HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 04261988 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
105821
Box: 35
Folder: CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1988
Document: CC MINUTES 04261988
i
• C= 7Z OF S T . ANTHONY
C CDUN C M L M=NUT E S
AP R M L 2 6 3- 988
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 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
5 William Soth, City Attorney
6 APRIL 12, 1988 COliNCIL MINUTES
7 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve with the following
8 change:
9 Page 8 , line 14: Insert "a" between "work" and "local" .
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
49Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to grant the following as
. presented in the April 26th Council agenda packet:
14 CIGARETTE
15 American Amusement Co. ( formerly Advance Carter)
16 Dave' s St. Anthony Mobil
17 F. W. Woolworth
18 CONTRACTORS
19 Modern Concrete Company
20 C & M Builders (renewal)
21 Crosstown Sign Inc.
22 Standard Water Control (renewal )
23 Norsk Concrete ( renewal)
24 HEATING
25 Blaine Heating ( renewal)
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to grant an off-sale 3 . 2 beer
28 license to the Town & Country Store.
1 Voting on the motion:
0 Aye: Ranallo, Enrooth, Sundland, Makowske.
3 Nay: Marks.
4 Motion carried.
5 CLAIMS
6 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payment of all City
7 accounts payable listed for March 31st and April 12th and 26th in the
8 April 26 , 1988 Council agenda packet.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of $26 ,082. 04
11 to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for May sewer services.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $2,870. 00 to
14 Motorola, Inc. to replace some of the pagers for the City Fire
15 Department Reserves.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
1WMotion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payment of $1 ,863 . 02
as fees to the Government Training Service for the goal setting session
19 held February 26th and 27th.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 REPORTS
22 APRIL 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REPORT - GEORGE WAGNER
23 Council Accepts Commission Recommendation Related to Permit for Youth
24 Oriented Malt Shop/Arcade at Apache
25 In reporting the Commission' s recommendation that the Council grant the
26 conditional use permit for the above, Commission Chair Wagner referred
27 to the seven pages of minutes related to the Commission' s hearing on
28 the permit, saying the issue had been thoroughly discussed with the
29 project' s supporters, including school administrators, students,
30 neighbors, and the Apache representative, a good many of whom were
31 present that evening to reiterate that support for the Council' s
32 benefit.
33 Chair Wagner reported none of the neighbors had opposed the project,
34 although several of those present at the hearing had suggested imposing
35 conditions on the permit which would make it hard for a less desirable
0 2
business to succeed Mr. Bonaventura at that location. Those concerns ,
which the Commission representative indicated were shared by the
3 Commissioners, had been written into the Commission recommendation that
4 the Council grant the permit, Chair Wagner said. He also indicated
5 the Commissioners had found this to be a very unique establishment,
6 having no knowledge of any other quite like it.
7 City Attorney' s Guidance Sought Relative to Condition #6
8 The Commissioners had expressed some uncertainty as to how the above
9 should be written to address the concerns about what might succeed Mr.
10 Bonaventura once a permit for that type of business had been
11 established for that location. Mr. Soth suggested language which would
12 require any successor to meet the same criteria related to character,
13 past history, etc. which had been required of the applicant, which the
14 Council adopted for their motion which was then read aloud by the
15 Planning Commission Chair for the benefit of those persons who were
16 present again that evening. One of these, Ruth Thompson, 3015 - 39th
17 Avenue N.E. was assured that by specifying hours of operation, the City
18 would not be preventing Mr. Bonaventura from opening later or closing
19 earlier, if business warranted.
20 Council Action
21 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to grant Michael L. Bonaventura,
22 DBA Bono' s Malt Shop and Arcade the necessary conditional use permit to
0 3 operate the establishment he proposed in the southwest corner of the
4 free-standing building formerly occupied by N.A.P.A. Auto Parts Store
25 at Apache Plaza under the following conditions :
26 1. Hours of operation would be from 11 : 00 A.M. to 11: 00 P.M. , Monday
27 through Thursday during times District #282 schools are not in
28 session and from 11 : 00 A.M. to midnight Friday and Saturday and
29 from noon to 10: 00 P.M. on Sundays. During the time that the
30 schools are in session, the arcade can be open from 11: 00 A.M. to
31 10: 00 P.M. , Monday through Thursday; 11 : 00 A.M. to midnight Friday
32 and Saturday; and from noon to 10: 00 P.M. Sunday.
33 2. A minimum of two supervisory persons, easily recognizable as such,
34 whose ages are at least 21 , would be on duty at this location
35 whenever the establishment is open.
36 3 . The malt shop/arcade shall be designated as a smoke, alcohol, and
37 drug free environment.
38 4 . During the first year of operation, the establishment will be
39 subject to review at the discretion of the City and thereafter,
40 on an annual basis with input from the Police Chief based on
41 statistics on the number and nature of calls his department has
42 to make to the establishment.
•
3
5. Noise would be kept at the level where there would be no annoy-
ance of adjacent businesses or residences and external speakers
3 would not be permitted.
4 6 . The arcade will be owned, operated and controlled by Michael L.
5 Bonaventura and if the ownership, operation, or control changes,
6 the permit would terminate unless the new owner and operator was
7 approved by the City Council after review of the credentials and
8 qualifications of the new owner and operator.
9 7. Occupancy would be strictly limited to the number of persons
10 specified by the Fire Marshal.
11 8. The number of amusement devices would be limited to 34 for this
12 establishment.
