HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 12081987 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII II
III VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
101633 -
Box• 21
Folder: CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Document: CC MINUTES 12081987
• C 2 TY O F S T . ANTHONY
C OUN C= L M 2 NUTS S
DEC EMBER 8 , 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Mayor Sundland.
3 Present for roll call: Marks, Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth, Makowske
4 ( arrived at 7 : 35 P.M. ) .
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
6 William Soth, City Attorney
7 Donald Hickerson, Chief of Police
8 NOVEMBER. 24, 1987 COUNCIL MINUTES
9 Motion by Marks , seconded by Ranallo to approve with the following
10 change:
11 Page 3 , line 28: Insert "food for" after "costs of" .
12 Motion carried unanimously.
•13 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
14 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to grant contractors licenses to
15 Schmieg & Washburn (E.S. I . Signs) , St. Paul and to St. Paul Utilities ,
16 Inc. , Hugo, MN, as presented in the December 8 , 1987 Council agenda
17 packet.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 CLAIMS
20 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of all liquor
21 accounts payable listed for November 20th in the December 8th Council
22 agenda as well as the 6 payments to Cindy Carpenter, which had been
23 tabled November 24th for further information from the City Manager
24 who had reported the payee was a disc jockey who, in addition to
25 playing records, had also been reimbursed for decorations and records
26 for the Stonehouse record sessions. The motion also approves payment
27 of all City accounts payable listed for December 8th in the agenda
28 packet of the same date.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
• 1
0 1 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $5 ,272. 67
2 as the City' s share of costs for work performed by Bruce Liesch
3 Associates, Inc. through November 4 , 1987 in conjunction with the
4 City' s lawsuit against the U.S. Army et al relative to St. Anthony' s
5 water contamination problems.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve payment of $2, 565. 69
8 to the Dorsey & Whitney law firm for legal services rendered through
9 October 31 , 1987 with $1,063 .75 of those costs to be paid from the
10 Liquor Fund.
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of $24,896. 98
13 to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for December sewer
14 services.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of
17 $2 ,200.00 to Hance & LeVahn for legal services rendered during
18 December, 1987 , relative to St. Anthony prosecutions.
019 Motion carried unanimously.
20 Councilmember Makowske arrived at 7 : 35 P.M.
21 Contractor' s Payment Tabled
22 Copies of BWBR' s estimation of the amount due Fullerton Lumber for the
23 Stonehouse liquor warehouse project had been distributed by the City
24 Manager, who indicated there would be about $56 ,000 remaining on the
25 contract after the payment of $61 ,078.
26 The contractors had been granted a ten day extension, which would
27 expire December 9th, and had indicated it would be into January before
28 the project would be totally completed. Even though the original
29 deadline was December lst, had the project been completed by October
30 1st, as the contractor had originally said it would, there would have
31 been time for the City to get the space ready for the holiday season,
32 Mr. Childs said. He added that there had been some unanticipated
33 costs for the project, including the architect' s time and costs for
34 extra inspections due to the contractor' s errors, including improper
35 pouring of footings, problems with structural steel, etc.
36 There is no penalty clause in this contract, Mr. Childs told the
37 Mayor, and he said he wasn' t certain withholding payment at this time
38 would do much good since the contractor had the option to stop work
•39 until payment is made. However, he agreed to prepare a complete
2
1 update on the project for the Councilmember ' s next meeting, when a
2 payment decision could be made.
3 Council Action
4 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Makowske to table further the
5 requested payment to Fullerton Lumber.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 NEW POLICE RESERVES INTRODUCED BY POLICE CHIEF HICKERSON
8 *Bob Nehring, a chemist for Honeywell
9 *Alan Trombley, Bumper Communications
10 *Dave Westberg, a security guard for Metropolitan Medical
11 *Dick Hopperstad, engineer for Control Data
12 *Dave Larson, machinist for Medtronics
13 *Duane Haponuk, purchasing agent for Cargill
14 *Paul Davis
15 *Paul Olson, current member of the Reserves since 1980
16 A new member of the Reserves, Verneal Leddige, was sitting in .the back
17 of the room and Chief Hickerson explained that he was out of uniform
18 because he had just come from taking finals at the University.
19 Following the introductions, Reserve Davis told the Councilmembers the
�20 seven new reserves had been happy to come over from Minneapolis to
21 help out St. Anthony' s reserve program. He thanked the Council for
22 their new uniforms and said the reserves would be seeking support from
23 them to make that program successful.
24 Mayor Sundland responded by welcoming the new reserves, telling them
25 he could see by looking at them that they would be adding the
26 support to the City' s sworn certified officers, which the Council had
27 been seeking for a long time. The Mayor indicated he knew Chief
28 Hickerson was committed to the reserve program and shared his hopes
29 for its success.
30 Councilmember Ranallo said he perceived the addition of the reserves
31 was "certainly a dream come true" for the Council and said he per-
32 sonally had been looking at a strong reserve program for years, which
33 had never really gotten off the ground, with only two or three
34 members at a time. The Councilmember indicated he thought Paul Olson
35 should be commended for his "stick-to-itiveness" and dedication to the
36 program in spite of the lack of other reserves.
