HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 07241984 Meeting Sheet
,r
101884
r
,1
Box: 21
Folder: CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984
Document: CC MINUTES 07241984
i
r �
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• COUNCIL MINUTES
July 24 , 1984
The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
by Mayor Sundland.
Present for roll call: Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth, -and Makowske.
Absent: Marks (.arrived at 9 :00 P.M. )_ .
Also present : David Childs , City Manager; William Soth, City Attorney;
and Larry Hamer, Public Works Director.
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
approve as submitted the minutes of the Council meeting held July 10 ,
1984 .
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
approve the following licenses and registrations. as listed in the
July 24th Council agenda.
MULTIPLE DWELLING REGISTRATION
• Macalaster Manor Apartments for 3800-3808 Macalaster Drive N.E.
Omega Management for 3804 High.crest Road N.E.
CONTRACTORS LICENSES
Jansick, Fridley;
Wooden Works , Corcoran;
Thermo Home , Minneapolis ;
Rite-Way Waterproofing, Inc. , Lino Lakes ;
Jensen Brothers , New Brighton;
Florian Kauth, Columbia Heights ;.
Bri-Mik Diversified Construction, Brooklyn Park;
T. J. Roofing, Circle Pines ; and
Northwestern Builders , Richfield.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman .Enrooth to grant
a temporary 3. 2 beer permit for the consumption, not sale, of beer to
Casey Scott, 2613-27th. Avenue N.E. , for a John Rose fundraiser to be
held in Silver Point .Park Pavilion, September 23, 1984 .
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Mayor Sundland and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to approve
payment of all verified claims listed for June 30 , 1984 and July 24 ,
1984 in the July 24 , 1984 Council agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
r
-2-
The Public Works Director explained to the Council his decision to
approve Layne Minnesota' s request for additional grouting relating to
the abandonment of Well #2 , by indicating once the process begins , it
should not be stopped until it is finished, whereupon a.motion was made
by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to approve
payment of $7, 489 . 50 to Layne Minnesota for the capping of Well #2 , as
recommended by the -Public Works Director in his July 16th memorandum.
Motion carried unanimously..
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Mayor Sundland to approve
payment for the City's portion of the bill from Adrian Helgeson and
Company for their services in connection with the audit of the City ' s
financial statements for the year ended December 30 , 1983 (.total bill
was $6 , 200 . 00) for $2 , 300 .00 .
Motion carried unanimously .
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Mayor Sundland to approve
payment of $1, 516 .95 to Edward J. Hance for June 6 , 1984 prosecutions .
Motion carried unanimously.
The watermain connection along 29th Avenue N.E.-.with Roseville 's water
system is complete, . except for some minor tasks , and the City is
waiting for the joint powers agreement to be returned from Roseville ,
the Public Works Director indicated.. It was also noted that there will
• be approximately $40 , 000 remaining to be paid by the City following
payment of the bill submitted by Robert W. Moore Company in this agenda.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Makowske to
approve. payment of $85,330 .90 to the R. W. Moore Company in connection
with the trunk watermain construction along 29th Avenue N.E.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
approve payment of $559 . 15 to the City of Minneapolis . for the maintenance
and operation of a traffic" semaphore located at Lowry Avenue N.E. and
Stinson Boulevard.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Mayor Sundland to approve
payment of $10., 648. 18 to Brookdale Ford, Inc. .for the purchase of a
1984 Ford squad car for the Police Department. .
Motion carried .unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Enrooth .and seconded by Councilman Makowske to
approve payment of $2 ,9.50 .00 and $1, 799 . 38 to Short-Elliott-Hendrickson,
Inc. for services in connection with the water service from Roseville.
• Motion carried unanimously.
