HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 09082020
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313
or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe.
The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at
https://webstreaming.ctv15.org/regionview.php?regionid=64. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we
encourage use of virtual option by using this link: https://www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=335 There is
also a dial-in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
For those not in attendance, If you wish to submit a comment or question, electronically submit your comments
at https://www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=335 no later than 5:30 pm on the day of the City Council
meeting.
Following guidance from state health officials, some City Council Members may choose to participate in
upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
I. Approval of the September 8, 2020, City Council Meeting Agenda. (action requested.)
II. Proclamations and Recognitions.
III. Consent Agenda.
These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda.
A. Approval of August 25, 2020, City Council meeting minutes. (pp.1-6)
B. Licenses and Permits. (pp.7-8)
C. Claims. (pp.9-11)
D. Approval of Allocation of CARES Act Funding. (pp.13)
IV. Public Hearing.
A. Resolution 20-064 a resolution Setting the Proposed 2021 Tax Levy and General Operating Budget
for the City of St. Anthony Village. Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director presenting. (pp.15-33)
V. Reports from Commission and Staff
A. Resolution 20-065 a resolution approving a request for the preliminary plan stage PUD, constituting
an amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD, for the Interstate Development Multi-Family
Residential project of 38 dwelling units at 3725 Stinson Boulevard NE. Steve Grittman, City Planner
presenting. (pp.35-77)
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
7:00 p.m.
HRA meeting immediately
after council meeting
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313
or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe.
VI. General Business of Council.
A. Resolution 20-066 a resolution approving the renewal of the organized collection agreement for two
years until April 1, 2023. Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager presenting. (pp.79-87)
B. Ordinance 2020-02 Amending Chapter 91 Animal Control. (final reading and adoption). Charlie
Yunker, Interim City Manager presenting. (pp.89-106)
C. Resolution 20-067 a resolution approving summary publication of Ordinance 2020-02. Charlie
Yunker, Interim City Manager presenting. (pp.107)
VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members.
VIII. Community Forum
Individuals may address the City Council about any City business item not included on the regular agenda.
Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state
their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City
Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff
for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
IX. Information and Announcements
X. Adjournment
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 2
AUGUST 25, 2020 3
4
CALL TO ORDER. 5
6
Mayor Stille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7
8
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 9
10
Mayor Stille invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 11
12
ROLL CALL. 13
14
Present: Mayor Stille, Councilmembers Jenson, Randle, Walker and Webster. 15
Absent: None 16
Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey, Finance Director Shelly Rueckert, and Assistant to the 17
City Manager Charlie Yunker. 18
Guests: None. 19
20
CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 21
ITEMS. 22
23
I. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 25, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 24
25
Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the City 26
Council Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2020. 27
28
Motion carried 5-0. 29
30
II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS – NONE. 31
32
III. CONSENT AGENDA. 33
34
A. Approve 11, 2020, Council meeting minutes. 35
B. Licenses and permits. 36
C. Claims. 37
D. Appoint Student Liaisons to the Planning and Parks and Environmental Commissions. 38
39
Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the 40
Consent Agenda items. 41
42
Motion carried 5-0. 43
44
IV. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE. 45
46
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF – NONE. 47
48
VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. 49
1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2020
Page 2
1
A. 2021 Budget Presentation 2
3
Finance Directior Shelly Rueckert presented the 2021 Budget to the City Council. 4
5
Councilmember Walker indicated New Brighton discontinued their relationship with St. 6
Anthony for refueling their vehicles due to them upgrading their Public Works facility, so he 7
wondered how that relationship is established since they are no longer depending on St. Anthony 8
for that. He asked if New Brighton originally contacted St. Anthony for that or did St. Anthony 9
reach out to them and if so, are there nearby municipalities that could take their spot that have 10
been vacated. Ms. Rueckert thought that was on New Brighton’s radar for awhile when they 11
expanded their maintenance facility. As far as attracting others, the contracting the City gets for 12
purchasing lets the City save the eighteen cents Federal tax. The reason why it made sense for 13
New Brighton to have that onsite is because they cannot save that eighteen cents a gallon by 14
driving a vehicle back and forth for fueling. More time and labor is lost by bringing New 15