37 Chief Hickerson told the Councilmembers the new reserve program would
38 be coordinated by some of the younger patrolmen, including Jeff Scholl
39 Dominic Cotroneo, and David Carlson, as well as John Ohl, who coor-
40 dinates the Crime Watch Program for the City. He then explained the
41 reference in the staff notes to the reserves riding in unmarked cars
•42 to mean they would be using that type of vehicle on weekends to
3
1 respond on their own to calls which they had previously responded to
2 while accompanied by regular patrolman in marked squads. That way
3 the reserves could acquaint themselves with the City streets so they
4 would know where they' re going when it came to responding on their
5 own.
6 Chief Hickerson indicated most of the reserves lived in the vicinity
7 and had been among the Minneapolis reserves who had responded to the
8 City' s call for help during the tornado.
9 The agenda was then moved up so the Police Chief could answer any
10 questions the Council might have related to matters appearing under
11 NEW BUSINESS, later in the agenda.
12 Council Approves Purchase of New Squad Car
13 Chief Hickerson reiterated the reasons he had given in his December
14 2nd memorandum for purchasing another Chevrolet Caprice through the
15 Hennepin County Purchasing contract for use as a marked squad car.
16 Mr. Childs pointed out that $12 ,006 was a little less than the City
17 had paid for the Chevrolet Celebrity which can no longer be gotten
18 with police packaging. The Police Chief indicated there had been
19 problems with the heat on the Celebrity which caused several alter-
20 nators to go out.
�21 Council Action
22 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to authorize the purchase of a
23 Chevrolet Caprice for use as a marked squad car as per Chief Hicker-
24 son' s December 2 , 1987 memorandum.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 In his December 1st memorandum, Chief Hickerson had reported Resolu-
27 tion 87-041 had been proposed as the vehicle for approving the
28 Memorandum of Understanding which had been developed by the Hennepin
29 County Attorney working with the Hennepin County Police Chiefs and
30 school authorities. The document was a response to Chapter 295
31 enacted by the State Legislature in 1987 dealing with controlled
32 substances, chemical abuse and contraband and requiring teachers to
33 report possession, use and transfer of chemical substances by stu-
34 dents.
35 Chief Hickerson said he had thought the issue was "cut and dried"
36 until that morning when he had received a letter from the author of
37 Chapter 295 , Randy Kelly, dated October 22nd, which indicated parts of
38 the Memorandum of Understanding would be in conflict with federal
39 statutes which forbid teachers to contact the police unless there is
40 a clear violation of the law, which is sometimes hard to prove when it
41 comes to alcohol consumption within a group of students.
•
4
1 Councilmember Makowske suggested that when the document is rewritten,
2 a specific time frame of from 3 to 5 days be established for teacher
3 notification. She also suggested a copy of the Memorandum be sent to
4 New Brighton since the new law requires reporting to the law enforce-
5 ment body of the municipality in which the student resides.
6 Councilmember Marks indicated teacher notification had long been a
7 concern of the City' s Chemical Abuse Committee and this should solve
8 that problem.
9 When Councilmember Ranallo questioned whether the Council should
10 approve the document without first seeing the revisions, Mr. Soth
11 said he would expect a standard revision of the section dealing with
12 federal statute compliance. Mr. Childs said it had not been mandatory
13 that the Council approve the document and he had only suggested the
14 Police Chief bring it to them so they would be aware of what is
15 happening.
16 Chief Hickerson told Councilmember Makowske he would suggest a
17 specific notification. time be established in the document recalling
18 that the issue had been talked about when the document had been
19 written. In regard to notifying New Brighton, the Chief told her he
20 was certain the Ramsey County Agreement would carry the same basic
21 information as Hennepin County' s.
22 In a related matter, the Police Chief reported the school had adopted
S',23 a smoking prohibition for anyone on school property to which a fine
24 had been attached. Councilmembers Marks and Enrooth indicated they
25 could hardly believe that at last the St. Anthony schools would be
26 "smoke free" .
27 Council Action
28 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to adopt Resolution 87-041
29 authorizing the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding proposed
30 by Chief Hickerson with provision for compliance with federal statut-
31 es, leaving the suggested modifications of wording establishing a
32 notification time frame up to the Police Chief.
33 RESOLUTION 87-041
34 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ST. ANTHONY CHIEF OF POLICE
35 TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
36 SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 282 AND THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY POLICE
37 DEPARTMENT
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39 Commissioner Wants Reserves to Provide Services for Ramsey County
40 Residents
•
5
1 Commissioner Madden, who was present to report the November 30th
2 Commission minutes, commented that he had observed the new recruits
3 all had Hennepin County and St. Anthony identification patches on
4 their shirts and he hoped that didn' t mean Ramsey County residents
5 living in St. Anthony would be deprived of their services. He was
6 advised that this certainly would not be the case.
7 REPORTS
8 NOVEMBER 30 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JOHN MADDEN
9 Council Decides Mickey D' s Restaurant Needs More Signage Than Commis-
10 sion Recommended
11 Application: from Tom Gow, E.S.I . Advertising, and Michael Farrell,
12 new owner of restaurant at 2.905 Kenzie Terrace;
13 originally for:
14 4 ' X 8 ' ( 32 sq. ft. ) reader board on east side,
15 which applicant withdrew;
16 27 sq. ft. Mickey D' s sign on east side of existing
17 roof sign (ordinance calculates 84 sq. ft. ) ;
18 front sign size not designated in letter but pur-
19 ported by applicant to be 82 sq. ft. ( 141 sq. ft.
0120 by ordinance) .