-3-
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
approve payment of $8,918.00 to the D. W. Harstad Co. , Inc. for
• damages incurred during the April 26 , 1984 tornado to Well #5 . It was
noted this amount will be reimbursed by the insurance company.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by. Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Makowske to
approve payment of $849 ._00 to the James R. Higgins Insurance Agency for
the Volunteer Firefighters blanket accident insurance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Rosemary Franzese reported the numerous matters the Planning Commission
had acted on during their July 17th meeting. Commission recommendations
of. approval were accepted for the following:
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
follow '.the recommendations of the Planning. Commission to approve the
request from Walter Sentryz, Jr. , 2600 California Street N.E. , for a
variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requirements which would allow
construction of a now home on the vacant lot at 3316 Highcrest Road,
with side yard setbacks of 5 feet and 8 feet (13 feet total) where a
total of 15 is required, finding, as did the Planning Commission, that:
1. The home is expected to be of high quality and the design (.Reggie
Award winner) has already been reduced by 2 feet.
• 2. Granting the variance would still provide for total building separa-
.tion of 25 . 5 and 20 . 5 feet.
3. No opposition was received from the neighbors .
4 . Approval is contingent upon the proposed home not aggravating the
existing drainage conditions of the area.
5. The three conditions necessary for granting a variance have been
met.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
accept the recommendations. of the Planning Commission that . a 12 foot
front yard setback variance be granted to Gary. Dooner, 2920 Silver Lake
Court,_ which. would* allow .him to construct . an addition to his single
family dwelling which would come within 18 feet of Silver Lake Court, .
finding, as did the Planning Commission, that:
1. The lot is unique by its odd shape.
2 . The property is located on a false cul-de-sac adjacent to a high.
traffic street with dust, noise and visibility problems .
• 3. The proposed addition would reduce the impact of the road on the
neighborhood.
-4-
4 . Other similar variances have been granted in the neighborhood.
• 5 . No persons spoke in opposition to the request.
6 . The three conditions required for the granting .of a variance have
been answered in the affirmative .
Motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission representative- next presented a request from
Ruth Smith, 3334 Edward Street N.E. , for Council 's ordinance interpre-
tation which would allow Mrs . Smith to construct a single family dwell-
ing on her tornado damaged property using the property frontage on
Edward Street, even though her front door and street address will be
on 34th Avenue N.E. The City Manager explained that Mrs. Smith would
not need a variance if the Council interpreted that the short side of
her corner lot be considered the front .yard for setback purposes . If
the Council does not wish to interpret itin that way, Mr. Childs
added, Mrs . Smith would need a 15 foot rearyard variance tobuild _this
,house -on the lot b_ecause'_ it is a substandard size lot. In that case ,
a hardship would be established to justify granting the variance.
The Council consensus was that this specific request did not need a
variance. Councilman Makowske questioned whether a clarification of
the City ordinances would be needed: Mayor Sundland responded that to
do so, the Planning Commission would be requested to research the
interpretation and make a recommendation to the Council .
• Planning Commission member Franzese wondered whether the interpretation
could be considered as a policy rather than going through the process
of an ordinance change. Councilman Ranallo suggested that it would be
difficult to define in the ordinance and should perhaps be considered
on a case-by-case basis .
Mayor Sundland agreed with Councilman, Ranallo' s assessment and indicated
he, too, felt the Council's interpretation should be on a case-by-case
basis . The Mayor also indicated he felt this particular request does
meet the neighborhood design conditions, which would be an important
consideration for requests of this type.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
interpret the request by Ruth Ann Smith, 3334 Edward Street N.E. , that
her front yard be considered to face .Edward Street following construction
of her new home, rather than on 34th Avenue N.E. , where her front door
and street address will be and that, therefore , as recommended by the
Planning Commission, a variance will not be required.
Motion carried unanimously.
The request for a conditional use permit from Faith United Methodist
Church, 2708 - . 33rd Avenue N.E. , was. discussed next. The church pro-
poses an 800 square foot expansion to their sanctuary in conjunction
with the reconstruction of their tornado ravaged building complex,
• stated Commissioner Franzese . They have also proposed to increase their
parking capacity from 60 to 84 spaces. Planning Commission members
r Y
-5--
recommended the church delete five of the proposed parking spaces to
increase the play area.