13 In granting this permit, the Council finds , as did the Planning
14 Commission, that:
15 a. Staff and City officials have received a number of letters sup-
16 porting the permit and there were a number of residents from
17 that area present at both the April 19th hearing and the Council' s
18 April 26th meeting who were in favor of the establishment.
19 b. No one spoke against the permit at either meeting and neighbor
20and Commission concerns about how the operation would be run were
01 addressed as conditions for approval.
22 c. The three conditions required to be satisfied before a conditional
23 use permit may be authorized have been met with this approval.
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 Shopping Center Signage Request Withdrawn
26 Mr. Childs indicated the applicants, perceiving that with the
27 Commission' s opposition to further center signage without a uniform
28 signage plan, it would be more than likely trat the Council would deny
29 their request, had withdrawn their application prior to the meeting.
30 Council Accepts Concept Plan for 37 Unit Evergreen Townhomes of St.
31 Anthony Project
32 Perceiving that almost all the issues involved in the above had been
33 well covered in the minutes of the April 19th Planning Commission
34 hearing, Mayor Sundland called on Curtis Nordahl, 3513 Skycroft Drive,
35 who owned a landlocked piece of property adjacent to the railroad
36 tracks and four lots east of the subject property and had not attended
37 the Commission hearing.
is
4
r
Mr. Nordahl, whose property was beyond the radius of properties
required by law to be notified of the hearing, said he had not learned
until the previous Thursday about the townhome project which he
4 perceived would have an adverse effect on this property.
5 Mr. Nordahl contended:
6 *the City had some responsibility for providing access to a
7 buildable lot they had allowed to be platted;
8 *throughout the March 20 , 1967 survey of his lot, copies of
9 which he had provided, showed a possible cul du sac road ease-
10 ment and indicated the City' s intent at that time to build a
11 street connecting his property to Silver Lane;
12 *conceded that he had previously also owned lot #4 which abuts
13 Fordham Drive and which is adjacent to the now landlocked lot
14 when he sold lot 4 and kept the landlocked lot, the Torrance
15 papers made no references to a road; and he knew of no further
16 easements which had been granted since 1967;
17
18 *told Councilmember Enrooth he hadn' t gotten a legal opinion as
19 to how access would be provided either before or after he split
20 off the back section but had been told during the period he
21 lived on Fordham Drive that it would only be a matter of time
22 before the three oversize lots next to him would be subdivided,
at which time the City would certainly provide access to those
41 new homes.
25 Mr. Nordahl had brought with him a copy of the North End Study done in
26 1973 on which a division line had been drawn through the undeveloped
27 properties.
28 Staff Responds to Property Owner Assertions
29 Mr. Childs indicated he had researched City documents to find any
30 which pertained to this issue. The only Council action he could find
31 had been a motion in 1967 in which the Council had "approved the
32 Villella Plat Addition subject to a road easement which would provide
33 access for the properties adjacent to the Soo Line railroad tracks. "
34 The City Manager reported those minutes had included no further
35 discussion of the motion which might indicate where the lots were or
36 where the street would come from although it seemed the road would
37 come down from Silver Lane and split existing properties right in the
38 middle.
39 Unfortunately, shortly after that the Council had gone ahead and
40 approved the Ed Erickson addition on Silver Lane with two lots on which
41 there are now homes and from which each property would have to dedicate
42 at least 30 feet if a 60 foot City street were to be built to this
43 property. Since 1967 , Mr. Childs said he could find no other roadway
14 access was ever platted, dedicated, or acquired for that purpose and
5
al there is at least one garage built over the space where any such
roadway would ever be built.
3 Mr. Childs concluded by saying that even if the Council in 1967 had
4 intended to build the connecting roadway to Silver Lane, no one ever
5 went ahead and got the right-of-way so now the one-eighth of a circle
6 road easement shown on Mr. Nordahl' s property is the only one the City
7 has in that area.
8 Mr. Soth told Mr. Nordahl if he were to gain access to Silver Lane, he
9 would have to acquire easements from the owners of Lots 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ,
10 10 , and 11 to do so. The City Attorney also told the property owner
11 that as long as he owned the lot on Fordham Drive, he had legal access
12 to that street from the back of his (the property owner' s) own
13 property, but when Lot 4 was sold, a landlocked piece of property was
14 created. He also told Mr. Nordahl he could have sold Lot 4 subject to
15 an access easement.
16 Mr. Soth guessed that what the Council in 1967 had in mind was that if
17 the three very deep lots, 8 , 9 , and 10, were ever subdivided for
18 development, a road would probably have to be provided between the old
19 and new parcels. He said the City did what it could during that period
20 by getting a road easement on Lot 5 when it was subdivided but that
21 was as far as the City could go until the owners of the rest of the
22 undeveloped properties came in to have their properties subdivided. He
23 perceived that with the Erickson addition already built up, the only
�4 option the City had today would be to require the townhome developers
5 to provide a public street through their development.
26 In reference to the 1973 North End Study, Mr. Childs pointed out that
27 the 1980 Comprehensive Plan showing multi-family housing for that area
28 had superseded that earlier study.
29 Council Reaction
30 Ranallo looked at the North End Study and suggested the division line
31 might have been drawn in after the study was completed because it was
32 not done in white like ail other planned streets had been. He also
33 pointed out that the line didn' t even extend the full distance to Mr.
34 Nordahl' s property but veered off instead to the railroad property.
35 Mr. Nordahl said access to his property from along the railroad track
36 would be impossible because the property was 20 feet higher than the
37 tracks.
