meeting. Mornson stated that the final meeting of the Task Force is scheduled for January 7, 2002 where they will review the final option. Morrison stated that the Task Force would present the option to the Council at the January 14, 2002 City Council meeting. Mornson stated that, once the option gets to the Council, they plan to conduct a series of open houses. Councilmember Thuesen stated that he felt it was great to have such a large number of members on the Task Force,but cautioned that they be careful to all contribute, and not allow one or two persons to dominate the meetings. Councilmember Faust'stated that the members of the Task Force are going to have varying opinions on the project and that they need to understand that they are not going to agree on every issue, but need to discern what is best for the community. Councilmember Horst suggested that a City Councilmember be present to observe the Task Force meetings. Councilmember Sparks stated that she felt that City Council presence would have an influence over the process, and was not a good idea. Councilmember Thuesen stated that a councilmember could provide the Task Force with some information and clarification that they may not otherwise have. Mayor Hodson stated that City Council presence was a beneficial idea. Councilmember Faust and Thuesen both indicated that they felt that City Council presence at the Task Force meetings was a good idea. Councilmember Horst suggested that they have two councilmembers at the Task Force meetings. He added that he was uncomfortable turning the entire project over to the community, when the City Council has to make the ultimate decision. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 4 August 13, 2002 Page 4 Mayor Hodson stated that he felt that the Council, with the exception of Councilmember Sparks, was in favor of having City Council presence at each of the Task Force meetings. Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Sparks, adopting Resolution 02-062, re: Establishing a Public Works/Fire Facility Task Force and appointment of members. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBERS. City Manager Mike Morrison reviewed his report with the Council: • Financial Strategies adoption/September 10, 2002. • Update on Apache Plaza/September 10, 2002. • Update on Three Rivers Park master planning process. They plan on attending an upcoming Council meeting. • DNR Funding: City of St. Anthony will receive $740,000; 3 of the 44 cities received funding. • Liquor referendum on November 5, 2002 ballot. Regarding referendum, item will be on the Newsletter,mid to late September and a public forum will be held on October 21, 2002. • Due to State Primary Election, the September 10, 2002 City Council meeting will begin at 8:00 p.m. • The next work session is scheduled for October 1, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. • Monday, December 9, 2002 will be the last meeting of 2002, if we do not need a continuation meeting for Truth in Taxation purposes. • The next joint meeting of the School Board/City Council will be on October 29, 2002. • Update on LaNel Development: They are going to present a Concept Plan to the Planning Commission for the property at Kenzie Terrace at their October meeting. Councilmember Horst reiterated that,regarding Task Forces, it is important to have public input, as well as City official presence. He added that it was the responsibility of the Council to represent the true interest of the community. Councilmember Sparks requested a report from the Parks Commission, as she feels that there is a lot of interest on behalf of the community to know where the project is at this point. Councilmember Sparks indicated that National Night Out was very successful, as there were 25 block parties of which she made it to 7. Councilmember Sparks stated that the Community Theater was a great evening, filled with local talent. Councilmember Thuesen commended the Police and Fire Departments for their courage and dedication to the City of St. Anthony. Councilmember Thuesen stated that National Night Out was really a beneficial experience. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 5 August 13, 2002 Page 5 Councilmember Faust indicated that he felt it was important to articulate all that the Council has. done since the last Council meeting: met with the School Board, attended National Night Out, Councilmember Faust became ambassador to Salo, Finland. He reviewed the events of the visit with the Council which included a tour around the Metropolitan area, a golf tournament, and a flag raising ceremony. Councilmember Faust recognized the various other people that contributed to the success of the visit from Salo, Finland. Mayor Hodson stated that they had a great meeting last week, trying to fill some of the gap regarding the Northwest Quadrant project. He added that there will still be a lot of exploring of the issue, but it was very positive. Mayor Hodson also felt that National Night Out was a great success in the City of St. Anthony. He added that he felt that the Council really works well together, which was re-enforced during National Night Out. IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. None. X. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS. None. XI. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Horst, to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Seesz Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 6 Saint Anthony Village DATE August 27, 2002 Approval: TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Judy Monson, License Clerk ITEM: Licenses and Permits for Approval: Heating Contractors License: St. Paul Plumbing and Heating, St. Paul, MN Contractors License: Pyramid Sign, LTD., St. Paul, MN Motor Vehicle Starting License: Twin Cities Transport&Recovery, 3201 Stinson Boulevard Public Dance: Sponsored by St. Anthony Shopping Center/Fitness Crossroads September 14, 2002—Noon— 1 I:OOPM Location: Parking Lot of Shopping Center 7 flti www fitnesscrossroad.com OSSROAD 2912 Pentagon Drive• Minneapolis,MN 55418•Phone:6121788-1100 • Fax: 6121788-1010 Fnhancing your quality of life. August 20, 2002 City of St.Anthony Village Attn: Mike Morrison, City Manager 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony,MN 55418 Dear Mike: Collectively,the tenants of St.Anthony Shopping Center have been meeting to pursue bettering our shopping center environment. We have added flowers at the entrances to the center and will be working with our landlord on a more permanent,long-term beautification design. While building our"team", The Hitching Post and Fitness Crossroad have presented to the tenants an idea that we grow our individual customer appreciation celebrations to involve the whole'shopping center and invite the community to"Revisit The Village"to see what we are becoming. In developing this special event we have made it a full day of fun including a minimum of the following: • Inflatables for kids&adults, Magic Shows&Clowns,and a Petting Zoo • Competitions-volleyball in a 60'X 20' inflatable court, Golf, Basketball and Dunk Tank • Merchant sales and specials,Door Prizes • Live Music and dancing from noon until 11 p.m. along with an evening Bonfire (9-14-02) • Police&Fire Department involvement along with Kiwanis Passports • A Bonfire with marshmallow roasting I am writing to inform you of this event and also request a permit for a dance that evening in the parking lot. We are pursuing the proper permits for the bonfire and food, yet would appreciate any ideas, suggestions or requirements that you,the City Council or city personnel would have regarding this event. I am planning on delving into a little nostalgia about the shopping center and inviting prior tenants for somewhat of a reunion. I hope you will be able to attend for a bit(and maybe get wet in a dunk tank??). Please call me direct at 612-940-6594. 1 appreciate your support. Sincerely, I��2 Barry Tedlund 8 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE ,')8/:20/2002..,.- Og,: Check .Register GL540R-•Vfl6.40. PAGE ..._.. .._� CAl�►K VEaII}OR CHECK# f� 1TE .. AMOUNT =IRS BRE:MER BANK NA ---------- - 008471 ;'A.IRGAS 'NORTH 'CENTRAL. 18260 08/28/02 67..99. CkO8b2` ALLi4ldE M Ct1Ai�lICAL 18261 08/28/02 45E.50 008909-.' ARC;H'WIRELESS: 18262 08/28/02 30084• 004271 AT&T BROADBAND 18263 08/28/02 4.66 - 008255 AVAYA, INC . 19264 08/28/02 29 .32 008555 RIFFS, INC . 18265 08/28/02 547. 64 . 007168 ' BOYER FORD:.-TRUC KS; . INC . 18266 08/28/02 163:54 007.253 EsR04KE •;. cQUIPMENT WAREHo A9267 ' 56. 12 a::00 001 RIGCS= Ak lYl ML- RCAEy �650 00 .00002 CABLING SERVICES CORP. 18269 08/28/02 175.63-- _ .._._- 000610 CATCO CLUTCH & TRANS SVC 18270 08/28/02 23. 08 004065 CENTRAL LOCK & SAFE CO 18271 08/28/02 78.48 0 08544 CHAMPPS AMERICANS 18272 08/28/02 115 d£32 008577.. CITY. OF. ST. PAUL 18273 08 28;%02 901 :09 000 55 C:LAREY S -EQUIPMEN 1927.4 08,/2R/02 466. IG. 008915 COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPOR 18275 08/28/02 28.0 }- 005234 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT 18276 08/28/02 46. 10 000800 DAVIE:S WATER EQUIP CO. 18277 08/28/02 124. 14 'GO86: 6 . EASYLINK _SERVICES. CORPOR 18278 09/28102 101 .56 - ELAN .FTNANC.IAL SERVICES 18279 08/28:/02 61 .65 GOB 153 FIL:T'ERFRSt( 18280, 08/28/02 39.94 008221 FOSTER,WENT'ZELL,HEDBACK, 18281 08/28/02 5,000.00 008647 FRATTALLONE 'S HARDWARE 18282 08/28/02 60.38 001030 G & K SERVICES INC 18283 08/28/02 315.86 001.145 . GLE WOOD' INGLEWOOD. 18x84 08/28102. 99.00 001250 GRAINGER. iti[C/W W. . . A6285 081.28/02 171 . 12 008709 HALL/SUSAN: M.H. : 18286 '08128102, 21..05 .0000:3 HAML.INE UNIVERSITY 18287 08/28/02 1 ,298.00 005121 HARTMAN/JAY 18288 08/28/02 26.33 001420 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT 1.8289 08/28/02 199.52 U0, 76 rN;NE IN .CNTY SHER.IFF.'S 18290 06/28/02 99x005 1008252. HWIE Y DEPOT- GECF. 122171 081/26/02 348.65 001545 . . HOOVER: WHEEL: .ALIGNE'1ENT :. :. 