• Mayor Sundland noted the churchhas proposed . sufficient parking spaces ,
even with the deletion, and asked George Wagner, who was present to
represent the church., if .this was acceptable to church officials .
Mr. Wagner responded that the request from the Planning Commission for
increased play area was .very agreeable to- them.
The City Attorneysuggested the three findings required by the City
Ordinance for granting a conditional use permit be added .to the Plan-
ning Commission's findings in the Council 's motion for approval .
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to
accept th.e :recommendation.-by the Planning Commission to grant approval
for a conditional use permit and parking plan to Faith -United Methodist
Church for an 800 -square foot expansion of their church sanctuary and
an increase in their parking capacity from 60 to 79 spaces , finding,
as did the Planning Commission, that:
1 . The proposed conditional use is one of- the conditional uses specifi-
cally listed for the zoning district in which it is to be located.
2 . The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements in the
vicinity.
• 3. The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above
location 'to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest
of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare
of the neighborhood or community.
4 . No objections were received to the proposal.
5 . The 79. parking spaces will bring the. property into closer compliance
with. parking ratio requirements .
6. Approval would allow rebuilding of a substantial, high quality
church building which would be an asset to the City .
Motion carried,- unanimously.
The Council next considered. the request for a variance and conditional
use permit from the St. Anthony Health Center, 370.0 Foss,-Road N.E. The
Health. Center is proposing an 84 unit apartment complex to be built on
the vacant property immediately west of the rest home on County Road "D" ,
which would require a conditional use permit. The new addition is
proposed to have a height of 4 stories or 42 feet, where 3 stories are
allowed .by the Zoning Ordinance and a total of 149 units on the site,
where 119 are allowed by City Ordinance, therefore, a variance would
be required for these aspects of the request.
• David Frank, the architect for the proposed 84 unit construction by
` the Health Center, was present to outline the proposal to the Council.
The Mayor indicated he has thoroughly reviewed the proposal and
believes it to be a fine addition to the community. Councilman Ranallo
indicated he is in agreement with the Mayor's opinion.
-6-
Councilman Makowske _querie_d_i; Mr. Frank regarding setting precedent in
approving the request for four stories on the site. She questioned
• whether future plans for the Health Center might include adding stories
onto the present building. Mr. Frank .responded .that the present one
and two story buildings are . not structurally capable of an additional
one or two stories .
In answer to Mayor Sundland' s question concerning how the proposed
building would compare in site line with the existing building, Mr.
Frank indicated that Chandler Drive drops down along 37th so inevitably,
the building will appear higher on Chandler.
Councilman Enrooth wanted further clarification on the drainage problem
mentioned in the City Manager'.s ' July 19th memorandum. Mr. Frank stated.
the Rice Creek Watershed District wants a drainage pond at the site
and the architect will comply . In addition, there will be overflow
into the storm- sewer off Chandler. The architect proceeded to demon-
strate how his company will construct the drainage system on a large
drawing of the plans he had brought to-the meeting. . He also indicated
on the drawing that the proposed building will consist of four stories
until it reaches the east and north side where it will be, in effect, a
five story . building containing a .walkout on the bottom floor.
Motion 'by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to
accept the Planning Commission recommendation to approve .the conditional
use request from St. Anthony _Health Center, 3700 Foss Road N.E. , for
the construction of an 84 unit apartment complex to be built on the
• vacant property immediately west of the Rest Home on County Road "D"
and variance requests for 4 stories or 42 feet, when 3 stories are
allowed by Ordinance and 149 units where 119 are allowed by the City
Zoning Ordinance, finding, as did the Planning 'Commission, that:
1. The three conditions . required by the City Ordinance in granting a
conditional use permit have been satisfied.
2 . That the three findings required for the granting of variances have
been made.