21 Documentation: City *Manager' s December 3rd memorandum;
22 petition for sign variance dated October 26 , 1987;
23 October 30th Gow letter defining signage;
24 November 4th Bulletin notice of hearing;
25 sketches of 3 signs dated October 5 , 6 , and 19 ;
26 copy of December 17th Commission hearing provided by
27 Commissioner Madden;
28 permit for sign 82 sq. ft. ;
29 3 photos of restaurant taken from Kenzie Terrace,
30 st. Anthony Boulevard, and Highway 88 .
31 Madden' s said the applicant had testified that they considered
32 report: the 100 square feet of signage the ordinance allowed
33 the restaurant to be inadequate for a restaurant which
34 can be seen from four streets; and therefore,
• 6
1 had recommended the Council grant a variance for addit-
2 ional signage on the east side of the existing roof
3 sign;
4 drew attention to the Commission' s November 17th hear-
5 ing on the signage and the minutes report of dif-
6 ferences which had arisen related to how the signage
7 should be calculated;
8 reported that within two days of the hearing the appli-
9 cants had requested and received a permit from Mr.
10 Hamer for an 1182 square foot" Mickey D' s Family Rest-
11 aurant sign which they immediately put up on the front
12 of the building;
13 indicated that during the November 30th meeting, the
14 applicants had stated they perceived that since the
15 permit gave the signs size as 82 sq. ft. they needed a
16 variance for only the difference between that size and
17 the 100 allowed by the ordinance plus the roof sign
18 which they considered to be 27 sq. ft.
19 Commission Recommends No Additional Signage from what the Restaurant
20 Already Has
21 The Commission representative told the Councilmembers a majority of
•22 the Commissioners concurred that the existing signage exceeded the
23 ordinance requirements by 41 square feet, but felt since staff had
24 erroneously accepted that size to be 82 square feet and had issued a
25 permit for that size, the applicants should be allowed to keep the .
26 front sign but recommended no additional signage on any other part of
27 the building. Commissioner Madden pointed out that this left the
28 restaurant with signage only on the front of the building, which
29 could not be seen from either St. Anthony Boulevard or Highway 88 .
30 He also said although it was perceived this building only had streets
31 on two sides, he thought a strong case could be made for a third
32 because, except for the strip of land which the Highway Department
33 owned, there was no development at all between the building and St.
34 Anthony Boulevard.
35 The Commissioner also reiterated that the City Manager had told the
36 Commissioners he thought case law indicated "administrative error
37 didn' t make something legal. " He concluded his report by saying it
38 had been his perception that the feeling on the Commission had been
39 that something might have been worked out to get signage on the east
40 side had the owner waited until after the next Commission meeting to
41 put up his signage.
42
43 Staff Report
44 Mr. Childs told the Councilmembers the sign company had come up with
• 45 a total front sign surface by calculating the size of . words, letters,
7
� 1 and even an apostrophe separately and not including any of the space
2 around the letters. The sign ordinance, on the other hand, as
3 Councilmember Marks had pointed out, had been modeled on the type of
4 signage commonly used by cities to require signage be calculated
5 according to the rectangle which encircles the copy. The City Manager
6 indicated he perceived there weren' t many municipalities who didn' t
7 follow the same policies.
8 He also indicated Mr. Hamer had assumed the responsibility for not
9 catching the incorrect calculations presented by the sign company and
10 issuing a permit for those calculations.
11 Previous attempts to misconstrue the City' s Sign Ordinance require-
12 ments were recalled with the following discussions:
13 Enrooth said he was amazed at how many times businesses had misread
14 the ordinance and put up non-conforming signage before getting Council
15 approval. He cited the Dairy Queen signage as an example. He
16 wondered if the ordinance wasn' t clear enough or whether staff was not
17 emphatic about what the City required.
18 Ranallo pointed to the beauty shop across from Apache and the attempts
19 by the Country Store not to count blank space in what was obviously
20 part of their sign, as other examples.
21 Childs reiterated that the wording in the City' s ordinance was pretty
02 standard throughout the region.
23 Sundland said he perceived it might not be so much a matter of
24 misinterpreting the ordinance language as it was "interpreting the
25 ordinance to say what you would like. "
26 Marks said he suspected St. Anthony' s ordinance wasn' t much different
27 when it came to sign language because it was based on measurements
28 commonly used by most municipalities.
29 Enrooth indicated he perceived the City had to develop some type of
30 form to show permit applicants which could not be misconstrued.
31 Childs responded that graph paper would not have prevented this error
32 because what the sign company had done was to draw five little
33 rectangles around different words and letters rather than around the
34 entire copy.
35 Proponents Give Their Side of Controversy
36 Mr. Farrell indicated the sign company had worked with Mr. Hamer to
37 calculate the signage and that it had been Mr. Hamer who had told him
38 the front sign would be 82 square feet. He said Mr. Hamer told him he
39 would "have to go before the Planning Commission to get a variance
40 for signage needed for one side of the pylon. " He indicated he would
•
8
1 never "spend the money I did on signage if I knew there was any chance
2 I would be throwing it out the window later on. "
3 He indicated he had "a lot of hard feelings" about the way he had
4 been treated at the first Planning Commission meeting where "before I
5 had even presented anything at all, I was attacked by my sign being
6 called tacky. " As a way of rebuttinq that contention, the restaurant
7 owner reiterated that he had "paid top dollar for the best sign I
8 could buy which wouldn' t hurt anybody at all. " He said his personal
9 investigation had indicated the past business had not done anything
10 in the past 7 or 8 years "because of the 'Hobo' junk which has been up
11 there and the previous owners had not done the right things or
12 invested in the right ways. " He indicated he perceived it had been
13 "bad advertising" which had caused the previous owners to fail.