18292 08/28/02 34e95 1 INTER-TEL L TECHNOLOGIES 18293 08/28/02 4.82. 1.2-- 001630 INTL UNION OF OPR ENGR 4 18294 08/28/02 600. 00 .00007 JOHNSON/RUTH 18295 08/28/02 3.88 00,7252 KATH FUEL L SERVIL 18.2%, 08/28!01 C-9.27 Of70142 KR EPLIN/C0NNIE' 18297 C)8/28/;02 58'.79 004 33 ' L.ICiIT .CE.RF(LEY .RISK SE is � `C)Sl2 d02 17 373.50 08254 LMCIT % BE:RKLEY ADMINIST i.8299 08/28/02 16,927.75 - 008229 LOFFLER ;BUSINESS SYSTEMS 18300 08/28/02 276.70 008855 MACRO GROUP, INC . 18301 08/28/02 320.00 00,7635 METROCAL_L_. 1830= 08/28/02 63.31 _.._. .. .00004 MICHAELS #3701 18303 08/28/02 34.61. 007308 MIDWEST SPECIALTY SALES 18304 08/28/02 . 13. 17 007131 MINI`IE:S0TA DEPT OF HEALTH 1.8305 08/28/02 ----2,948.00 008803 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICES 18306 08/28/02 135.07 008856 MINNESOTA NAHRO 18307 08/28/02 290.00 .3RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ST. ANTHON 9 )i3/270/2002 dSa CFoecr•: F?e g-inter GL54UR-Vd6a40. PAGE :'At�IK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT -IRS BREMER DANE( NA C�OBs41 M►-)NSON/JUDY 1808 C18/2t3/02 14 o ad - d� 2 MOTOROLA: C1 IS 09 Cie/28YO2 800.'00 f Jc�39=r ..,. C'Sl7• ISTRIBUT-ING, :.IttiG ;: 18310 :.09/28/02 4.9°.22 OO882O NORTHERN TRAFFIC SUPPLY, 18311 08/28/02 263.59 --- 008761. NRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS 1831 Oe/'2 8/0c' 152.50 001230 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC . 18313 08/28/02 136.4.0 .:00005. F&R .PRODUC TS 18314 08/26/02 . 72.95 Coe5.-e PACE 041%ALYTICAL. SERVICES `, iS,315 08/20/:0E 285100 dC�B 0 .` PEARSWN -,BROS 183.16 :09.)p-s/02 213.206.00. 008594 PETE:RBILT NORTH 18317 08/28/02 44.30 004492 GWEST 18318 08/28/02 29'7. 18 002380 RELIANT* ENERGY MINNEGASC 1.8319 08/28/02 1 ,632.9`.: SEH r'?C;I"i 16320 O8/28/0e. 217.80 '008008 : SF'? 18321 03/23/02 127.90 C1G ;694 : ,_ S7ANDARD 5F''rWo. 193 dl3fc8.!U%' 6 `.s2 5 008846 STANTON GROUP 18323 08/28/02 128,27 008757 STS CONSULTANTS LTD 18324 08/28/02 2,998.00 003260 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS 18325 08/28/02 34. 19 003907 TOUSLE- .F€1RD.. 18326 .OB/26/.02 '15 3.70) _ 008695 T,YJ'lN ,'C:IT.IE .TRANSP©RT AN T: Q8/28/02 Sb„77 Of13859 U-.S.. :' BANK. 18328. d8/28/02 221457.50 008010 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 18329 08/28/02 91 .d0-- - 008:336 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY 18330 O8/2 8/02 56.55 008561 UNITED RENTALS COMPANY 18331 03/28/02 121 .75 X400:06' VAHLE'/DA�rJI�k:_: ., 18332 08/28/02. 34•.4-[) G08.227 VE'RIZ'OW:.V41REE:ESS, BELLEV . 183333 d.S/26/02 Sri .838 C+0 6 C) :XCEL `ENERGY 193344 06/28/012 :14;6.30.49 BRE:MER BANK ILIA 1.2.0, 130.56 � � AP AP W; 4 T N W W LU LU 5 ,�-„ 4SS� 111 • -- 1 • • - - s Z z � , tA,a i x i trt-s� w.�E�'s'#� i ,, -o"trs rct�orP e ' C a' fl!rad 11 Voucher No. 10(Change Order#2) Date: August 21,2002 WSB Project No: 1065-26 Period Ending: August 21,2002 Project: 2000 Street&Utility Improvements Location: St.Anthony,MN Contractor: Barbarossa and Sons,Inc. PO Box 367 Osseo,MN 55369 Contract Date: Work Started: Completion Date: Work Completed: Original Contract Amount $2,049,838.66 Total Additions $108,853.25 Total Deductions ($1,776.00) Total Funds Encumbered $2,156,915.91 Total Work Certified to Date $2,293,303.48 Less Retained Percentage 0.00% $0.00 Less Previous Payments $2,233,696.48 Total Payments Incl.This Voucher $2,293,303.48 Balance Carried Forward ($136,387.57) Approved for Payment This Voucher $59,607.00 Approvals WSB&Associates,Inc. In accordance with field observation,as performed in accordance with industry standards,and based on our professional opinion,the materials installed are satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The total work estimated to be completed as of August 6,2002 is as indicated herein and we hereby recommend payment of this 106% voucher. Signed: AIA Signed: Construction Observer Project Manager/Engineer Barbarossa and Sons,Inc. This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge,information,and belief,the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher. Contractor: Signed: Date:. Title: City of St.Anthony Checked by: Approved for Payment: Authorized Representative Date, Date: F:WPWIN\1065-26 VouchersVO10-Cover 12 ft kzg u ° '' 2000 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ST.ANTHONY S.A.P.161-102-03 WSB PROJECT NO.1065-263 Owner: City of St.Anthony Date of Issuance: August 21,2002 Contractor: Barbarossa&Sons, Inc. Engineer. WSB&Associates, Inc. You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Document description: 1. Time and material expenses to adjust City utilities in and around fiber optics conduit. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Price: $2,049,838.66 Original Contract Time: October 1,2000 Previous Change Orders: No. 1 to 1: $47,470.25 Net Change from Previous Change Orders: None Contract Price Prior to This Change Order: $2,097,308.91 Contract Time Prior to This Change Order: October 1,2000 Net Increase of This Change�Order: $59,607.00 Net Increase of Change Order: None Contract Price With All Approved Change $2,156,915.91 Contract Time With Approved Change October 1,2000 Orders: Orders: Recommended By: Approved By: Todd E. Hubmer, P.E. WSB&Associates Inc. Barbarossa&Sons Inc. Engineer Contractor Approved By: Approved By: Date of Council Action: City Engineer City Administrator FAWPWIM1065-26ko-1 13 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ST. ANTHONY VILLAC:i 08/20/2002. 08-- Check Re;liSter : GL540R—V06.a40 PAGE BANK VENDOR Cf-1FCK## DATE AMOUNT LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING ACCOUNT 008621 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL 21032 08/28/02 7,058.—�0 004293 BEL_RGY CORP,. 21.033 08/28/02 782.81 :008827 BLiACKEY ';S BAKERY 210341 08/26/02 95.93 008814 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE 21035 08/28/02 34.08 008557 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES 21036 08/28/02 319.50 008437 DIRECTV 21037 08/28/02 39. 20 004'120 -EAGLE ,` WINE -CO. 21038. 09/28102 3,:609.�i6 .00001 E X_CEL E`:f\1E,RGY 2 039 02/2802 4,950.66 0.04175 &RE -I" bs c-GOP ER. & CO:: I1\1C .21040 it%/28/02 37,000.41 . 004201 HEGGIE:S PIZZA 21041 08/28/02 117.80 008252 HOME DEPOT-GECF 21042 08/28/02 52.38 008882 JANITORS CLEANING SERVIC _ 21043 08/28/02 5,009_.76 004920 JOHNSON BROTHERS L.:IQUOR 21044 .08/28/0: -- 15:,440.01 004230 KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO 21045 08/28/02 2,079.65 002040 LZLLIE SUBURBAN, NElyd-'PAPE 21046 08/2B/ 1/02 761 .00 008254 LMCIT % BE:RKLEY ADMINIST 21047 C)8/28/02 3,389.00 008671 MENGELKOCH CO. 2104F3 08/28/02 20.00 004.299 MPL.S. OXYGEN CO. 21049 08/28/02 10.56 004354 PAUSTIS & _SONS 21050 08/28/02 1 ,581 .?5 004360 PHILL".IPS .WINE & .SPIRITS 2105.1: .06/28/02 13,555.3C) C?04361 21053 08%28/02 4,562.887 008770 PORTER/WILLIAM 21053 08/28/02 67.00 004376 PRIOR WINE CO 21054 08/28/02 4,814. 10 004385 QUALITY WINE CO 21055 08/28/02 12,93:3.0 006219 QWEST_ DEX 21056...08/28/02 491 .5 008597 R D�; HANSON- `ASSOC . ,. , INC .. 21057108/28/02 123. 002380 RELIAntT:...ENE R'GY. MINNE-GASC 2 1.058 08/28/02 2.96_.62 008846 STANTON GROUP 21059 08/28/02 56. 4,, . 008880 STRATEGI EQUIPMENT 21060 08/28/02 166 .6st 008526 SUNRISE PARK INS AGENCY, 21061 08/28/02 9,321 .00 004480. . TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE 210622 08/28/02 117.70 00850.7.. US .FOODSERVICE. 2106.3 08/.28442 3,062.62 008888 VALPAK: -OF M,INNEAPO.LIS-�-ST 21064. 08128,/02. 1 ,525.00 003316 WINE COMPANY/THE 21065 08/28/02 1.84.00 008310 WINE_. MERCHANTS INC 21066 08/2e/02 278.72 0026BO XCEL ENERGY 21067 08/28/02 368. r.'3 LIQUOR CHECKING ACCOUNT 136,277.6' �+ := 14 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 02 - 063 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 02-062 WHEREAS, a letter from William S. Edwards, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, #113 indicating his interest in serving on the Public Works/Fire Facility Task Force has been received by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of St. Anthony, that William S. Edwards, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, #113 is hereby appointed to the list of members of the Public Works/Fire Facility Task Force. Adopted this day of 22002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 15 Sl�¢�iV/6io�r� `7-S /4 j37A -Ce Al. olfu 16 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 AUGUST 20, 2002 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11 12 H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 13 Chair Melsha invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 14 15 III. ROLL CALL. 16 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille, Commissioners Hanson, Hoska, 17 Steeves, Thomas, and Tillman. 18 19 Absent: None. 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Maria ger Sus all. 22 23 24 IV. PUBLIC INPUT. 25 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved "`ar with the agenda. 26 27 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. 28 Motion by Chair Melsha, secon cti sioner Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda as 29 presented. 30 31 Motion carried unanimously. 32 33 VI. MEETING MINUTES. 34 6.1 Review and Approve of the Planning_Commission meeting minutes of July 16 2002 35 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Steeves, to approve the 36 Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 16, 2002. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. 41 7.1 Designate'a.Planning Commission member to the City Council regular meeting of 42 August 27, 2002. 43 Chair Melsha,indicated that he is available to attend the next City Council meeting on 44 August 27, 2002. 45 17 1 Planning Commission 2 August 20, 2002 3 Page 2 4 -5 VIII. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 6 8.1 Review preliminary site plan for Business Data Record Services, 3015 37th Avenue 7 NE. 8 Susan Hall presented the preliminary plans for Business Data Record Services at 3015 9 37th Avenue NE. She noted that their plans call for demolition of four existing buildings 10 and construction of a new 40,000 s.f. building. Although not marked on the preliminary 11 site plan, the applicants may need a variance as they have mentioned a building height of 12 43-44 feet. Maximum building height in a Light Industrial zoning district is 35 feet. A 13 good example of what this will look like is Business Data Record Services, which was 14 recently constructed at 200 Old Highway 8 in New Brighton. That building stands 42 feet 15 in height. Mr. Cloutier stated his electronic storage business is growing and hence the 16 need for more space. 17 18 Hall advised that the City Engineer has asked that drainage be addressed so that the 19 runoff from the site goes to a water retentions ond. A new retention pond is shown on the 20 preliminary site plan. 21 22 Mark Murlowski, Chief Executive w% Beair Excavating, reviewed a history of this 23 property and stated they would like feedback from the Planning Commission and 24 recommendations to proceed wi "RIMS ext sE p. He explained they are an affiliate of 25 Berger Transfer, the original and nwner of the property, and the largest Allied 26 agent for household and commercia°goods in the nation. Their headquarters is in St. 27 Anthony and they have s .. .-pother s s as well. The St. Anthony facility was built in 28 the late 1950s, early 19609'., dathat several additions have occurred. 29 30 Jim White, architect : or theproject, stated they have completed preliminary planning of 31 this site. He reviewed us. s and buildings that surround this site and stated the project 32 would involve the demoliin of four single-story buildings (one being a walkout). He 33 stated Business Data Record Services has gradually been improving the appearance and 34 life/safety issues at the site. He reviewed several of those improvements which included 35 sprinkling the building and improving energy efficiency. 36 37 Mr. White noted the footprint of the new building, which would replace a 40-year-old 38 non-sprinkled building with a sprinkled, precast, maintenance-free building. He 39 displayed a picture of the building and photographs were handed out and reviewed by the 40 Planning Commissioners. 41 42 Mr. White stated the civil engineer has found the watershed criteria can be met and 43 preliminary discussions with them have occurred. He stated from grade to parapet it is 44 42 to 44 feet in height with the first four feet giving the truck dock height. Since the site 45 slopes from the south down 20 feet towards the railroad tracks on the north, the impact of 46 the building height from County Road D is minimal, probably four to six feet higher than 47 the current highest building on the site. Also, there is a small auto shop to the west that is 48 slightly higher than their highest building so this may be about the same height as that 49 building. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1S August 20, 2002 Page 3 1 2 Mr. White stated the benefits to St. Anthony are to improve overall appearance, 3 maintenance free materials, upgrading fire protection and energy efficiency, they expect 4 vehicle traffic will be dramatically reduced on Macalester Drive, and providing a new 5 detention pond to control run off. He stated they are requesting variances so they can 6 proceed and requested input from the Planning Commission. 7 8 Chair Melsha asked how much taller this building will be than those being removed. Mr. 9 White stated the buildings being demolished are about 25 feet in height. 10 11 Chair Melsha asked if the setback requirement is being met. Mr. Murlowski stated the 12 proposed setback allow this building to line up with the recently finished vault building 13 at five feet from Macalester Drive and County Road D. 14 15 Chair Melsha asked if that building needed a variance when it was constructed in 1972. 16 Mr. Murlowski stated it did not. Mr. White dted that building was upgraded about two 17 years ago and a variance was not required NNWlt time since the building footprint was 18 not changed. 19 20 Chair Melsha explained the need to sho" hardship in order to receive a variance. He 21 asked if there is a unique feature that-would t' , It in a hardship consideration. 22 "f 23 Mr. White stated it will consolidate, e business operation and provide space for storage 24 and aisles. 25 26 Mr. Murlowski stated th of y era ion is media and record storage as well as fine arts 27 storage. Thus the lay"ouf is° , Portant to maximize the volume that can be stored. 28 29 Chair Melsha explainedhat both variance requests need to meet that finding as well as to 30 maintain the characteristic 'of the neighborhood, which don't appear to be impacted due 31 to the building height. He asked if there can be a reasonable use of this property without. 32 the variance. 33 34 Thomas- stated if the 35-foot setback from Macalester Drive was required, there would 35 not be enough room for parking and the truck turning radius He noted there are 50 36 parking spaces and asked if that is for employees or visitors. 37 38 Mr. White stated there are 40 parking spaces, primarily for employees since there are few 39 visitors to this site. He stated that is adequate parking for their needs. 40 41 Hall stated that level of parking complies with the City's requirements for this type of 42 facility. 43 44 Chair Melsha asked what would happen to the feasibility of the project should the 45 buildings be required to comply with the Macalester Drive setback. 46 47 Mr. Murlowski stated they don't know for sure but do know they could not make a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 August 20, 2002 Page 4 1 proposal with a setback at 25 to 30 feet since the building would not contain enough 2 storage. 3 4 Vice Chair Stille asked what kind of inside improvements are being made. Mr. 5 Murlowski stated the buildings have steel rack storage, portions are climate controlled 6 (heated/cooled/moisture condition), and two dock areas for straight trucks are being 7 proposed. He explained there are high bay lighting, gas fired unit heaters, and very wide 8 aisles. For this user, the rack storage system works very well. 9 10 Vice Chair Stille stated he visited the site and did not notice a retention pond. Mr. White 11 stated that would be added as part of the project. 12 13 Vice Chair Stille asked if there will be a common wall. Mr. White stated that is correct 14 and two buildings would be joined with a common wall. 15 � 16 Vice Chair Stille addressed the issue of finAt'ng a hardship and asked the applicant to 17 provide information about the characteristi fvhu. site that would make it unique. 18 19 Steeves recommended they obtain any plicatioNfo fr om City staff so they can begin 20 to work on those issues. 21 22 Mr. White noted the pie-shaped co r restricts the area to the north. 23 24 Thomas asked if there wild veget"" on around the retainage ponds. Mr. Murlowski 25 stated there is not mu c N a bu they will be presenting a landscaping plan that 26 provides some planting, noted that area will also be fenced off. 27 28 Chair Melsha thanke a ap£''hcants for providing this information in advance. 29 30 Mr. Murlowski stated they also appreciate the opportunity to present these preliminary 31 plans and will submit a formal application for the September Planning Commission 32 meeting. 33 34 8.2 Review survey information and make recommendation to City Council re: amendment to 35 City ordinance relating to the definition of "garage" and "accessory building;" and to 36 regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ration (FAR) 'in residential 37 districts. 38 Susan Hall explained this is continuation of a discussion regarding the amendment 39 relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of 40 garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts. City staff has 41 researched area metropolitan municipalities, with the help of e-mail, on the subject and 42 provided that report for the Commission's review. 43 44 Hall explained the issues she researched and stated that.staff found cities handle the 45 "mass" issue in a number of ways. A couple of cities contacted use FAR, like St. 46 Anthony. Arden Hills has a FAR of 30%; Roseville has a 30% FAR in R-1 and 40% 47 FAR in R-2. Most cities contacted do not have FAR, but rather use lot coverage, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ZO August 20, 2002 Page 5 1 setbacks, height, maximum garage square footages, to regulate building size. Lot 2 coverage of 25-35% and building height of 25-30 feet are common among the cities 3 surveyed. Some cities surveyed have gone through a similar dialogue as St. Anthony.,_.. 4 Hall explained that generally, it was found that most cities limit the size of accessory 5 buildings and garages in some way. 6 7 Chair Melsha thanked Ms. Hall for her work to research these issues. He noted that St. 8 Anthony does not limit the size of detached accessory buildings except by setback and 9 FAR. 10 11 Thomas asked if the Council received a recommendation from Dahlgren Shardlow Uha.n 12 (DSU). 13 14 Hoska stated the Council wanted to go from the DSU ideas and asked the Planning 15 Commission to review staff research information so an informed recommendation could A 16 be made. He advised that the Mayor also mentioned the information provided by the 17 League of Minnesota Cities. Hoska thank , -i"Hall for her work as well. 18 19 Hall reviewed how she conducted thiesear h an stated she can do additional research 20 if so directed. 21 22 Chair Melsha stated it seems then, i4tssues to address: 1) does FAR need to be 23 adjusted; and, 2) should St. Antho =have a design review board. He suggested the 24 Planning Commission corn..