3. No opposition to the request was received.
4 . The proposal is for market rate semi-independent living apartments
in conjunction with the existing. 65 unit nursing facility and the
applicants have addressed:
a. unit size (_650+ to 800 square feet) ;
b. street access - service access and turn around;
c. joint use of parking;
d. soils and site drainage;
e. shared facilities ;
f. health and safety provisions, including fire protection;
g. handicapped access;
h. building height (not to exceed 42 feet ..at grade) ;
i. building appearance;
• j . landscaping;
k. floor area ratio and open space.
5. The building height adequately allows open space and the siting
addresses a unique soil and drainage problem.
-7-
6 . The unique use of the building in conjunction with the adjacent
nursing home.
• 7. That the development be per the site plan submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission representative reported. that the public hearing
for the 2 foot sideyard variance request from Eugene DeKanick, 3109
Wilson Street N.E. , had changed .during their last meeting to that of
discussing whether the proposed addition to the DeKanick home could be
defined as a "bay" , thusnot requiring a variance. ;Commissioner -:Franzese
informed the Council that the vote of the 5 Planning Commission members
present at that meeting was 3 to 2 in favor of recommending the defini-
tion of the DeKanick ' s addition as a "bay" .
Mrs. Pat DeKanick was present to enumerate the reasons for the DeKanick's
belief that their proposed addition should be considered a bay. She
stated she had done considerable research on its definition and had
concluded they were correct in their conclusion that the structure is
a bay in that it is a cantilevered, 20 " wide with a 4 inch overhang,
addition, and not an extension. of the existing structure. In her
research, she had contacted several contractors, who had agreed that in
their business the addition would be termed a bay. She presented
pictures of other residences in St. Anthony which had only as much or
less than the distance they are proposing between their structures . She
also presented two letters from contractors indicating their agreement
that the proposed structure was indeed a bay. Mrs . DeKanick said they
• had built their home in 1959 on a smaller than average lot. She indicated
she feels that with all the supporting information she has submitted, the
-- ordinance has been satisfied and a variance would not be required.
Mayor Sundland questioned the 4 inch overhang, which Mrs . DeKanick
indicated they would not extend beyond .the roof line.. Shealso emphasized
the fact that the windows to be installed in the bay would not face
the neighbor' s house wall, but would face the garage.
A neighbor of the DeKanick' s, Mr. Harold Root, 3107 Wilson Street N.E. ,
was present to oppose the DeKanick' s request. Mr. Root' s first comment
was directed at the fact that they had received incomplete prints of the
proposed structure and felt he 'was never given the proper dimensions of
the addition, i .e. , .the most recent print he received showed the addition
to be 24 inches wide as opposed to the revised 20 inch width. He
maintains that the proposed. `addition is an extension of the dining room
and not a bay. He also, "commented �that,_ I'f this request had_ been sub= .
mitted as is and not identified at all for approval , if it met the
requirements , it could be built and if it didn't meet the requirements
Lt couldn' t be built." He feels that "probably. the sole purpose of term-
ing this a bay. is to circumvent the law" . He does not feel this is a
good, neighborly practice, and said he had the support of other neighbors .
Mayor Sundland stated that after examining the question, the matter had
been referred to the City Attorney for an opinion.
• Mr. Soth, opined that ordinance interpretation, such as in this case ,
where the City Ordinance does not give specific definition, must
ultimately be made by the City Council. He went on to further state
that the real issue as far as the City Council is concerned, is what, in
• their opinion, did the Council mean .when that section of the Ordinance
was approved. Regarding the dictionary definition of the word bay,
that definition may- be taken into account, but the Council' s decision
should not be based solely on that, .the -.Attorney:_added.
Mr. Soth., when speaking on this specific request, said the issue appears
to be that the addition would be larger than usual, yet' it is within the
parameters outlined in the Ordinance. Of relevance are the facts that
the proposed addition is cantilevered, is a projection from the base
building, and the roof line will not be altered. The main argument by
the opposition is that the addition is too large to be a bay and it is
not curved, the City Attorney noted.
Councilman Enrooth reiterated the City Attorney 's opinion that the
Council must decide what was intended by the .Ordinance makers , in that
no size limitations or specific definitions are outlined in the
'Ordinance.