38 The Councilmember observed he had the same type of situation with his
39 own property which he had purchased with an extra 70 X 100 feet to be
40 used for backyard while his family was growing up. He said that parcel
41 would be landlocked if he ever wanted to sell it and he would not
42 expect his neighbors to give up their own property to give him an
43 access. And, the City would certainly have no responsibility to take
44 an easement from them either.
•
6
1 Enrooth told Mr. Nordahl he certainly would have thought his attorney
02 would have advised him that his abstract did not provide for any
3 easements for a road in the first place. He also noted that it had
4 taken 21 years for the owners of lots 5, 6 , 7 , 8 , 9, and 10 , who all
5 might have land they might want to develop to raise concerns about
6 access to their properties.
7 Sundland pointed out that besides having to dedicate their property
8 to the City for a roadway, the property owners between Mr. Nordahl' s
9 property and Silver Lane would also be agreeing to being assessed for a
10 street as well as sewer and water lines which now runs between $35.00
11 and $40.00 a foot. However, that would certainly have to be done if
12 any of the oversize or vacant lots are ever to be subdivided to put
13 houses next to the railroad track and if the area is developed as a
14 whole, the developer would probably have to provide access to Fordham
15 Drive.
16 Makowske pointed to the resistance to a roadway for the townhome
17 project accessing on Fordham Drive which had been demonstrated by the
18 homeowners on Fordham during the hearing.
19 Marks perceived that what needed to be done now was to have all the
20 owners of undeveloped property get together to try to resolve their
21 access problems so they could develop their property individually or
22 collectively.
03 The general consensus was that it would not be economically feasible
4 for the City to put in a street, sewer and water for the number of
25 single family homes which could be developed on the vacant property in
26 that area. However, Mr. Childs indicated, that it is understood at
27 staff level that whenever the largest property owner came in to get his
28 property subdivided, a discussion of an access road would have to be
29 included in the discussions of the subdivision. He assured Mr. Nordahl
30 that the City would make its best efforts to provide for his access
31 when the adjoining land is developed.
32 No Unanimity Evident in Neighborhood
33 Allan Reid, 4001 Fordham Drive, said he had not had opposition to the
34 townhome project per se but as the owner of the largest lot ( #7 ) , he
35 had some questions about landlocking all that property with the
36 development. He said communication with the owner of the two
37 undeveloped parcels, Lots 5 and 6, had been difficult and he understood
38 the property owner had already turned down a request from a developer
39 who wanted to develop the entire parcel. When the property owner
40 pointed to a similar situation with oversize lots along Silver Lake
41 Road between 30th and 31st, he was told those owners were adamant about
42 not having an east/west street continued through their properties.
43 Mr. Childs reported Lots 8 , 9 , and 10 had already been cut into six
44 62. 25 X 300 foot long lots and Mr. Puffer, who owns the north one-half
405 of Lot 10 , had indicated at the Commission hearing that he might want
7
to build another house on the back portion of his lot some time in the
future. However, one of the residents in the Erickson Addition on
Silver Lane, had indicated to him that one of the things he liked about
4 the Evergreen proposal was that it would prevent the properties behind
5 him from being split in two.
6 John White, 3404 Silver Lane, said he was one of the Erickson Addition
7 property owners (Lot 1) and his and his neighbor, Richard Oertwich' s
8 main concerns were that the developer make the building adjustments and
9 provide the screening for their properties promised at the Commission
10 hearing, so "we won' t have to look at a long, blank townhouse wall. "
11 Mr. White said he didn't think either of them would like to have a
12 street running next to Mr. Oertwich' s property.
13 Mrs. Monroe Hall, 4020 Fordham Drive, wondered whether traffic from
14 the undeveloped lots would be accessing off Fordham, saying she
15 perceived private homes back there wouldn' t be the problem an
16 apartment house or townhomes might be. She was told there was a
17 possibility that the same developer might want to purchase all that
18 land for more townhomes and in that event a private road would
19 probably be developed to provide those residents with a Silver Lane
20 access. The property owner was also assured that although the R-3
21 zoning would probably remain once it was changed, the City' s intent now
22 is to delay the final reading of that ordinance until after a
23 redevelopment agreement is signed with the developer who would have to
24 also provide a Letter of Credit to assure the project would go forward.
06 No final rezoning would be done until all those conditions were met.
Mr. Soth told Mrs. Hall that even with an R-3 zoning, nobody could
27 build townhomes there without subdividing the property for that
28 purpose, which would require Council approval after another public
29 hearing before the Planning Commission.
30 Evergreen Developer Says Not Ready to do More Than 37 Units At This
31 Time But Expansion of Townhomes Could Be a "Workable Possibility" in
32 the Future
33 Vernon Hoium, Ursula Sheehy, Jim Hill, and Steven Yurick, were again
34 present to indicate the Evergreen Corporation' s interest in providing
35 the above with tax increment financing of the necessary soil
36 corrections. Mr. Hoium reacted to the concern that soil corrections
37 might prove too big for his project by reiterating Evergreen had
38 already received a firm bid not to exceed $327,000 from a very
39 reputable firm to make any soil corrections which would be necessary
40 for the townhome project. He said he had no reason to doubt they
41 would be able to perform as promised and reaffirmed that Evergreen
42 can see no reason for not following through on their proposal to
43 construct 37 townhomes on that site after the soil corrections are
44 made. The Evergreen President requested the Commission recommendation
45 be modified to allow the developers to "berm or screen" the project
46 along the railroad track, saying the elevations at some points made
6 planting trees and shrubs more feasible than berming. Mr. Hoium told
8
1 Councilmember Makowske there would be no problem increasing the
sideyard setbacks next to Mr. Oertwich' s property as requested by the
3 neighbors.