14 Mr. Farrell indicated that had he known he was going to end up with
15 signage on only one side of a building with four different angles of
16 traffic, he would have put the "Family Restaurant" on the east side.
17 Having already spent $5, 600 to have the front sign made, he said he
18 was "totally confused" to find out at the first hearing that his
19 signage was all wrong.
20 The applicant told Councilmember Makowske it had been the sign company
21 and not he who had gotten a copy of the City' s Sign Ordinance but he
22 insisted he would never have purchased and had three signs made
�23 without first getting an O.K. from Mr. Hamer.
24 Mr. Farrell reported the "vibes" he had gotten at the first hearing
25 where his reader sign was called "tacky" caused him to drop that idea
26 altogether along with between $4,000 and $5 ,000 which he would lose by
27 doing so. The restaurant owner indicated he hadn' t expected the City
28 to object to a variance for only 9 extra feet of signage since he
29 would be replacing "a real ugly pylon sign" with a roof sign which
30 couldn' t even be seen from the homes to the west. He explained that
31 it would cost him a lot of money to take the existing roof sign down
32 especially since that would mean redoing all the electrical for the
33 other signs.
34 When Mr. Farrell reported that the "Mickey D' s" sign he proposed
35 putting on the east side of the existing roof sign was 27 square
36 feet, Mr. Childs indicated these were the sign company' s calculations
37 and that the City' s was 64 square feet, which had been fully explained
38 to both Mr Gow and Mr. Farrell at the November 17th hearing prior
39 to the installation of the front sign. Commissioner Madden' s copy of
40 the November 17th hearing was then passed around to prove that point.
41 When a debate developed as to when the applicants had been told they
42 could meet the ordinance requirements by splitting the front sign into
43 "Mickey D' s" and "Family Restaurant" and a variance sought to put the
44 latter on the east side, Mr. Childs indicated he perceived what was
45 important was that ( 1) the front sign, although calculated incorrect-
•46 ly, had already been approved for a permit; ( 2 ) the applicants found
9
• 1 out at the November 17th hearing that the roof sign was 64 and not 27
2 square feet, according to the ordinance; and ( 3 ) he had made it very
3 clear at that meeting that his estimation of the size of the front
4 sign in the published Notice of Hearing had been made without his
5 seeing the dimensions and though the sign might encompass less that
6 200 feet was over the allowable square footage allowed that building.
7 He reiterated that according to ordinance calculations, the front sign
8 was 141 square feet which with the 64 square feet of signage proposed
9 for the roof sign brought the signage up to 205 square feet, which
10 would be 105 square feet more than the ordinance allows even with a
11 variance for a second sign.
12 Mr. Soth affirmed the City Manager' s correction of Councilmember
13 Marks ' assumption that the roof sign would only be 27 square feet, by
14 telling him in this case the entire surface of one side of what had
15 previously been a "Mr. Hobo" sign would have to be considered for a
16 variance.
17 Councilmembers Chide Sign Company Representative
18 Mr. Gow told the Council that he alone had been responsible for
19 making the wrong calculations when he had first met with Mr. Hamer.
20 When he explained that he was considering "Mickey D' s" and "Family
21 Restaurant" as two separate signs because they weren't connected,
22 Councilmember Ranallo told him "you' re in the sign business and should
i23 have known better. " The Councilmember then indicated he thought the
24 Council should "do exactly what the Commission had recommended. "
25 Mr. Childs also explained the way the sign company had arrived at 82
26 square feet had been to measure "Mickey" , the "D" , the apostrophe, the
27 "s" and "Family" and "Restaurant" separately and indicated that if Mr.
28 Gow had actually measured "Mickey D' s" and "Family Restaurant"
29 separately, they would have come up with exactly 100 square feet,
30 which is what the ordinance allows that building.
31 Mayor Sundland agreed, saying that was exactly how the minutes had
32 reported Mr. Childs' calculations. Mr. Gow then admitted that was
33 how he had measured the signage.
34 Councilmember Makowske told Mr. Gow she was still having difficulty
35 trying to see where Mr. Farrell had gotten the 9 square feet he
36 thought he still needed because even after granting that the front
37 sign was 82 square feet, leaving 18 feet for a variance, and with the
38 erroneous figure of 27 square feet for the roof sign, she had calcu-
39 lated a variance for 45 square feet would be necessary. Mr. Gow
40 told her he had thought another issue came into play for this
41 multifronted building where other cities normally measured the sides
42 which faced the streets. He said he now knew that was not the way
43 the City figured signage. He then explained that to save time, he
44 had met with Mr Hamer right away, but hadn' t gotten a copy of the
•45 ordinance until later on.
10
• 1 Councilmember Enrooth told the sign representative that he perceived
2 the sad thing in this case was that if the signage had been done
3 properly, there would probably have been no problem getting a second
4 sign because of the restaurant' s corner location. He and Councilmem-
5 ber Marks both commented that they perceived the City' s complicity in
6 the error had to be taken into account as well.