The City Attorney noted that in this case windows are proposed to be
installed in the bay, however, they are not necessary to constitute a
bay. He reiterated the Council 's decision rests on whether this design
would constitute a bay as intended in the City Ordinance .
Mr. Root asked Mrs . DeKanick if the bay would extend into the porch
addition, whereupon Mrs . DeKanick indicated they propose to extend the
back wall 2 feet. Mr. Root also asked if the DeKanick's could install
an awning on the window. of the bay in the future because the sun is
a hardship. The Mayor pointed out that that would make the projection
closer than 3 feet from the property line, and 'thus-'wou_ld-_ not be
allowed.
The City Attorney said the Ordinance does not specifically address
awnings in that section, but agreed with the Mayor that Ordinance inten-
tion_,is not_ to h_ any projection with_ n"3''feet- of the `property line.
He suggested that in the future, the Council may desire a more specific
definition in- the ;Ordinance, but for this case they must decide in their
own minds what their interpretation will be.
Councilman Enrooth asked exactly what constitutes an encroachment.
Mr. Soth indicated that in legal terms an encroachment is something
which extends across a property line. He emphasized the word, in this
case, should be .taken into context and "encroachment" is actually an
extension. As such, "encroachment" has no significance in this case.
Mr. Root inquired if it would be the proper time for him to ask if he
could erect a privacy fence on the property line. In response, Mayor
Sundland told Mr. Root he could obtain a permit to build a six foot
privacy fence, if he so desired. The Mayor also indicated he did not
feel the applicant would need a variance because the definition of a
bay in relation to the City ,Ordinance would be met.
• Councilman Makowske felt that that .is the correct interpretation by the
Council in that the Ordinance does not define sizes, the request will
not change the roof line and the proposed addition will not extend into
the yard. She noted, too, that the DeKanick 's or any subsequent owner
should not be allowed to add an overhang in the future.
-9-
Mayor Sundland asked the Council members if they wanted to .deal with the
interpretation of bay on a case-by-casebasis or further clarify the
• definition in the Ordinance. The Council consensus was that the
definitionof bay in the Ordinance does not need clarification and they
do not foresee many situations of this type arising in the future. The
Mayor added that the Council ' s decision can, of course, be challenged.
In response to Councilman Ranallo"s question directed to Mr. Root,
Mr. Root indicated it would be a hardship on him because every other
neighbor is at least 5 feet from other neighborg''- property lines and
he feels the DeKanick's are asking for preferential treatment. Mr. Root
added that he thinks 12 feet is too close for open space between home
structures and reiterated he only wants "due process of law" .
Motion by Councilman Makowske and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to.
accept the Planning Commission recommendation that the DeKanick pro-
posal for a 20" X 14 ' addition to the south of their home at 3109
Wilson Street N.E. to be cantilevered from the main structure, be.
interpreted as a bay in relation to the City Ordinance and, -therefore,
would not require a - variance -
Motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Marks arrived at this time .
Councilman Makowske stated that she had been asked to request that the
"Council consider a suggestion regarding the City installing a water
slide at Central Park.
• The June Fire Department report was ordered filed as were the May
Financial report and the July 17, 1984 staff meeting notes .
Bids for the purchase of a Doppler radar receiver/transmitter unit were
advertised and one bid was received by the City. Councilman Ranallo
questioned whether the. City had sufficient money to cover the -legal
fees required for this matter and was told by the City Manager that
there should be enough money when time for payment occurs .
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Marks to accept
the bid from the . Kavouras Company for the purchase of a Doppler radar
receiver/transmitter unit, subject to the conditions listedin the
specifications , for $68, 186 . 00 .
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to approve
the second reading of Ordinace 1984-003.
ORDINANCE 1984-003
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1982-009 , KNOWN AS
THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE
Motion carried unanimously.
-10-
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Mayor Sundland to adjourn
the meeting at 9 :03 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Connie Kroeplin,
Acting Secretary
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
•