4 Mr. Hill told the Councilmember the site could accommodate a private 40
5 foot wide road but a 60 foot wide public street would leave inadequate
6 setbacks for the adjoining townhome units.
7 Mr. Hoium indicated 37 units were all his firm believed they could
8 handle at this time but if they were successful in selling those right
9 away, he could see the possibility of adding 15 or more units to the
10 undeveloped land to the south for which a private road could probably
11 be negotiated to connect with the street through this project accessing
12 onto Silver Lane.
13 Mr. Childs interjected at this point that he had calculated thee would
14 be a little more than three acres of undeveloped land available on Lots
15 5, 6 , and 7 , which would mean no more than about 21 townhomes at the
16 density Evergreen was proposing for their current project.
17 Project Name Changed to Evergreen Townhomes of St. Anthony
18 Mr. Hoium said the name change had been made when the presence of a
19 Silver Oaks residential project close by was drawn to their attention.
20 Council Action
401 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Ranallo to follow the recommendations
22 of the Planning Commission and to authorize the City Attorney to
23 prepare the ordinance which would be necessary to change the zoning
24 from R-1 (single family dwelling) to R-3 (townhome) for the 37 unit
25 townhome project proposed to be constructed by the Evergreen
26 Development Corporation on the parcel legally described as Lots 1 , 2 ,
27 and 3 Block 4 and Block 2 , Mounds View Acres 2nd Addition, Ramsey
28 County, Minnesota, and generally described as a vacant parcel 5 . 3
29 acres in size located east of Fordham Drive, south of Silver Lane, and
30 west of the Soo Line railroad tracks. As recommended by the Planning
31 Commission, the zoning would only be changed on the conditions that:
32 1. The Zoning Ordinance not be put into effect until detailed plans
33 have been received from the developer to include berming or
34 screening along the railroad track area; trees and shrubbery
35 along the western edge of the property; and an increased sideyard
36 setback on the northwest corner.
37 2. Drainage would be subject to City engineering approval.
38 In allowing the rezoning process to be started, the Council finds , as
39 did the Planning Commission, that:
0 9
1 A. Viewpoints of both those who favor and those who oppose the pro-
ject had been thoroughly explored during the April 19th Commission
3 hearing and the Council meeting April 26th.
4 B. The proposed use appears to be the best utilization of that pro-
5 perty and would be in conformance with the 19'80 Comprehensive Plan
6 for that area.
7 C. The Planning Commission gave unanimous approval to the request.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 NEW BUSINESS
10 As a courtesy to Lloyd Peterson, project engineer from Rieke-Carroll-
11 Muller Associates , the consideration of bids on the St. Anthony
12 Boulevard reconstruction project was moved up on the agenda.
13 ST. ANTHONY BOULEVARD/KENZIE TERRACE PROJECT BID CLOSE TO $150, 000
14 UNDER ENGINEER' S ESTIMATE
15 Mr. Childs drew the Council' s attention to the fact that the low bid of
16 $256 , 248.67 from Ashbach Construction Company had come in almost
17 $150 ,000 under a very conservative engineer ' s estimate of $400 , 000 to
18 do the project. The City Manager indicated the following about that
19 bid:
a *the low bidder had furnished the City with a written statement
21 that their failure to acknowledge Addenda #1 would not mean
22 they would make any claim for additional compensation on the
23 project;
24 *both the City Attorney and RCM' s attorney had verified that the
25 contractor ' s failure to acknowledge receipt of the addenda would
26 not void the bids;
27 *addenda #1 had changed the time schedule for concrete work for
28 driveways on Kenzie Terrace where traffic signals are to be
29 constructed to extend the completion date until August when the
30 contractor would finish both sections of the project but would
31 require a substantial portion of the Kenzie Terrace project to be
32 completed by May 31st rather than totally completed by that
33 date. No other project time schedules or penalties had been
34 amended;
35 *Ashbach was able to bid the job lower because they were the
36 only bidders who had their own concrete and blacktop recycling
37 operation and many of the other bidders might have had to have
38 them do the recycling work for them;
39
•
10
•1 *whether or not Ashbach is union or not is not really relative
2 because the project would come under the wage rate regulations
3 under which prevailing wages must be paid.
4 Mr. Childs added that because the job had come in so much lower than
5 estimated, the City wouldn' t have to use any of next year ' s MSA
6 allocation; no short term borrowing would be necessary; and
7 assessments to abutting property owners would be less than originally
8 estimated.
9 Council Action
10 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to accept the low bid of
11 $256,248. 00 from Ashbach Construction Company to do the grading and
12 paving on St. Anthony Boulevard from the railroad bridge to the City' s
13 southern boundary lines and to provide concrete work in conjunction
14 with the new signals on Kenzie Terrace in accordance with the time
15 schedules agreed to by both parties on the project.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 COUNCIL REPORTS
18 Leanna McClanahan Appointed to Serve on East Side Hennepin County Human
19 Services Committee
0 Makowske indicated she highly recommended the above appointment to fill
1 one of two City' s vacancies which had just opened up on the above.
22 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to appoint Leanna McClanahan,
23 3507 Roosevelt Street N.E. , to represent St. Anthony on the East Side
24 Hennepin County Human Services Committee.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 City to Restate Opposition to Increased Air Flights Over St. Anthony
27 Makowske reported Metropolitan Counciimember Chuck Wiger had noted the
28 above was happening during the meeting of the Ramsey County League of
29 Local Governments meeting she had attended April 20th and she perceived
30 it was essential that the City restate its opposition to the noise
31 generated by increased flights.