���: a re endation on whether the proposed ordinance 25 should be amended an d n e erest to research whether a design review board 26 should be formed in tub; air Melsha suggested the issue of the design review 27 board not delay the re the ordinance. 28 29 Vice Chair Stille concurs ._ .end suggested that a subcommittee be established to address 30 the issues related to a desi review board. He noted the amendment to the ordinance is 31 due to the ambiguity in the way the current ordinance is written. He stated he does not 32 know if the FAR is right but it at least corrects the issue of the ordinance not being clear. 33 Vice Chair Stille noted he and Hanson have been on the Planning Commission for four 34 years and this is the first time this issue has been raised. 35 36 Chair Melsha agreed this is not an epidemic and the Planning Commission needs to keep 37 the focus on the issue. 38 39 Vice Chair Stille stated he supports recommending the Council move forward with the 40 third reading. 41 42 Chair Melsha stated garages of up to 1,000 square feet are now going to be excluded in 43 the FAR whether attached or detached. If over that size, it would be included in the FAR 44 calculation. 45 46 Tillman noted that the FAR will limit the amount of second-story space and commented 47 on the impact to the floor area ratio. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Zl August 20, 2002 Page 6 1 Thomas stated a speaker at the last meeting made a good point that if you exclude living 2 space above an attached garage, it allows people to build a saltbox on top of their garage, 3 which may not be very aesthetically pleasing or acceptable to the neighbors. He stated he 4 supports allowing living space above attached garages and attics to allow homeowners 5 the ability to increase their living space without having to move, consider demolishing 6 the home, or covering more of the lot. He agreed with the need for further study since it 7 could be more sophisticated and address smaller lot uses without penalizing them since 8 they may have reached their maximum floor ratio. 9 10 Chair Melsha asked the Planning Commissioners whether they are comfortable with 11 recommending the Council move forward with third reading. 12 13 Thomas asked if the current proposal excludes living spaces above garages. 14 15 Chair Melsha explained that garages of up t, 1,000 square feet are now going to be 16 excluded in the FAR whether attached or detached. If over that size, it would be included 17 in the FAR calculation. 18 19 Hall stated it will add more square foq , e to he F 20 21 Thomas stated the Council min .Vs mention anguage recommended by the Building 22 Inspector. Hall stated she has not seem,.anguage. 23 24 Chair Melsha noted the prop sed 1 gaage is not inconsistent with what other cities are 25 doing. 26 ' 27 Hall stated if this is appro Mun Brama case would be conforming. She advised that 28 building permit is ohold 1 the ordinance readings are completed and the ordinance 29 approved. 30 31 Tillman stated she agrees with recommending the Council move ahead with the third 32 reading since having to count detached but not attached square footage does not seem to 33 be fair. 34 35 Chair Melsha stated he would also be comfortable with recommending the City Council 36 approve third reading with no other changes to the ordinance. 37 38 Thomas stated he would not mind seeing the recommendation of the Building Inspector. 39 Hall stated the Building Inspector did not recommend any changes. 40 41 Tillman stated the current regulation, as written, is not very clear. 42 43 Chair Melsha stated it appears to be the consensus of the Planning Commission to 44 recommend the City Council move forward with third reading of the ordinance with no 45 further amendment. 46 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes �� August 20, 2002 Page 7 1 Chair Melsha next addressed the issue of further study of a design review board. He 2 stated that he would support forming a subcommittee to address that issue. 3 4 Tillman stated that it makes her nervous to consider having a design review board since it 5 is very difficult to regulate "taste" and while some may think the appearance is pleasing, 6 another may not. She stated that the regulations must be "black and white so it is easily 7 understood if the proposal meets or does not meet the Code. 8 9 Steeves stated in the City of Minneapolis, a 45-day neighborhood review period is 10 required. He explained that often times staff attends the meetings and sees neighbors 11 trying to redesign the applicant's house on the spot. He commented on the problems that 12 can occur with a neighborhood review board. 13 14 Thomas noted that St. Anthony is made up of a whole array of housing styles and 15 different neighborhoods. He suggested that if someone tried to tear down one of the 16 Tudors on St. Anthony Parkway, there would--be objections from the neighborhood. He 17 noted that while he agrees it can get pickneghborhood input may be considered the 18 price of democracy. 19 20 Steeves stated the difference comes iu '' someone acquires and develops the lot 21 privately. Then to bring in a design revR- process seems to him to be somewhat 22 onerous or an exercise that is pro b .1ian productive if not a requirement and just 23 a suggestion. 24 25 Tillman stated there are fial markel essures that come to bear since it is not good to 26 have the largest and bes e neighborhood since it sometimes does not retain its 27 value. 28 29 Vice Chair Stille sugd the Planning Commission further study the information 30 provided by staff and discuss whether this process would be applicable in St. Anthony. 31 He noted the design review process may be an avenue to protect some of the 32 neighborhoods in St. Anthony. 33 34 Chair Melsha stated he is not at the point where he is comfortable telling a private 35 homeowner how their house should look and, perhaps, the recommendation to the City 36 Council should be to gather information about the process for review and discussion at 37 the next meeting about whether the Council should take that process further. He stated 38 the Council's meeting minutes do not make clear whether the Council supports the 39 formation of a design review board. 40 41 Thomas stated he thinks there is value in encouraging someone who is renovating a 42 property to talk to their neighbors to get their input. He noted that large renovation 43 projects can impact sunlight or be imposing to adjacent buildings. He stated he would 44 urge them to talk to their neighbors prior to a substantial rehab that impacts other 45 property values. 46 47 Chair Melsha concurred that would be the neighborly thing to do. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 20, 2002 23 Page 8 1 Planning Commission consensus was reached to further research a design review board 2 process. 3 4 8.3 Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Update. 5 Susan Hall reviewed the report from Jim Prosser to update the City on what is happening 6 with the Apache redevelopment project. She stated this report is also posted on the City's 7 website. Hall advised they are identifying revenues sources and land activities. She 8 stated that there will be another public involvement process later in the year and work has 9 started on preliminary designs. Hall stated she has heard they want to start this project in 10 2003 but to meet that timeline, the process needs to start in October or November of 11 2002. 12 13 Chair Melsha asked if Culvers Restaurant has purchased the Exhaust Pros property. Hall 14 stated they have not yet reached a purchase agreement but are still working on it. She 15 stated she has not seen further final plans from, ulvers. 16 17 IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 18 Commissioner Hanson advised that on Septemer 14 a St. Anthony Shopping Center and 19 Hitching Post area businesses will be having a�illager App eciation Day from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 20 He advised of the activities that will take play', Hanson reviewed the improvements and 21 landscaping that has occurred to improvethe a pear' a and reported that a hair cutting business 22 will be opening shortly. 23 24 Chair Melsha noted the informatioi`telude the meeting packet about the forum on first ring 25 suburbs scheduled for Mondays ptember� in Richfield. He stated he will attend that 26 symposium by Myron Orfield. 27 ,. 28 X. ADJOURNMENT. 29 Motion by Commissioner Thorns cond by Commissioner Steeves, to adjourn the meeting at 30 7:58 p.m. 31 32 Motion carried unanimously. 33 . 34 Respectfully submitted, 35 36 Carla Wirth 37 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 38 24 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2002-002 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FLOOR AREA RATIO AND GARAGE/ ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; AMENDING SECTION 1605, SUBDS. 1; 31; AND 33 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. The St. Anthony City Code is hereby amended to clarify definitions in Section 1605, Subds. 1; 31; and 33 as follows: Subd. 1. Accessory Building. A separate building or structure or a portion of a principal building or structure used for accessory uses. Subd. 31. Floor Area Ratio. The ratio of the maximum permitted floor area of the principal building or buildings to the area of the lot on which they are located or to be located. The maximum allowable floor area on a lot is determined by multiplying the lot area by the floor area ratio. The garage is not included in determining the floor area ratio as it is considered an accessory building in residential areas. Subd. 33. Garaize. An accessory building or portion of a principal building which is principally used for the storage of motor vehicles owned by occupants of the principal building. Garages cannot be larger than the principal structure or be more than 1,000 square feet in size in R1, RIA, and R2 zoned property. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective as of the date of its publication. First Reading: June 25, 2002 Second Reading: July 23, 2002 Adopted: August 27, 2002 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Publish: St. Anthony Bulletin 25 MEMORANDUM DATE: 08/21/02 TO: Mayor Hodson and Council members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Amendment relating to the definition of "garage" and "accessory building" in relation to the FAR and to regulate the size of garages On August 20, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the discussion on the subject. In summary, the commissioners recommended the City Council move ahead with the third reading of the amendment on August 27, 2002, given the information obtained from the survey of other municipalities in the metro area. In addition, the amendment clears up ambiguous language. The amendment means that garage and accessory building square footages are excluded from the .30 FAR calculations in the R-1 and R-2 residential districts. A garage cannot be larger than 1000 square feet. For the principal structure, the change will allow for more square footage. 26 MEMORANDUM DATE: 08/12/02 MEETING DATE: 08/20/02 TO: Chair Melsha & Planning Commission Members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manage SUBJECT: Discuss amendment relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" in relation to the FAR and to regulate the size of garages Background: This is continuation of a discussion regarding the amendment relating to the definition of "garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts. City staff has researched area metropolitan municipalities on the subject. Please find the report attached. In summary, staff found cities handle the "mass" issue in a number of ways. A couple of cities contacted use FAR, like St. Anthony. Arden Hills has a FAR of 30%; Roseville has a 30% FAR in R-1 and 40% FAR in R-2. Most cities contacted do not have FAR, but rather use lot coverage, setbacks, height, maximum garage square footages, to regulate building size. Lot coverage of 25-35% and building height of 25-30 feet are common among the cities surveyed. Some cities surveyed, like Golden Valley and Shoreview, have gone through a similar dialogue as St. Anthony. Generally, it was found that most cities limit the size of accessory buildings and garages. In Arden Hills, if the garage is attached it is included in the FAR. If it is detached, it is not included in the FAR and is classified as an accessory structure, which are limited to 728 square feet. In Golden Valley, Columbia Heights, and New Brighton, all accessory structures (attached and detached) cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. Robbinsdale and Hopkins have a sliding scale/ratio for garage size based on lot size or zoning. New Brighton and Robbinsdale both mentioned unique review processes. In New Brighton, all garages between 400 and 1000 square feet go through a special permit process. In Robbinsdale, most R-1 and R-2 requests go through a CUP process and in that look at coverage, design, etc. In both cases, there is more review and oversight. Most cites, when asked if they have a design review board responded "no." If cities do have something in place, it functions more like a development review committee, a subcommittee comprised mostly of city staff and in some cases, Planning Commissioners like New Hope. Many of the cities reported design review boards for commercial and multi-family zoned properties, rather than residential. One city staff in a core city commented, "How restrictive do you want to be? We're trying to encourage reinvestment and not put too many stipulations or hoops for residents." There were a couple of other cities whose staff said something similar. 27 Staff Recommendation: Please be prepared to discuss the attached information and offer direction and/or a recommendation to the City Council on August 27. One recommendation to consider is the City Council could hold off on the 3`" reading until September if more time is needed for review and comment. i City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 28 July 23, 2002 Page 3 1 2 2. Ordinance 2002-002.re: Amendment to City Ordinance relating to the definition of 3 "garage"and"accessory building"and to regulate the size of garages in 4 residential districts. 2"d readins. 5 Planning Commissioner Hoska stated that the Commission wanted to gather the 6 necessary information to make an informed recommendation. He added that city 7 staff would contact other cities of similar size and stature and explore their City 8 Ordinance relating to the definition of"garage"and"accessory building." 9 10 Hoska stated that they recommended that the Council postpone the 2"d reading. 11 12 Councilmember Horst stated that there are two issues at.hand: the definition of 13 "garage"and "accessory building", and the ratio of square footage to lot size. He 14 added that he felt it was something that needed to be discussed at length, and that 15 they probably should postpone the 2"d reading. 16 17 Councilmember Faust suggested that they go forward with the 2"d reading, and, if 18 necessary, put the 3'reading on hold. 19 20 Councilmember Sparks stated that the larger of the two issues is deciding if they 21 should regulate the size of houses. She stated that she felt that they should define 22 "garage"and"accessory building",but the other issue needs a lot more time, energy 23 and research. _ 24 25 Mayor Hodson agreed that there were two issues at hand. He added that he felt that 26 Planning Commissioner Vice Chair Stille made a great suggestion that they look into 27 comprising a Design Review Board. He suggested the city approach DSU and see 28 what they recommend for the City of St. Anthony as related to a Design Review 29 Board. 30 31 Councilmember Thuesen agreed with Mayor Hodson's suggestion to approach DSU 32 regarding a Design Review Board. 33 34 Councilmember Faust stated that he felt that having the Planning Commission go 35 back over the issue is not the best solution, as he felt that the Council was not clear on 36 what they were expecting from the Planning Commission. He suggested that both the 37 City Council and the Planning Commission discuss the issue further, and then take 38 things from there. 39 40 Councilmember Faust indicated that they could get the necessary information 41 regarding a Design Review Board from the League of Minnesota Cities,rather than 42 DSU. 43 44 Mayor Hodson suggested that they proceed with the 2"d reading and stated that it does 45 not clear up the issue of architectural design standards. 46 Mayor Hodson asked Mike Mornson to see what information was available regarding 47 a Design Review Board from the League of Minnesota Cities. 48 I City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 29 July 23, 2002 Page 4 1 Councilmember Sparks wanted to clarify what it was that they wanted the Planning 2 Commission to research. She asked if the need more information in the defining of 3 "garage"and "accessory building". 4 5 It was determined that the planning Commission would research the Floor Area Ratio 6 (FAR) in other communities. 7 8 Morrison read some language that was recommended by the building inspector that is 9 working on the home on Downers Drive. 10. 11 Councilmember Thuesen stated that he would like to see what other communities are 12 doing. 13 14 Councilmember Sparks suggested that they discuss the idea of a Design Review 15 Board at a study session. 16 17 Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Sparks, to pass the 2"d 18 reading of Ordinance 2002-003. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously-. 21 22 B. Ordinance 2002-003. re: Amendment to City Ordinance regulating the placement of 23 ground signs. 2nd reading: 24 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Horst, to pass'the 2nd 25 reading of Ordinance 2002-003. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28 29 C. Ordinance 2002-004, re: Amendment to City Ordinance to delete Section relating to wax 30 in the production of candles and the production of home fragrance products as a 31 manufacturing permitted use in the Light Industrial district 2"d reading 32 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to pass the 2nd 33 reading of Ordinance 2002-004. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously-. 36 37 VII. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL. 38 A. Resolution 02-056. re: Receive report and order plans and specifications for proposed 39 2003 street improvement proiect. Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates Inc will be 40 present. 41 Todd Hubmer, WSB, came forward to review the report,plans and specifications for the 42 proposed 2003 street improvement project. 43 44 Hubmer stated that the project was initiated through the recognition of the following 45 conditions in the project area: 46 • Deterioration of street conditions. 47 •. Reoccurring water main breaks in the project limits. 