7 Councilmember Ranallo underscored that the Commission had only
8 "recommended" the Council give the applicants the extra 41 square feet
9 on the front which with the 64 square feet on the roof sign, actually
10 represented a variance for 105 square feet, almost double what the
11 ordinance allowed.
12 Council Swayed by Photos of Building From Three Roadways
13 After seeing the above and hearing Mr. Gow say all the electrical for
14 the front sign was housed in the roof sign, which had already been
15 made up, some of the Councilmembers indicated a different perspective
16 on the issue:
17 Ranallo: indicated he could see from the photos that the restaurant
18 would be "completely naked on one side" ;
19 Marks: told Mr. Farrell the Council certainly wanted him to be
•20 successful;
21 agreed the photos illustrated lack of identification from
22 Highway 88.
23 Makowske: indicated she wanted assurance that there would be no other
24 copy except "Mickey D' s" on the roof sign and no other
25 types of signage including window signs on the restaurant.
26 Roof Sign Allowed by 4 to 1 Vote
27 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve the Planning commis-
28 sion findings related to the front sign on Mickey D' s Family Res-
29 taurant, 2905 Kenzie Terrace, and to grant an additional variance to
30 allow the proposed 64 square foot sign to be erected on the east side
31 only of the existing roof sign structure with no other signage on the
32 building at all.
33 Before the vote was taken, the following objections were raised:
34 Mr. Childs:
35 *indicated he was not denying staff had made a mistake by accept-
36 ing erroneous calculations of square footage for the proposed
37 signage; but
•
11
1 *having worked with and written signage ordinances in Minnesota
2 and other states the past 15 years, had a hard time seeing how
3 anyone who worked with signs on a regular basis, could poss-
4 ibly have calculated square footage in the manner which had
5 been proposed;
6 *reiterated that in terms of municipal ordinances with possibly
7 the exception of signage for large commercial retail develop-
8 ments, he had never seen square footage calculated like this;
9 *was especially concerned that this signage had been ordered
10 long before the application for a variance had been made;
11 *wanted the Council to know it had always been staff' s policy not
12 to make any prediction about the likelihood of getting a vari-
13 ance except to let persons who wanted variances know their
14 chances of getting variances would be very slim if that seemed
15 to be likely.
16
17 Councilmember Makowske:
18 *indicated she personally was very concerned about the effect
19 granting a variance of this size might have on the City' s
20 attempts to get some resolution for the excessive signage on
21 the Dairy Queen;
•22 *was told by Mr. Childs the final decision would be up to the
23 Council of course, but the Planning Commission had already
24 indicated to the owner that they were prepared to look favorably
25 on a variance for the excessive signage if he came in to make an
26 application, which unfortunately, in spite of threats of legal
27 action, he had failed to do.
28 Those favoring a variance had the following to say about their
29 decision:
30 Councilmember Ranallo:
31 *indicated the reason he had made the comment about the final
32 decision having to be made by the Council was to emphasize to
33 the applicants that signage should never have been ordered
34 without Council approval;
35 *told Mr. Gow he continued to believe he knew what he was doing
36 all along;
37 *indicated he perceived some changes in staff procedures would
38 have to be made to avoid future misunderstandings; but
39 *since errors on both sides had occurred, said he would like to
40 see the business community get a break if at all possible.
12
1 Councilmember Enrooth:
2 *perceived the City' s instructions to applicants needed tighten-
3 ing up to avoid recurrence of this problem.
4 Councilmember Marks:
5 *agreed staff ' s procedures needed to be "beefed up" to the ext-
6 ent that all sign applicants would be furnished with written
7 instructions which stated that the Planning Commission is only
8 an advisory body and they should do nothing about signage until
9 after they had received an O.K. from the Council.
10 Councilmember Ranallo:
11 *wondered if better communication might have prevented what had
12 happened at the Dairy Queen where the City had perceived only a
13 remodeling permit was being sought and, in fact, the day after
14 it had been granted the whole building was torn down.
15
16 Before calling the vote on the motion, Mayor Sundland admonished Mr.
17 Gow in the future not to let his enthusiasm to serve his customers
18 prevent him from looking a little more closely for "unique signage
19 requirements" , although in this case, the general feeling had been
20 that St. Anthony' s ordinance could in no way be considered to be
21 different from other cities. The Mayor told the sign company
022 representative he perceived neither the City nor his client had been
23 well served in this instance. The restaurant owner was also cau-
24 tioned that if he ever had to remove the signage for a remodeling
25 project, the ordinance would require him to repeat the entire variance
26 procedure before it could be reinstalled on the building. Mayor
27 Sundland told Mr. Farrell he wouldn' t bet on his getting those
28 variances and was quite certain any extensive refurbishing plans
29 would have to include the removal of the non-conforming roof sign
30 altogether.
31 Voting on the motion:
32 Aye: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Sundland.
33 Nay: Makowske.
34 Motion carried.
35
36 Rapid Oil Given Until October, 1988 to Take Pylon Sign Down
37 The Council accepted the Commission' s recommendation that the
38 existing, non-conforming pylon sign in front of the Rapid Oil Change
39 facility at 3701 Silver Lake Road should be removed now that gas is no
40 longer sold from the property. However, the owners were given a
41 little more time to keep the sign as identification while they are
�42 remodeling their building.