32 Mayor Sundland said he had urged all residents who had registered
33 complaints with him to make several calls to the Metropolitan Airport
34 Commission about the noise because he and Mr. Childs had been told
35 that the M.A.C. had received very few calls from St. Anthony residents.
36 The Mayor suggested one of the letters the City had previously sent be
37 updated and forwarded to the M.A.C. members.
•
11
1 Councilmember Ranallo reported one of the reasons he had missed the
•2 Board of Review meeting that evening had been because he had spent a
3 couple of hours circling over St. Anthony that afternoon.
4 Library Issue to Come Up Again May 4th
5 Councilmember Makowske reported that question would be brought up at
6 the RCLLG meeting that night and urged any interested Councilmembers -
7 to attend.
8 Makowske Reports City' s Options Related to "Adult" Cable Programming
9 The Councilmember noted the report the Councilmembers had received
10 which indicated St. Anthony' s North Suburban Cable Commission
11 membership enabled the City to provide some input relative to the above
12 issue. She requested the matter be put on a future agenda.
13 Recycling Exhibit at Apache Perceived to be Very Informative
14 Makowske reported she had attended the opening of the exhibit which
15 had not been very well attended, along with the Mayor and other
16 Councilmembers and hoped a good number of residents would see the
17 display before it is taken down. Councilmember Marks assured her
18 that attendance had picked up considerably since the opening
19 ceremonies.
400 Enrooth Presents Recycling Award from Hennepin County
21 The Councilmember reported receiving the above award for the City at
22 the Hennepin County banquet April 21st, indicating the City had been
23 one of ten out of 47 communities whose recycling efforts had been
24 recognized that evening. In presenting the plaque to the Mayor,
25 Councilmember Enrooth reported that St. Anthony, with only a voluntary
26 program, was up to 9% while with the exception of St. Louis Park with
27 18.7%, the other cities like Tonka Bay, Robbinsdale, Plymouth,
28 Minneapolis, all of whom have organized programs, managed to recycle
29 only between 10% and 11%. The Councilmember indicated he had told
30 those present at the banquet that he was certain with the program St.
31 Anthony is now initiating, the City would have no problem reaching 20%
32 by this time next year.
33 It was agreed that 9% was far too low for St. Anthony because of the
34 cardboard, bottles and cans the liquor operation generates , the
35 industrial recyclables and machine recycling, which has never been
36 counted.
37 Councilmember Makowske said she had learned that Falcon Heights, with
38 only a 6% record, was second in Ramsey County.
39 Councilmember Enrooth reported that because of the early start it had
40 gotten in terms of recycling, Hennepin County could easily become the
0 12
1 nation' s "premier recycling county" when compared to the rest of the
•2 country where so little has been done to date.
3 Marks Reports Great Concern About Increase of "Crack" in the Northern
4 Suburban Areas
5 The Councilmember reported officials from this area who had attended
6 the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. , had come
7 away with a greater awareness of the problems threatening their own
8 communities. At the Chemical Awareness Committee meeting he had
9 attended the previous Tuesday, there had been a lot of discussion of
10 the national DARE program under which local community police
11 departments could be trained to go into the schools to reach a greater
12 number of children, even down to the 5th grade level, Councilmember
13 Marks reported. He said the Youth Service Bureau would be holding a
14 special meeting next month to determine what the perception of the
15 problem is and to decide how much interest there would be in promoting
16 shared police training sessions under the national DARE program
17 established to instruct police in better ways of presenting the "Say No
18 to Drugs" concept to school children. If there is agreement that the
19 problem in the Twin Cities is as bad as some believe, regular or
20 reserve members of the St. Anthony Police Department could probably
21 join in joint training sessions with officers from another community
22 like New Brighton.
23 DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES
04 The following were ordered filed as informational
25 *February Police Report and Report on Reserve Activities.
26 *Report from the City prosecutor on matters conducted at the
27 Hennepin County District Court in which Hance & LeVahn had
28 represented St. Anthony.
29 *March Financial Report.
30 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
31 April 19 , 1988 Staff Meeting Notes
32 Mr. Childs explained that the interviews reported under the Police
33 Chief ' s reports were to replace Officer David Johnston who had
34 resigned.
35 Mickey D' s Restaurant No Longer In Operation In St. Anthony
36 The City Manager confirmed that the owner of the above had filed for
37 bankruptcy and that there appeared to have been a number of unpaid
38 bills with local merchants. Mr. Childs said staff was contacting the
39 building owner to remove the front vestibule on the building which is
40 violation of the City' s ordinance. He also confirmed that the
41 variance for the sign on the roof goes with the property to the next
•
13
101 owner unless it is removed or otherwise becomes a hazard for passers-by
2 before a new owner takes over.
3 Councilmembers ' Schedules for "Cities Week" Open Houses Reiterated
4 The Mayor and Councilmembers were reminded of the department locations
5 at which they were scheduled to be from 5 : 30 P.M. to 7 : 30 P.M. Monday
6 through Thursday the following week. A conflict with the annual
7 District #282 ' s Community Services meeting Thursday night, which had
8 not been published, was noted. All Councilmembers were urged to be
9 present for the balloon release at 1 : 00 P.M. Wednesday and they were
10 all invited to attend each others open house, if they wanted.