30 SURVEY OF METROPOLITAN CITIES: FAR, GARAGE,DESIGN GUIDELINES JULY 2002 city Zoning Requirements Edina Does not have a FAR limit in R-1 or R-2. Building mass is limited by lot coverage (25%) and height maximum (30 feet). Does not have a design review board; staff said, "hope they never do, but it has been discussed from time to time." White Bear Lake Does not use FAR. They use setbacks and 30%impervious surface limit in the city's shoreland districts to limit mass. The maximum for garage is 1000 square feet or the footprint of the house, which ever is smaller. They do not have a design review board. Arden Hills FAR is R-1 and R-2 is 30%. If the garage is attached, this is included. If it is detached, it is not included and is classified as an accessory structure. Accessory structures are limited to a total of 728 square feet. Attached garages are considered a part of the principal structure. They do not have a design review board. Richfield Does not use FAR calculations for residential districts, but instead uses maximum height(25 feet) and maximum lot coverage (35%) limits. Does not have a design review board. Their staff conducts design guidelines and Planning Commission reviews/modifies. But in staff s opinion, there is not very strong/clear/tight design guidelines in any city codes or adopted policies/documents and so they are limited in how much they can demand. St. Louis Park In R-1 and R-2, height(30 feet) and ground floor area (.30) are limited, with attached garages included in this. The ground floor area is considered the building footprint. They also include detached garages that are over 12 feet in height to the midpoint of the gable; the total area of detached garages and other accessory buildings are limited to 800 square feet and no more than 25% of the rear yard area. No design review board; staff oversees design factors and the CC can appeal. Roseville R-1 FAR is .3 and in R-2 it is .4. Also have a maximum impervious surface coverage of.30. All structures are counted detached, attached, sidewalk, driveway, etc. As for maximum size on a garage it vanes depending on factors - lot size, size of principal structure, rear yard area, and existing versus proposed accessory structures (attached and detached)---see code attached. Roseville has a design review board. It is referred to as the Development Review Committee. 31 Crystal Does not have a FAR standard; 30%rear yard structure coverage which means no more than 30% of the rear yard may be covered by accessory structures, including: sheds, detached garages, patios, sidewalks, porches, decks and landings, driveways, swimming pools, and accessory parking spaces. The total square footage of all accessory structures may not exceed the main floor square footage of the principal residential structure. They have a development review committee, although"committee"means a range of city staffers which meets when a conditional use permit or site plan request warrants a meeting. The discussions at the meeting form a basis for the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. Golden Valley Does not have a floor area ratio or lot coverage/maximum impervious surface requirement in the residential zoning districts. Houses and accessory buildings only have to meet the standard setback requirements. Have discussed adding this requirement. There is a mix of feelings on this issue. Generally, the City likes to encourage people to add to their homes and stay in Golden Valley but there are some that complain there is too much home on some small lots. Although not in the zoning code, total garage space (detached and attached) is 1000 sq. ft. They do not have a design review board; however, they have a Building Board of Review. The BBR is advisory to the Building Official and has no "official' duties, other than to review and approve landscape plans. Shoreview Looked at using a FAR standard a few years ago on residential lots that didn't meet our area or dimension requirements for lakefront properties. These lots were pretty narrow and the small old lake cabins were getting replaced with much larger homes that seemed to dwarf the surrounding properties. Had a lot of discussion about how to measure floor area, decided that although the concept was a good one, implementation and enforcement was going to be very difficult. Ended up trying to control mass through a combination of setbacks (to define the buildable area), lot coverage (all impervious surfaces), foundation area restrictions (building area) and a strict height standard. Lot coverage is restricted to 25% of the lot size, foundation area to 18%of the lot size and height to 28 feet from high point to low point. Foundation area includes all roofed structures (including covered porches or decks since they contribute to the visual mass) except for detached accessory structures less than 150 sf. These standards have been effective at controlling building mass. The height standard has probably been the most effective. The Planning Commission conducts what they call "residential design review."It is not a subjective process; once the applicant demonstrates they meet standards,they are a roved. 32 New Brighton Does not have FAR specifically defined. Has'a building coverage ratio of 30%in R-1 that they consider similarly, which includes the principal and attached garage (but not detached garage). There is a minimum of 10,000-lot size. R-1 impervious surface is 50%. All accessory structures (attached and detached)may not exceed 1000 square feet. All garages between 400 and 1000 square feet go through a special permit process. Height limit in R-1: 30 feet or 2 '/2 stories, whichever is less. No design review board. All formal applications go through a development review process, which includes review of plans by engineering, fire marshal, police, Tanning, etc. They look at design but it's pretty informal. Columbia Heights No FAR, has a building lot coverage, which includes principal structure and accessory buildings. In R-1, 30%on lots greater than 6500 square feet and 35% on lots less than 6500 square feet. Garages/accessory structures, all combined,may not exceed 1000 square feet. Height limit in R-1 and R-2 is 28 feet. No design review board. Hopkins Does not have a FAR for residential structures. Has a maximum building coverage of 35%. Garages can be a percentage of the lot depending on the zoning district. They range from 12 percent to 8 percent. The 35 percent includes garages. They do not have a design review board. Fridley Does not have FAR. In R-1 and R-2, has a 25% lot coverage ratio, which includes the principal building, garage, and accessory buildings. Height limit is 30 feet. The first accessory structure cannot be larger than the principal structure or larger than 1,000 square feet.No design review board. Robbinsdale Does not use FAR technically; however, most R-1 and R-2 requests go through a CUP process and in that look at the coverage. The front, side and rear yard setbacks limit coverage because most Robbinsdale lots are small. The garage size is limited by a sliding scale, based on lot size(see code attached). They do not have a design review board. Brooklyn Center There are no lot coverage requirements or maximums in the ordinance. The total ground coverage of garage,or garages, may not exceed the ground coverage of the house. No more than two garages or accessory buildings are allowed. They do not have a design review board for one or two family dwellings. 33 Little Canada Does not have FAR in R-1 and R-2 residential districts. The City does impose a maximum garage requirement. Each dwelling unit it permitted one garage building (attached or detached),with a maximum square footage of 1,000 square feet. By conditional use permit, a single family unit may get approval for one more building, or build up to 1,500 square feet. These CUPs are usually considered where a property owner has a significantly over-sized lot. West St. Paul Does not have FAR,just setbacks for residential lots. Garage not included, different setback. New Hope No FAR; however,have a maximum of 65 % impervious surface coverage,which includes the buildings,parking, etc.In other words, leaving 35% green space. In R-1 or R-2, there is a maximum of 1400 square feet for accessory buildings/garage. The main garage cannot exceed 1000 square feet. A detached garage cannot exceed 15 feet high and storage sheds cannot exceed 12 feet high. The City has a design review board, which consists of the subcommittee of the Planning Commission and city staff. Northwest Youth 34 1 � & Family Services 3490 Lexington Avenue North, Suite 205 • Shoreview, MN 55126 • Phone (651) 486-3808 • Fax (651) 486-3858 August.7, 2002 Michael Mornson 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Dear Michael: As part of our efforts to keep you informed about the services being provided by Northwest Youth and Family Services to the residents of St. Anthony, I would welcome the opportunity to attend an upcoming council meeting and present current information to you. - The presentation would take about 15 minutes and would simply be intended to inform you as to how your dollars are being utilized by your residents. This year, for example, your city contribution of$3,500 has provided 971 hours of services through our mental health, diversion and youth employment programs. The value of these services is actually$32,530. As you can tell by just these figures, you are getting a great return on your dollars. As you suggested,the August 27h council meeting might work for such a presentation. Please let me know if this fits with your schedule, or if another date would be preferable. Sincerely, Kay Z. Andrews, LICSW Executive Director KZA/jw August 21, 2002 'n tho ilia a FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Meeting Date Meeting Type Staff Present Items/Issues September 10 Regular Begin at 8:00 pm- Primary Election Res. Adopt 2003 levy Update on Apache Plaza redevelopment Update on financial strategies-Prosser present Ord. on fees(l'reading) Parks update by C. Jindra September 24 Regular Planning Commission report- 9/17 Ord. on fees(2°d reading) October 1 Work Session October 8 Regular Ord. on fees(3`d reading) October 22 Regular Planning Commission report- 10/15 November 12 Regular Canvass 1115 special election November 26 Regular Planning Commission- 11/19 December 9 Regular Truth in taxation (possibly last meeting of the year) December 19 (if needed) Continuation of Truth in taxation INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO: 07/31/2002 Interest Date BREMER:ST ANTHONY BANK Rate Purchased Maturi Book Value INVESTMENT DEMAND-MONEY MARKET SAVINGS 1.85% 1 DAY LIQUIDITY(SWEEP) $119,672.08 4/M GENERAL $275,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMMERCIAL PAPER 1.65% 05/21/02 09/24/02 $273,440.75 $582,000 MORT NET TRUST PLUS COMMERCIAL PAPER 1.63% 07130/02 10/21/02 $579,853.07 $1,400,000 FHLMC MEDIUM NOTE-ZERO COUPON 7.00% 08/09/01 08/27/31 $134,373.51 $ 500,000 FHLB MEDIUM NOTE-ZERO COUPON 7.325% 05113/02 03/26/18 $159,895.00 $1,147,562.33 41M ARMY-WATER FILTRATION $100,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-STEP UP 6.00% 02/03/99 02/24/14 $100,000.00 $200,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-STEP UP 6.00% 03/03/99 03/03/14 $200,000.00 $100,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-STEP UP 6.46% 05/12/99 01/08/08 $100,000.00 $200,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-COUPON 6.00% 11/01/01 11/28/16 $20.0,000.00 $800,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK-ZERO COUPON 7.00% 01/12199 01/28/19 $202,057.98 $500,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK-ZERO COUPON 6.20% 01/12/99 01/28/19 $126,286.24 $500,000 FMNA MEDIUM NOTE-ZERO COUPON 7.00% 06/12/99 03/23/18 $146,062.50 $1,225,000 FED HOME LONE BANK-ZERO COUPON 7.00% 09/24/01 10/18/21 $309,401.28 $1,250,000 FED HOME LONE BANK-ZERO COUPON 7.00% 11/07/01 02/22/29 $191,662.50 $408,000 NEW CENTER ASSET COMM PAPER PARKS 1.65% 06/14/02 10/21/02 $405,631.56 $444,000 MORT NET TRUST PLUS COMM PAPER PARKS 1.63% 07130/02 11/20/02 $441,756.20 $2,422,858.26 DAIN RAUSCHER-GENERAL GNMA POOL 4734 8.50% 02101f75 01/15/05 $170.25 GNMA POOL 6472 7.50% 07/01(75 07/15/05 $797.67 GNMA POOL 14376 7.50% 03/01/77 03/15/07 $1,433.88 GNMA POOL 23364 9.00% 09/01/78 09/15/08 $663.02 GNMA POOL 23356 9.00% 11/01/78 11/15/08 $1,590.36 $670,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG-ZERO COUPON 7.150% 01/22/02 02/22/29 $99,948.90 $100,000 FNMA MEDIUM TERM NOTE 6.00% 07/25/02 07125/22 $100,000.00 $402,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMM PAPER PARKS 1.744% 07112102 11/15/02 $399,599.03 $503,000 AMERICAN EXPRESS COMM PAPER 1.747% 07112102 12/15/02 $499,253.88 $51,000 BLUEBONNET SAV BANK C/D 1.550% 05/22/02 08/21/02 $51,000.00 $100,000 CUSTODIAL TRUST NJ C/D 1.500% 05/22/02 08/22/02 $100,000.00 $100,000 ALAMANCE NATIONAL C/D 1.600% 05/22/02 08/22/02 $100,000.00 $100,000 PROVIDENT BANK C/D-STEPIUP 5.000% 05/30/02 05/30/17 $100,000.00 $1,454,456.99 DAIN RAUSCHER-HONEYWELL $100,000 FHLMC-ZERO COUPON BOND 8.00% 12/15/99 03/08129 $10,105.00 $130,000 FNMA-ZERO COUPON BOND 8.30% 06/01/00 08/02/18 $29,555.30 $360,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMM PAPER - PARKS 1.764% 05/28/02 09/17/02 $358,067.84 $200,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-STEP UP 6.00% 03/03/99 03/03/14 $200,000.00 $200,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-STEP UP 6.00% 07/15/99 02/24/14 $194,180.00 $200,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP-6.25% 6.25% 12/18101 12/27/16 $200,000.00 $95,000 FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP-6.00% 6.00% 12/28/01 01/17/17 $95,000.00 $1,086,908.14 DEAN WITTER $500,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK CALLABLE 6.00% 10/29/98 08/20/18 $128,730.00 $1,200,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK CALLABLE 6.00% 10/21/98 09/10/18 $307,538.40 $550,000.00 FNMA-MEDIUM TERM NOTE 7.950% 11/24/99 06/22/18 $129,228.00 $680,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 7.10% 06/15/01 04/05/19 $97,722.56 $535,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 7.493% 07/09/01 02/02/23 $109,514.50 $220,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 7.011% 07/19/01 08/20/18 $67,782.00 Time8/14/2002 MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT JULY 20021NVESTI DEAN WITTER (Continued) $44,000.00 WESTERN PUERTO RICO-CID 2.05% 04/16/02 10/24/02 $44,000.00 $90,000.00 WRIGHT EXPRESS FINANCIAL CID 2.00% 05/16/02 11/18/02 $90,000.00 $250,000.00 FHLMC MED TERM NOTE-CALLABLE 6.31% 02/26/01 03/26/18 $248,750.00 $200,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 6.00% 11/14/01 11/14/16 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 FHLMC MED TERM NOTE-SEMI 6.00% 11/19/01 11/19/21 $197,000.00 $200,000.00 FHLMC MED TERM NOTE-STEP UP 6.50% 12/28/01 12/15/16 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 FHLMC MED TERM NOTE 6.25% 07/31/02 07/31/17 $100,000.00 $1,920,265.46 DAIN RAUCHER-(HRA) $200,000 FNMA-9334 P/O 7.24% 04/20/93 03/25/23 $24,723.52 $200,000 GSIF FRMAC SER 1166.6% 7.00% 04/20193 04/20/08 $43,694.00 $100,000 FRMAC SER 11 MPRG 33.3 7.00% 01/25/94 01/25/09 $21,730.00 $50,000 FHLMC MCB SER 1629MB 7.00% 02/07/94 01/15/23 $30,636.11 $500,000-FHLB MEDIUM TERM NOTE 6.11% 6.11% 09/26/01 09/26/11 $503,004.02 $250,000-FHLMC MEDIUM SERIES 3B/E 6.00% 6.00% 10/25/01 10/15/16 $250,000.00 $100,000-FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 6.00% 6.00% 11/14/01 12/07/16 $100,000.00 $200,000-FHLMC MEDIUM TERM NOTE 6.00% 6.00% 11/16/01 11/29/21 $198,702.93 $200,000-FNMA MEDIUM TERM NOTE 6.00% 6.00% 06/28/02 06/27/16 $200,000.00 $100,000-FNMA MEDIUM TERM NOTE 6.00% 6.00% 08/05/02 08/05/16 $100,000.00 $300,000-GENERAL ELECTRIC COMMERCIAL PAPER - PARKS 1.678% 07/11/02 10/09/02 $298,769.00 $300,000-FNMA MEDIUM TERM ZERO COUPON 7.20% 05/23/01 05/07/18 $99,562.70 $1,000,000-FED HOME LOAN MORTGAGE-ZERO COUPON 7.75% 12/27/01 12/27/21 $218.563.80 $2,089,386.08 TOTAL B00K VALUE $10,241,109.34 Time8/14/2002 MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT JULY 20021NVESTI July -2002 City of St.Anthony Profit& Loss Statement from Operations Actual Actual Year to Date Year to Date Increase SAV I SAV II STONEHOUSE 07/31/02 07/31/01 (Decrease) Sales $180,308.00 $188,621.00 $63,995.00 $2,815,169.00 $2,722,982.00 $92,187.00 Less: Cost of Goods Sold $140,649.00 $148,794.00 $21,824.00 $2,002,083.00 $1,963,860.00 $38,223.00 Gross Profit $39,659.00 $39,827.00 $42,171.00 $813,086.00 $759,122.00 $53,964.00 Ratio to Net Sales 22.00% 21.11% 65.90% 28.88% 27.88% Operating Expense: Salaries,Wages, Benefits $17,258.00 $14,886.00 $28,936.00 $393,256.00 $360,319.00 $32,937.00 All Other Expenses $13,255.00 $15,269.00 $23,588.00 $288,045.00 $298,012.00 ($9,967.00) Total Operating Expense $30,513.00 $30,155.00 $52,524.00 $681,301.00 $658,331.00 $22,970.00 Ratio to Net Sales 16.92% 15.99% 82.08% 24.20% 24.18% Profit from Operations $9,146.00 $9,672.00 ($10,353.00) $131,785.00 $100,791.00 $30,994.00 Other Income ($157.00) $167.00 $3,106.00 $32,097.00 $30,770.00 $1,327.00 Net Income $8,989.00 $9,839.00 ($7,247.00) $163,882.00 $131,561.00 $32,321.00 Ratio to Net Sales 4.99% 5.22% -11.32% 5.82% 4.83% July-Net Income $11,581.00 Y-T-D SAV I SAV II STONEHOUSE ALL STORES YEAR TO DATE 07/31102 $65,218.00 $66,664.00 $32,000.00 $163,882.00 YEAR TO DATE 07/31101 $46,540.00 $51,272.00 $33,749.00 $131,561.00 INCREASE/DECREASE $18,678.00 $15,392.00 ($1,749.00) $32,321.00 July -2002 City of St.Anthony Reconciliation to Inventory Valuation Report SAV I SAV 11 Beginning Inventory: $241,715.57 Beginning Inventory: $262,907.25 Plus or Minus: Plus or Minus: Transfers: SAV 1 $2,155.12 Transfers ($2,155.12) Stonehouse ($6,060.35) Adjustments $1.29 Adjustments $303.31 Returns to Vendors ($2,948.99) Returns to Vendors ($1,856.14) Add: Receiving $150,478.92 Add: Receiving $138,734.97 Less: Cost of Goods Sold ($148,793.91) Less: Cost of Goods Sold ($140,648.80) TOTAL $259,489.44 TOTAL $234,343.68 Total per Valuation Report $260,596.80 *** Total per Valuation Report $232,810.63 **' Difference $1,107.36 Difference ($1,533.05) Beginning August 2002 Inventory $232,810.63 Beginning August 2002 Inventory $260,596.80 ***Comes from Valuation Report ***Comes from Valuation Report 2001 Actual Profits (Audited) 2002 Y-T-D Profits Actual Y-T-D SAV I SAV II Stonehouse SAV I SAV II Stonehouse Profits Comparison January ($1,369.00) $1,857.00 ($1,701.00) ($1,213.00) January $5,583.00 $2,817.00 $3,554.00 $11,954.00 $13,167.00 February $1,620.00 $4,474.00 $9,410.00 $14,291.00 February $6,023.00 $6,005.00 $9,656.00 $33,638.00 $19,347.00 March $9,236.00 $7,127.00 $7,510.00 $38,164.00 March $10,455.00 $10,709.00 $7,145.00 $61,947.00 $23,783.00 April $5,631.00 $4,295.00 $10,712.00 $58,802.00 April $7,341.00 $6,511.00 $10,932.00 $86,731.00 $27,929.00 May $5,705.00 $6,957.00 $1,372.00 $72,836.00 May $10,901.00 $14,402.00 $6,374.00 $118,408.00 $45,572.00 June $16,325.00 $14,485.00 $2,734.00 $106,380.00 June $15,926.00 $16,381.00 $1,586.00 $152,301.00 $45,921.00 July $9,392.00 $12,077.00 $3,712.00 $131,561.00 July $8,989.00 $9,839.00 ($7,247.00) $163,882.00 $32,321.00 August $3,986.00 $12,825.00 $3,261.00 $151,633.00 August $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $163,882.00 September $12,586.00 $14,197.00 $4,417.00 $182,833.00 September $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $163,882.00 October $3,874.00 $11,687.00 $2,934.00 $201,328.00 October $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $163,882.00 November $8,777.00 $16,109.00 $12,660.00 $238,874.00 November $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $163,882.00 December $13,258.00 $27.618.00 $3,515.00 $283,265.00 December $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $163,882.00 Total $89,021.00 $133,708.00 $60,536.00 $283,265.00 Total $65,218.00 $66,664.00 $32,000.00 $163,882.00 Increasel(Decrease) $18,678.00 $15,392.00 ($1,749.00) $32,321.00 Y-T-D By Store CITY OF ST. ANTHONY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA August 27, 2002 Call to Order Roll Call I. Approval of August 27, 2002 H.R.A. Agenda. II. Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. 1. Approve July 23, 2002 H.R.A. Minutes. (p. 1) 2. Claims. (p. 2) III. General Policy Business of the H.R.A. IV. Staff Reports. V. H.R.A. Commissioner Comments. VI. Information and Announcements. VII. Adjournment. 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING 4 5 July 23, 2002 6 7 CALL TO ORDER 8 Chair Hodson called the meeting to order at 8:35 p.m. 9 10 ROLL CALL. 11 Commissioners present: Chair Hodson; Commissioners Sparks, Thuesen, Horst, and Faust. 