13
1 Mark Gilbertson, Rapid Oil Change Project Manager, reiterated many of
2 the justifications he saw for the sign' s retention, which he had
3 expressed during the two Commission considerations of his proposal,
4 including that:
5 *the sign had not proved detrimental to the neighborhood up to
6 now;
7 *Rapid Oil would be losing the $2 ,500 the sign had originally
8 cost them as well as the $500 it would cost to remove it;
9 *a unique hardship had been established when the County condemned
10 and took the land where the gas pumps stood on 37th Avenue for a
11 right turn lane causing the business to lose those revenues;
12 *future losses could be great if the station is left without any
13 signage at all when the conversion to a drive-through caused
14 the business to temporarily remove the existing signage on the
15 building and to shut down completely for 3 to 4 weeks.
16 Mr. Gilbertson indicated he had joined the company after they had
17 acquired that property and didn' t know whether they had been
18 compensated for the loss of gas business. Councilmember Ranallo told
19 him the City had looked at that property for a liquor store in 1982
20 and 1983 before Rapid Oil bought it and knew at that time how exten-
•21 sive the loss of land on that corner would be. He said he was certain
22 Rapid Oil went into the project knowing just as much.
23 The Councilmember then indicated he saw no reason for not accepting
24 the Planning Commission' s recommendations that the pylon should be
25 removed although he thought they might have been a little too generous
26 when it came to giving them until June to take it down.
27 Mr. Childs recalled that when Rapid Oil had first come in they had
28 talked about taking out all the gas pumps but when they found out that
29 they would lose the sign if they did so, decided to keep the gas
30 operation. He agreed with Councilmember Enrooth' s perception that
31 "the sign was probably a lot more valuable to them than the gas
32 sales ever were. "
33 Mr. Gilbertson acknowledged that St. Anthony didn' t have too many
34 pylon signs, but he wondered if Rapid Oil' s couldn't be replaced with
35 a monument type sign like TCF' s just north of him. The City Manager
36 told him the wall signage he had on the building now was already under
37 variance because it was too excessive under the ordinance.
38 Noting the statistics Mr. Gilbertson had quoted which said a business
39 couldn' t expect to get 1000 of its business back for at least a year
40 if it had to close for any period of time at all, Councilmember
41 Enrooth suggested the grace period the Commission had recommended be
�42 extended until October, 1988.
14
• 1 Council Action
2 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enrooth to follow the Planning
3 Commission' s recommendations that Rapid Oil should have to remove the
4 non-conforming pylon sign in front of their business at 3701 Silver
5 Lake Road but, to help them recover some of the business they lost
6 while they were shut down to convert to a drive-through facility, to
7 allow them to keep the sign up until October 1 , 1988.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Qualified Vote of Confidence Given American Monarch' s Proposal
10 Commissioner Madden reported that the Planning Commission had looked
11 favorably on the American Monarch proposal to sell the land to the
12 east they weren' t using, and probably would never use, to someone who
13 would erect a low profilebuilding on the property which the neighbors
14 wouldn't find too objectionable.
15 Mr. Childs said, depending on what type of use is proposed, the
16 transfer might require rezoning. Councilmember Ranallo indicated he
17 had observed the number of trains using the Soo Line tracks had been
18 cut down to only about one a day, making it unlikely they would have
19 any new uses for the land they rent to American Monarch for parking.
�20 Mayor Sundland noted that the neighbors ' level of tolerance had been
21 very thin during the time American Monarch used their streets for
22 parking while the building was being expanded and he thought it
23 needed to be emphasized to American Monarch management that the City
24 was not likely to let them park on the streets ever again. However,
25 as long as the plant runs at the current level, he perceived there
26 should be no problem with 175 parking spaces.
27 Commissioner Madden said he understood that if the plant grew too big,
28 the owners would opt to construct another facility rather than to
29 expand in the same location.
30 Councilmember Enrooth wanted it clearly recorded that the Council,
31 although not opposed to the concept, did have some concerns about how
32 parking could be provided if the expansion plans changed in the
33 future. Councilmember Ranallo said he would have to look at the plans
34 for the new development before making any firm commitment.
35 Community Survey Questionnaire Reviewed and Given Go Ahead by the
36 Council
37 The second draft of the above had been provided by Decision Resources,
38 Ltd. from whom Bill Morris and Diane Traxler were present that evening
39 to answer questions and make any changes the Councilmembers might have
40 in their procedure.
15
1 Mr. Morris told Councilmembers they had taken all the City' s sugges-
2 tions related to questions which should be asked and incorporated them
3 as well as possible into the questionnaire, with the exception of
4 some "apple pie issues" the responses to which he knew from experience
5 would be of no policy benefit to St. Anthony.
6 For the third time, Mr. Morris reassured the Councilmembers that the
7 questionnaire was not too long because city surveys had unquestionably
8 remained the easiest survey to do because "people love to talk about
9 their own city. " He said the refusal rate remains at 2% with many
10 cities going well below 1% and with most people saying they' re glad
11 that at last someone is seeking their opinion.