11 The City Manager indicated recycling would probably be the highlight of
12 the Public Works open house and said the hazardous materials vehicle
13 which St. Anthony had jointly purchased with other communities would
14 be parked at the fire station Thursday. The Appreciation Dinner for
15 City volunteers was scheduled to be held Sunday evening, May 1st. Mr.
16 Childs said the open house for the new liquor warehouse would not be
17 held until later in May.
18 NEW BUSINESS
19 MPCA to Drill Additional Test Wells
20 Copies of the April 19th request from the Minnesota Pollution Control
C1 Agency to install monitoring wells in St. Anthony to take measurements
2 to verify the source and magnitude of contamination perceived to be
23 emanating from the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in Arden Hills ,
24 had been included in the agenda packet that evening as well as a copy
25 of the proposed resolution authorizing the execution of the access
26 agreement.
27 Council Action
28 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to adopt Resolution 88-016.
29 RESOLUTION 88-016
30 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
31 MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ACCESS AGREEMENT
32 BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
33 AGENCY AND THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35 Bids to Be Taken for Temporary Carbon Filtration System on City Wells
36 Mr. Childs explained that Resolution 88-015 in the Council agenda
37 packet not only authorized the engineers to advertise for bids for the
38 above system, but also recounted the long history leading up to the
40 9 need for that system. He indicated further that the contract would be
14
1 awarded during the Council's May 24th meeting following the openin
• 2 of the bids in the City Administrative offices on the 19th.
3 The City Manager said one of the key actions which must precede th
4 awarding of the bids would be Ramsey County allocating CDBG funds t
5 help St. Anthony to pay for the filtration system which was schedule
6 to be considered at the Ramsey County Board meeting just prior to th
7 Council meeting the 24th.
8 Bonding Considered Better Option Than Internal Borrowing for Temporar
9 Water Filtration System
10 The copy of the resolution in the agenda packet proposed interna
11 borrowing of $875,000 to cover the costs of a $450,000 temporary GA
12 system; $194,867 the City has already spent on attorneys' fees
13 consultants costs, etc. ; and $200,000 to pay costs anticipated t
14 accrue if the Army doesn't settle with St. Anthony for a couple o
15 years. Mr. Childs indicated that, since the resolution had bee
16 inserted in the agenda packet, he had followed Council instructions t
17 approach the City's financial consultant, Springsted, Inc. regarding a
18 alternative method of financing those costs. The consultants ha
19 provided spreadsheets for two different bond issues the Council migh
20 want to use rather than to deplete either the City's Special Assessmen
21 or Water Fund.
22 Mr. Childs detailed for the Council the approximate costs which th
23 City had incurred to date because of its water contamination problem
24 for which there had been no reimbursement covered:
25 *$23 ,000.00 the City had to pay for the Roseville water
26 connection;
27 *$42,500.00 in water payments to Roseville;
28 *$10,000.00 for extra monthly water testing;
29 *$12,000.00 initially paid to three engineering firms for pre-
30 liminary studies of the problem;
31 *$40,000.00 paid to date to Liesch and Associates for expert con
32 sulting services related to the City's lawsuit against the U.S.
33 Army et al in conjunction with the water contamination problems;
34 *$53 ,000.00 billings to date from Briggs and Morgan law firm who
35 are representing St. Anthony in that lawsuit.
36 In addition to other anticipated costs, Mr. Childs reminded the Counci
37 that after 10 years when the EPA no longer pays for maintaining th
38 system, the City would have to assume about $130,000.00 of thos
39 annual costs forever, or until the contamination ceases. As
40 contrast, the City Manager told the Councilmembers he understood Ne
41 Brighton had already spent over $800,000 in consulting and attorney'
42 fees in conjunction with their own water contamination problems.
43 The financial consultant had provided information on two bondin
44 options to finance the costs. The first was a General Obligation issu
45 which although it pushed the City's first principal payment as fa
• 15
1 possible, would require interest payments every year before that
• 2 payment was made. The second option was a capital appreciation ( zero
3 coupon bond issue which could push the City' s first payment of
4 $90, 000 . 00 (minimum statutorily possible) into the end of the third
5 year) . A meeting with Springsted would be arranged to make the final
6 decision related to financing.
7 Council Action
8 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Makowske to adopt Resolution 88-015
9 with the final paragraph changed "to authorize borrowing to cover the
10 cost of. . . . " .
11 RESOLUTION 88-015
12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
13 ST. ANTHONY AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
14 A TEMPORARY GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC)
15 WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 City Attorney to Prepare Documents for Transfer of Parkview ownership
18 to City
19 There was an indepth discussion of the School District #282 proposal
100 for "Disposition of St. Anthony Community Center Building" on which Mr.
1 Childs had written his own comments on certain items and changes made
22 as a result of his April 22nd meeting with school representatives.
23 Soth indicated the proposal only described the understanding between
24 the two parties in general terms and the specifics would have to be
25 tied down in the final official agreement. He perceived it would be
26 necessary to have a drawing showing the exact square footage Community
27 Services utilizes in the building as of this date, which would become
28 Exhibit A of the agreement.
29 Childs told Councilmember Marks he estimated Community Services took up
30 about one-half of the building and the City is currently paying about
31 $9 ,000 a quarter for the 6,000 square feet of space it currently uses.