12 Commissioners absent: None. 13 Also present: Executive Director Michael Mornson. 14 15 16 I. APPROVAL OF JULY 23, 2002 H.R.A. AGENDA. 17 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to approve the July 23, 18 2002 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda as presented. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously. 21 22 II. CONSENT AGENDA. 23 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to approve the Consent 24 Agenda, which consisted of. 25 26 A. H.R.A. Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2002: and 27 B. Claims. 28 29 Motion.carried unanimously. 30 31 III. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE H.R.A. 32 None. 33 34 IV. STAFF REPORTS. 35 None. 36 37 V. H.R.A. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. 38 None. 39 40 VI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 41 None. 42 43 VII. ADJOURNMENT. 44 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to adjourn the meeting 45 at 8:37 p.m. 46 47 Motion carried unanimously. 48 Respectfully submitted, 49 Courtney Seesz 2 Following is a Verified Claims list for August 27,2002: 1. Dahlgren,Shardlow&Uhan.....................................................$11,660.14 Apache Redevelopment Plan 2. Donohue,McKenney,Thacher LTD..............................................$962.50 Acquisition of Hardees/4004 Silver Lake Road 3. Dorsey&Whitney LLP..................................................................$711.31 Acquisition of Hardees/4004 Silver Lake Road 4: Ehlers&Associates,Inc.................................................................$609.30 Professional Services/General 5. Ehlers&Associates,Inc..............................................................$3,653.50 Professional Services/NW Quadrant Study 6. Ehlers&Associates,Inc.................................................................$675.00 Professional Services/SW Quadrant 7. Ehlers&Associates,Inc.................................................................$150.00 Kenzie Terrace RFP 8. Ehlers&Associates,Inc..............................................................$3,750.00 Key Financial Strategies 9. Springsted,Inc.............................................................................$2,949.13 TIF Cash Flow Analysis 10. WSB,Inc...................................................................................$10,456.70 Apache/Water-Sewer Study 11. WSB,Inc........................................................................................$508.50 Apache Plaza Redevelopment Apache Plaza Redevelopment 07/31/2002 Payments from Developers: HillCrest Development $72,920.43 Met Council Grant $120,000.00 Pratt-Ordway $75,000.00 $267,920.43 Total Expenses $278.959.30 0713112002 Cost to HRA {$11.038.871 Dahlaren/Shardlow Ehlers&Associates WSB&Associates Tracy Printina JMS Communications Northfield Lines SEH/RCM Goodwin Comm $7,402.72 $210.00 $2,714.50 $1,391.00 $990.00 $308.00 $455.87 $570.00 $3,337.91 $1,505.00 $954.50 $1,450.00 $1,925.00 $72.00 $1,743.93 $1,140.00 $7,002.68 $935.50 $954.50 $1,098.70 $2,090.00 $468.00 $2,199.80 $1,710.00 $15,138.88 $455.00 $942.00 $474.20 $5,005.00 $848.00 $32,762.90 $82.00 $282.00 $1,098.70 $25,780.22 $1,662.90 $860.00 $1,098.70 $10,603.04 $2,911.73 $498.50 $1,098.70 $6,369.70 $1,920.55 $4,061.00 $1,168.60 $15,686.06 $3,450.00 $5,611.03 $245.13 $8,003.59 $5,100.00 $658.00 $474.20 $31,118.21 $3,187.50 $1,091.00 $1,141.12 $5,733.98 $2,787.50 $18,627.03 $10,739.05 $1,490.12 $5,471.77 $560.13 $250.00 $1,774.75 $2,662.50 $2,567.32 $3,750.00 $3,754.23 $4,717.50 $3,148.50 $41,059.45 $5,539.18 $9,796.85 $1,200.00 $198,770.97 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2002 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Michael Mornson, City Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND LEVY State mandated levy limits set the City's 2003 levy at $2,168,627, which is ($31,340) less than 2002. When the proposed 2003 budget/levy estimation was put together in July, staff a_nticipated a$66,000 increase based on conversations with the Department of Revenue. As a result of the decrease, the City has $97,000 less revenue available for the 2003 budget. To balance the budget, staff is proposing the following solution: 1) Reduce the Police budget by $20,000. 2) Reduce the Fire Budget by $10,000. 3) Reduce the P/W budgets by $10,000. 4) The remaining $57,000 could come from revenue received from the 2002 Tires Plus lease payments MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 2002 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Michael Morrison, City Manager SUBJECT: CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR 2003 Staff has revised their capital equipment expenditures for 2003 to $633,200 (down $200,000 from the original request of$833,200). Line items that appeared in the first draft of the Capital Equipment budget were deferred to future years. The following expenditures are recommended for 2003: Police $ 76,300 Fire $330,000 Public Works $212,000 Administration 14,900 Total $633,200 Revenue to fund the 2003 Capital Equipment will come from the following funds: Lauderdale/Falcon Heights contracts $ 30,000 Water/Sewer equipment transfer $ 56,200 Trade/Sale of existing equipment $ 10,000 Interest earnings $ 2,000 Water filtration fund balance transfer $ 60,000 2002 Liquor profits $150,000 Tires Plus (HRA Transfer) $325,000 Total $633,200 . ai thou llla e MEMORANDUM To: Michael Mornson From: Susan Hall Date: 8/22/02 Re: CTV Video Streaming and Program Playback Service CTV is offering to cities a couple of new options, video streaming (over the web) and digitized program playback. At a recent Telecommunications Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting,most of the ten cities said they plan to go ahead with this. For St. Anthony what it could mean is at a cost of only $163.69 per month, or$1,964.28 per year, the City can have its public meetings both on cable and on the web per this new opportunity with CTV. The reason for the nominal fee is because we can share costs with the other cities. The most interesting part of going this new route is all of the City's cable and web programming would be digitized and come out of Roseville. They have hired a new master control operator to handle this task. This could mean more programming options on the city channel. In addition, the City could elect to start archiving digitally on DVD, rather than videotape, although it is somewhat spendy. DVD's cost$25 each and hold about 2.5-3 hours. New Brighton and Little Canada have started archiving on DVD. CTV said by October 2002 this opportunity should be ready to go for all ten cities. As far as payment for this, Cor mentioned they could send an invoice with the franchise fee check. From my perspective,this is a good deal and a way to connect with the residents and people outside the City who don't have cable but have access to the Internet. In addition, this technology would be a nice addition to our enhanced web site. Cor stated she would like to know how many cities wish to participate. Please let me know what you would like to do. Service CTV (NSAC) Will encode (record)meetings live from city hall. 1. Meetings Played on Channel 16 per city staff's schedule 2. Any other provided programming played back on channel 16,per schedule provided by city. 3. Meetings archived on DVD for future reference (does not include DVD media cost) 4. Meeting annotated and posted to World Wide Web (Minute timing provided by city producer or staff) 5. Master Control operator on duty Monday-Thursday from 3 p.m. until 11 p.m. (or end of last live event that evening,) Friday's Noon to 9 p.m. Cost Elements included in the cost • tWeb-Streaming equipment depreciated over 7 years. • ttOne Half MCO Salary and benefits Number of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 participating cities $15,000.00t $178.57 $89.29 $59.52 $44.64 $35.71 $29.76 $25.51 $22.32 $19.84 $17.86 $17,500.00tt $1,458.33 $729.17 $486.11 $364.58 $291.67 $243.06 $208.33 $182.29 $162.04 $145.83 Total $1,636.90 $818.45 $545.63 $409.23 $327.38 $272.82 $233.84 $204.61 $181.88 $163.69 per month--> MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2002 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Michael Mornson, City Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND LEVY State mandated levy limits set the City's 2003 levy at $2,168,627, which is ($31,340) less than 2002. When the proposed 2003 budget/levy estimation was put together in July, staff anticipated a$66,000 increase based on conversations with the Department of Revenue. As a result of the decrease, the City has $97,000 less revenue available for the 2003 budget. To balance the budget, staff is proposing the following solution: 1) Reduce the Police budget by $20,000. 2) Reduce the Fire Budget by $10,000. 3) Reduce the P/W budgets by $10,000. 4) The remaining $57,000 could come from revenue received from the 2002 Tires Plus lease payments MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 2002 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Michael Morrison, City Manager SUBJECT: CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR 2003 Staff has revised their capital equipment expenditures for 2003 to $633,200 (down $200,000 from the original request of$833,200). Line items that appeared in the first draft of the Capital Equipment budget were deferred to future years. The following expenditures are recommended for 2003: Police $ 76,300 Fire $330,000 Public Works $212,000 Administration 14,900 Total $633,200 Revenue to fund the 2003 Capital Equipment will come from the following funds: Lauderdale/Falcon Heights contracts $ 30,000 Water/Sewer equipment transfer $ 56,200 Trade/Sale of existing equipment $ 10,000 Interest earnings $ 2,000 Water filtration fund balance transfer $ 60,000 2002 Liquor profits $150,000 Tires Plus (HRA Transfer) 32$ 5,000 Total $633,200