12 The topical areas into which the survey had been broken down in Mr.
13 Morris ' December 4th memorandum were explored again briefly.
14 Mr. Morris stated the following about the questionnaire:
15 *it could provide better insight about what various ages were
16 looking for when it came to housing as well as the seniors per-
17 ceptions of what type of housing they might consider to get them
18 to move;
19 *it would not be difficult to reword some questions to give the
20 Council some idea of how much support remained for their
21 attempts to redevelop the southern retail area;
� 22
23 *question 106 could probably be adjusted to specify age cate-
24 gories between 55 and 70 as verification of the accepted assump-
25 tion that 40% of the community were in that category. Getting
26 the marital status and income levels would also give the
27 Council a better idea of the community' s composition;
28 *"Maintenance" would be changed to "reconstruction" in Question
29 67 and 89 and 90 would be couched in language which would not
30 resurrect old divisiveness but would let the respondents know
31 their opinions were being sought related to the make up of the
32 Fire Department. Those responses would also be flagged for
33 comments;
34 *question 97 was to be moved up in the survey as requested by
35 the Police Chief;
36 *questions about the respondents ' satisfaction with present
37 levels of communication related to City affairs would be worded
38 in such a way as to give the Council an idea of whether they
39 ought to spend more money to expand the quarterly Newsletter to
40 monthly .reports to the residents;
41 *it would probably not cost the Council any more to include. a
42 question related to where residents make their major purchases
43 which might be of benefit for future planning.
• 16
• 1 Mr. Morris confirmed the questionnaire had only moved from the bid
2 base of 64 until questions to 78 and not 112 questions as Councilmem-
3 ber Enrooth had thought. He also perceived with the few modifications
4 the Council wanted the price would remain close to . $5,880 for 400
5 calls. Ms. Traxler indicated she expected the calls could be started
6 within a few days.
7 COUNCIL REPORTS
8 Makowske to Attend Ramsey County League of Local Government Holiday
9 Banquet, December 16th
10 The other Councilmembers agreed with Councilmember Makowske that she
11 should attend this function because although there would be no special
12 guests or particular issue pursued, there would be votes taken that
13 evening.
14 Lions Club Letter of Protest Read Aloud
15 Mayor Sundiand indicated he wanted the letter from Ken Girard,
16 Chairman of the St. Anthony Lions Club Pull Tab Committee, which he
17 read aloud, to be taped for further reference.
18 In his letter Mr. Girard had stated that:
�19 *he didn' t think the Lions Club request to sell pull tabs in the
20 City' s municipal off sale liquor stores had been given a fair
21 hearing because the appearance before the Council of Mr. Stuart
22 who runs a pull tab sales business had been discouraged;
23 *he had been unable to get Councilmember Enrooth on the phone in
24 spite of many phone calls;
25 *the Lions Club members who had gone to see Councilmember Marks
26 perceived he had not kept his promise to them to "keep an open
27 mind on the issue. " ;
28 *during his meeting after the November 24th Council meeting with
29 Councilmember Makowske she had demonstrated a "concern and
30 sensitivity about the whole procedure" , including that Council
31 meeting where he perceived the three Lion Club members in
32 attendance had not been allowed enough input to the discussion
33 which preceded the decision not to grant their request;
34 *his membership was having a hard time understanding why the
35 residents of St. Anthony "should not be able to enjoy the pro-
36 fits of charitable gambling the same as residents of other
37 communities like our neighbors (named them) and hundreds of
38 other cities around Minnesota who have found it honorable and
39 very profitable for their cities as well as the license
•40 holders. "
17
• 1 The Council responded with the following:
2 Sundland: pointed out that the minutes had reported he had asked the
3 proponents if they had anything new to add to what they
4 had already told the Council, to which Mr. Girard had res-
5 ponded at some length and even gotten the City Attorney' s
6 opinion on some of the issues he had raised.
7 Makowske: reported that Mr. Girard had called her at a very inoppor-
8 tune moment the next afternoon and she had suggested they
9 meet instead for a cup of coffee after Thanksgiving;
10 said the Lions Club President had told her he didn' t per-
11 ceive he had been given the opportunity of arguing his case
12 as well as he might have if he could have brought some other
13 people in;
14 indicated she had told Mr. Girard she would report his un-
15 happiness to the rest of the Council;
16 said when Mr. Girard asked her whether she thought the
17 Lions should bring up the question in 3 months , she had
18 told him "a year would be more like it. "
19 Marks: said he could hardly believe the remark about his keeping
•20 his mind open about the matter because he had made it very
21 clear to the Lions who had visited him in his home that he
22 was very upset about the Governor bringing any kind of
23 gambling into the state.
24 Makowske: added that when Mr. Girard had indicated he perceived she
25 and Councilmember Marks had voted their consciences and the
26 other three had voted in a manner they thought the community
27 would want them to vote, she had told him she didn' t think
28 "there should be any difference between a matter of con-
29 science and how the community would want me to vote. "
30 Enrooth: stated that to his knowledge he had never had any phone
31 calls at the house and he couldn' t believe he wouldn' t have
32 gotten the message if anyone else took the calls;
33 added that it would not have been too difficult for the
34 callers to get his work phone, which most people usually do.
35 Sundland: said he had told the Lions who came to visit him that "if
36 the rest of the Council didn' t want to go along with chang-
37 ing the ordinance, I wouldn' t either" ;
38 also indicated he hadn' t wanted to make it appear there was
39 really any debate on the question by commenting during the
•40 Council meeting.
18
1 Ranallo: said he hadn' t realized until that night that the man the
2 Lions wanted to bring in was from a pull tab management
3 company who, of course, would profit from opening the City
4 to pull tabs.
5 Enrooth: said he perceived that had been one of the overriding
6 factors in the Council' s opposition to these kinds of
7 activities in the first place.
8 The perception was that the matter had been fully explored and that
9 no change of minds on the Council was imminent.