32 The agreement would allow the school to remain in the building at no
33 charge for 5 years. This would effectively become the payment the
34 City must make to the school district for taking over the building.
35 He said the consensus of the School Board had been that as long as
36 School District #282 uses the building for child serving services, the
37 City would not house the fire station in the building.
38 With regard to the free rent, Enrooth, said he would interpret that to
39 mean that unless the City continued to subsidize those services to the
40 tune of a half a million dollars in free rent and electricity, that
41 program could not continue to function. He said Community Services
402 estimates the breakdown of users to be 40% non-resident and 600
16
1 resident and it was his understanding that at the end of five years
•2 the City could start to charge rent for child care leased space at a
3 normal rate. The Councilmember said he perceived the school district
4 would have the right of refusal on additional space but not on a free
5 basis.
6 Sundland agreed with the City Attorney that some reasonable time limits
7 would have to be placed on some of the items like #7 where there might
8 be many reasons in the far future for the City to do something
9 different with this property. As an example, he said "this building
10 won' t stand until the end of time. "
11 Childs said the document was not an offer to sell but rather a list of
12 issues the school district wants resolved, but not necessarily written
13 into the deed. He said it was true that under the proposal, the
14 school district could charge the City for the costs incurred by
15 Community Services concerning staff time for doing non-Community
16 Services ' activities scheduling as long as fees received, if any, for
17 those activities, i.e. , fees charged by the City, are turned over to the
18 building owner.
19 Ranallo insisted that the Council had to know exactly what it was going
20 to cost the City in terms of money, parking lot, subsidies, etc. to
21 take over the building.
22 Soth agreed, saying the tax on the deed would be calculated on that
�3 number. He added that he had earlier prepared a preliminary agreement
4 on the transfer which, though it had changed some, could be used as a
25 model for the final document.
26 When Councilmembers persisted in their concerns about the number of
27 years #3 and #7 would be in force, Mr. Childs indicated it had been his
28 understanding that groups like the Sports Boosters and the City
29 orchestra, whose programs are scheduled, but not Community Services
30 sponsored, would be able to use the gymnasium and cafeteria when space
31 was available but not necessarily always free of charge. The decision
32 to make any charges and the amount of such charges would be a Council
33 decision. He said he perceived with #7 , the School Board had just
34 wanted to assure people that they were responding to their concerns,
35 but would not write those concerns into a deed. He speculated the
36 reason the wording about those fees might not have been as clear as it
37 could have been was because the Board' s major concern appeared to be
38 that the City would not be charging fees for day care, Joy of
39 Parenting, or senior activities which are sponsored by the school
40 district through Community Services when they use the gym or
41 cafeteria in years 1 through 5. He did not perceive there would be any
42 major objection to the City imposing or raising fees for the activities
43 which Community Services does not sponsor.
44 Mr. Childs said he thought that with this document, the Board was only
45 trying to indicate the City had to let the school use their space in
406 the building in whatever way they wanted in terms of five years for
17
1- Community Services and was attempting to inform the community that
since Parkview is now a community center, the City would probably want
3 to continue to make space available for community activities. He
4 added that he perceived none of this would be contrary to Council
5 intent at this time.
6 When Councilmember Ranallo indicated he perceived the fees charged for
7 softball tournaments, etc. might be too low, Mr. Childs told him all
8 that was necessary was for the Council to direct staff to come back
9 with specific proposals for raises.
10 Soth said he had not seen the document before this evening and was
11 certain he would have a lot of questions which would have to be
12 answered as to what the intent of the document was.
13 Childs told the Council he needed further clarification from them on
14 some issues because he perceived the School Board would not sign off on
15 some of them if changes were made. He pointed out that the document
16 had been drawn up in a process which involved input from 200 and more
17 people who had attended the public hearings on the transfer. He said
18 if the City changed the wording of the item dealing with the Sports
19 Boosters in such a way as to raise fears that the City wasn' t going to
20 allow them to use the gym he would expect the Board to discontinue the
21 transfer negotiations. He said he perceived the Council had no
22 objections to the Sports Boosters using the gym whenever it is
23 available, but the City would certainly not want to guarantee they
4Ycould play in the gym forever because the building might burn down and
the City wouldn' t want to have to build it back up so they could
26 continue to play basketball.
27 Makowske drew a comparison with the Sports Boosters using the parks for
28 which the City provides all the maintenance, and the Community
29 Services provides the scheduling.
30 Ranallo said he had no problem with assuring the school that the City
31 would not charge them rent for Community Services programs for five
32 years. He agreed that #7 should be reworded to state that the City
33 would provide the use of the gymnasium and the cafeteria facilities to
34 such community groups as the Sports Boosters, Civic Orchestra, etc. as
35 long as such facilities are available for rental fees to be negotiated
36 with the City, which would at least cover the City' s cost of
37 maintaining the space.
38 City Costs Enumerated
39 In reference to what the City had to pay for the transfer, Mr. Childs
40 said he had figured it would cost the City $18,000 to construct the
41 parking lot but the school had indicated they didn' t need that lot now
42 and might want to take the money instead.
43 He pointed out that the School Board had only proposed the City begin
it
discussion of sharing the costs of City/Community Services programs,
18
1 programs, which could mean that the School District would no longer get
• 2 the 1 mill tax levy presently received to operate the programs but
3 which would not be transferable to the City.
4 Mr. Childs told Councilmember Ranallo the City would only be
5 responsible for maintaining and cleaning the non-Community service
6 portions of the building under #6. He said the school only had first
7 right of refusal for additional space within the five year period which
8 means that if the school decided to move a program back into the
9 building within five years, the City could not refuse to let them back
10 into their 15,000 square foot space, but only for the first five years.