10 DEPARTMENTS AND COMMISSIONS
11 The Council briefly considered and ordered filed:
12 *Prosecutor' s report on matters conducted at the Hennepin County
13 District Court, November 18 , 1987 ;
14 *November liquor operation sales summary;
15 *October Police Department report.
16 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
•17 December 2nd Staff Meeting Notes
18 Several items having been discussed earlier in the evening, the
19 Council ordered the Notes filed.
20 Council to Appoint Three Commissioners at Special Meeting, January 5th
21 Copies of the seven applications which had been submitted by the
22 November 20 , 1987 deadline had been included in the Council' s agenda
23 packet. Two were from current members, John Madden and Seven London,
24 whose terms of office would expire December 31st. The other applica-
25 tions were from St. Anthony residents Edward W. Brownell III ; Lief
26 Thorson; Lawrence J. Antczak; Jeffrey F. Shea; and Dennis E. Murphy.
27 Councilmember Enrooth noted the lack of quorum at the Commission' s
28 November 17th meeting and wondered if repeated absences might not
29 have become a problem. Mr. Childs said during the 6 years he had been
30 here he could remember only one or two times where there had not been
31 enough Commissioners present -to take official action. The Secretary
32 agreed, saying her recollection was that during the past 14 years in
33 which she had been taking minutes, lack of quorums had been relatively
34 rare. However, she did recall that at one time there had been a
35 ruling that repeated absences meant consideration of service termina-
36 tion.
• 19
• 1 There was concurrence that the ability to attend meetings regularly
2 should be re-emphasized during the interviews to fill the three
3 vacancies left when Commissioner Wingard moved away, which were then
4 scheduled to be held at 7:00 P.M. , January 5th, with appointments to
5 be made in time for seven members to be in attendance for the
6 Commission' s first meeting in 1988 , January 20th.
7 TCAAP Litigation Update
8 Mr. Childs said he met with Captain Connor the previous week and
9 found there were two separate tracks leading to settlement.
10 First, the Army has started to check the costs the City has incurred
11 because of the water contamination seepage from the arms plant, and
12 while not admitting any liability at this time, had agreed that, if
13 they are proven liable, they would pay all of the allowable costs.
14 The City Manager said he had gotten from his conversation with Captain
15 Connor the impression that the key man to a final settlement would
16 more than likely be one of their environmental engineers, Peter Wirth,
17 who is waiting for some computer data from the State of Minnesota.
18 However, he said that could be a long time coming because three of
19 the four persons who had worked on this project for the MPCA had
20 moved on and their replacements had not yet been found.
21 Mr. Childs indicated he was in touch with that department to see what
• 22 the holdup was, but as he had previously told one of the Councilmem-
23 bers, he believed it would be necessary for the City to look for some
24 expert like someone from Bruce Liesch to contact Mr. Wirth to find out
25 just what data is still missing; find out where that information is;
26 take it back to the engineer and then determine just what else would
27 be necessary for him to tell the Army et al they were responsible for
28 contaminating the City' s water supply.
29 In regard to the class action litigation itself, Mr. Childs told the
30 Councilmembers the settlement conference or class certification
31 meeting had been postponed until January 5th. However, in the
32 meantime, Special Master Short had given all class plaintiffs until
33 the end of the week to put together a firm settlement demand to which
34 the Army et al have to respond before December 21sy with a firm
35 counter claim with the level of specificity the claimants have needed
36 in the first place.
37 Mr. Childs concluded by saying he should be able to give the Council
38 a final estimation of what it would cost to retain Bruce Liesch during
39 the short meeting he perceived the Council would have to hold sometime
40 after the bids have come in for the pedestrian signal and to pay
41 bills, including the contractor' s which had been tabled that evening.
42 Land Acquisition Decision Delayed for Further Information
•
20
• 1 The owner of a 103 X 132 foot parcel adjacent to Central Park had
2 contacted the City to see if the City had any interest in buying it.
3 There was a brief discussion of land the City already owns before the
4 Council was informally polled. When it became apparent that the
5 majority might look favorably upon the purchase at a realistic price,
6 the Manager agreed to research recent appraisals in that area and
7 what the City appraisal costs might be and to report back.
8 December 22nd Council Meeting Time Changed to 5: 00 P.M.
9 As he had indicated earlier, Mr. Childs said he envisioned a very
10 short meeting would be needed. Mayor Sundland indicated that if the
11 weather turned bad that day he would be leaving on his out-of-town
12 trip earlier in the day, which should be no problem as long as a
13 quorum would be present to pay the bills which had to be paid before
14 the Council ' s next meeting in January, and to award the contract for
15 the Kenzie Terrace traffic signal.
16 NEW BUSINESS
17 January 12th Hearing Called on Reconstruction of Southern Portion
18 of St. Anthony Boulevard
19 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to adopt Resolution 87-042 which
20 schedules a January 12th public hearing on the reconstruction of the
• 21 boulevard between the Burlington Northern bridge and the southernmost
22 City limits, at an estimated cost of $440,000.00 .
23 RESOLUTION 87-042
24 A RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING
25 HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27 ADJOURNMENT
28 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to adjourn the meeting at 10: 51
29 P.M. for the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting
30 which immediately followed.
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 Respectfully submitted,
33 Helen Crowe, Secretary
3 4r Q -1 f (/� ATTEST:
35 `Mayor 6//1'—
21