11 This would require the City to rent any of the School District space
12 which was empty on a month to month basis, he added.
13 Sundland indicated he perceived the school district could eliminate any
14 Community Services programs they wanted within their own 15 ,000 square
15 feet if they needed the space for class rooms in those 5 years.
16 Makowske suggested that for clarification, wherever the document
17 referred to "Community Services" , the correct wording should be
18 "Community Services/School District #282" as the School Board had
19 specified in item #3 .
20 Marks disagreed with the assumption that the City would be subsidizing
21 the child care program for five years , saying it didn' t make any
22 difference how the School District used the space since the agreement
13 only said 15 ,000 square feet had to be available to them for five years
4 at no charge. He said that it was the school ' s decision to whom and
25 how an actual subsidy was made. However, he agreed that the figures
26 Councilmember Enrooth had offered should be specified when estimating
27 what the City would be paying for the building.
28
29 Manager Perceives Agreement Possible
30 The Manager indicated that based on the fact that the City had already
31 decided not to move the fire station up to Parkview, he now felt staff
32 would be able to put a contract together which met the concerns of both
33 the City and School District #282 and would start the transfer process.
34 He also agreed to prepare a pro forma document indicating just how the
35 transfer would benefit the City.
36 Council Action
37 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to adopt Resolution 88-017 and to
38 request the City Attorney and Manager to prepare the documentation
39 necessary to start the Parkview transfer process.
40 RESOLUTION 88-017
41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
42 THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PARKVIEW
403 COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY
19
• 1 Motion carried unanimously.
2 Ten Recycling Task Force Members Named
3 In his April 21st memorandum, Mr. Childs had restated the purpose of
4 the Task Force was to decide how the City would accomplish a recycling
5 program.
6 Mayor Sundland stated that he perceived the City Manager had done a
7 very thorough job of enumerating all the goals of this study group
8 whose first meeting would be within a week or two.
9 Councilmember Enrooth was reaffirmed as the Council ' s liaison and the
10 following persons were confirmed as Council appointees:
11 Sundland: Paul Norr, 2832 Coolidge Avenue N.E.
12 Keith Pearson, 3501 Belden Drive
13 Ranallo: Bill Zawislak, 2500 - 34th Avenue N.E.
14 Lauren McClanahan, 3507 Roosevelt Street N.E.
15 Enrooth: Ed Emerson, 2615 Townview Avenue N.E.
16 Makowske: Elaine Olson, 3015 Rankin Road
17 Vicki Osborne, 3404 Maplewood Drive
08 Marks: Bill Sauer, 3620 Harding Street N.E.
19 Martin Lunde, 3425 - 33rd Avenue N.E.
20 Youth Service Bureau to Hold Open House April 27th
21 Councilmember Marks invited all Councilmembers to attend the open house
22 from 2 : 00 P.M. to 6: 00 P.M. the following day.
23 ADJOURNMENT
24 Motion by Marks , seconded by Enrooth to adjourn the meeting at 10: 35
25 P.M.
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27 Respectfully submitted,
28 Helen Crowe, Secretary
04AA& A.
29
30 M yor
•
2 U
31 ATTEST
32 ATTEST:
Clerk
0 20
C 2 TY O F S T _ ANTHONY
BOARD O F REV 2 EW M 2 NUTE S
AP R= L 2 6 1 9 8 8
1 Continuation of the annual Board of Review by the City Council was
2 called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mayor Sundland.
3 Present: Sundland, Marks, Enrooth, Makowske (arrived at 7 : 10 P.M. ) .
4 Absent: Ranallo.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
6 Glen Busitzky, Hennepin County Assessor
7 No Changes for Schmid or Frick Valuations
8 Mr. Busitzky had indicated the above in his April 26th letter to the
9 local Board of Review whom he had informed that Ms. Frick had not yet
10 contacted either Mr. Childs or Mr. Busitzky after receipt of Mr.
11 Childs ' April 20th letter to her inquiring whether she wanted the
12 County Appraisers to re-appraise her property at 3222 Old Highway 8.
13 However, that file had been reviewed and appeared to be correct, the
�4 Assessor said.
15 Another physical appraisal had been made of the Schmid property at
16 2800 St. Anthony Boulevard, Mr. Busitzky indicated, and there had been
17 no change in characteristics over the last two years which would have
18 warranted a decrease in its 1988 valuation of $97 ,600. The Assessor
19 told Councilmember Enrooth Mrs. Schmid had experienced a $5,000 raise
20 in valuations over the last two years which was pretty common in St.
21 Anthony where between 4% and 5% average increases had been given
22 properties whose basic characteristics had not changed the last few
23 years.
24 However, the Assessor indicated, his office had made a number of
25 changes in valuations for other City properties whose owners had called
26 his office prior to the April 12th Board of Review.
27 Council Action
28 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to accept the Hennepin County
29 Assessor' s recommendation that the assessed valuation for the property
30 at 2800 St. Anthony Boulevard remain $97, 600. The Board of Review also
31 concurs that no change in valuation be made for the property at 3222
32 Old Highway 8 because no response to the City Manager' s April 20th
33 letter had been received from the property owner, Sharon Frick.
404 Motion carried unanimously.
1
� 1 APRIL 12 , 1988 BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES APPROVED
2 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enrooth to approve the above as
3 presented.
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 ADJOURNMENT
6 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to adjourn the Board of Review at
7 7: 20 P.M.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Respectfully submitted,
10 Helen Crowe, Secretary
11 :cjk
i
• 2