Brighton vehicles to St. Anthony then gaining in gas savings. City Manager Casey indicated 16
New Brighton felt they were getting a good savings by coming to St. Anthony and he was 17
surprised this was not done sooner. 18
19
Councilmember Webster thanked Ms. Rueckert for the presentation, and she thought it was very 20
clear. She noted as a reminder to the residents, the profits from the City’s municipal liquor 21
stores come back to essentially lower the City’s property tax levy. Ms. Rueckert indicated that 22
was correct. 23
24
B. Ordinance 2020-02 Amending Chapter 91 Animal Control 25
26
City Manager Casey reviewed the ordinance with the Council and indicated that this is the 27
second of three readings. 28
29
Councilmember Walker asked for an example of a proper enclosure because there is some 30
objective standard of what it looks like. He assumed the size would vary based on the dog. Mr. 31
Casey indicated the City does not have any plans for a proper enclosure but would be able to 32
provide some guidance. The Statute did define it as “A securely confined indoors or securely 33
enclosed and locked pen or structure. Suitable to prevent an animal from escaping and providing 34
protection from the elements of the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio or 35
any part of the house, garage or other structure that would allow a dog to exit on its own volition 36
or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which a door or window screens are 37
the only obstacle that prevents a dog from exiting.” He thought there was some interpretation in 38
the Statute and the Chief of Police of designee would come in and check the property. 39
40
Ms. Renee Reed thanked Mr. Casey for answering her questions regarding the proper enclosure 41
and who is going to determine the proper enclosure. She indicated she read the information and 42
wondered in regard to the signs, how many signs did there need to be and what size of the sign 43
would need to be posted on the fence. She also indicated their mail carrier has informed a 44
number of the residents on the street that if the dog is out when the mail carrier is coming to the 45
street, the mail carrier will not deliver mail that day on their street or will try to come back after 46
2
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2020
Page 3
the route is finished to try to deliver the mail. She wondered if there is an option to designate 1
certain times that the dog cannot be outside in the proper enclosure. Mr. Casey indicated that 2
even if the dog is out it would have to be muzzled and would have to be properly leashed if 3
considered a dangerous dog. 4
5
Ms. Reed explained the mail carrier is talking about if the dog is in the yard in the proper 6
enclosure as well. Mr. Casey thought it might be best to have a staff member contact the post 7
office to make sure they are all on the same page. 8
9
Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve second 10
reading of Ordinance 2020-02; an Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 Animal Control. 11
12
Motion carried 5-0. 13
14
VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 15
16
Councilmember Jenson stated he attended the Ramsey County Local League of Governments 17
Executive Board Committee meeting on August 14th. The collective action workgroup has been 18
meeting since the beginning of the year. The workgroup has proposed to focus on mental health 19
initiatives for 2020, with the hope that the team will form a partnership with the NE Youth and 20
Family Services. The executive board is scheduled to meet with them in September. He 21
indicated on August 18th he attended the Metro Cities Exec. Board meeting and discussed State 22
initiatives on livable communities as to how the State grants will be handed out for affordable 23
housing, single family starter homes and grants for home rehabilitation. Also at the meeting a 24
significant amount of time was spent on race and equity and implementation into Civic Policy. 25
A Metro Cities ad hock equity committee of thirteen members is created for one year and will 26
report out at the end of the year, of which he is a member. A process will be recommended or 27
policy committee in apply a race and equity lens for policy development, serve as a format and 28
structure to support the League of Minnesota Cities on race and equity and identify resources, 29
information and best practices for the use by the Metropolitan City Officials and the City’s 30
Administrative staff. 31
32
Councilmember Webster stated the St. Anthony Family Services Collaborative met on August 33
12th and at the meeting funding was approved for the community healing circles. She noted 34
more information will be coming out in how the community can participate in that initiative. 35
She noted community members are invited to join Councilmember Jenson and her on Zoom at 36
7:00 p.m., August 26th for Coffee with the Council. 37
38
Councilmember Walker explained starting August 26th he will be moderating a series of 39
discussions titled “Stamped Racism, Anti-Racism and You” and will be going through a book 40
called “Stamped from the Beginning”. 41
42
VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM. 43
44
Mayor Stille invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that 45
are not on the regular agenda. 46
3
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2020
Page 4
1
Hearing none, Mayor Stille moved forward with the agenda. 2
3
IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4
5
Mayor Stille thanked Mr. Casey for his service to the City and noted he will be moving onto the 6
private sector. He indicated Mr. Casey will be sorely missed. He presented Mr. Casey with a 7
plaque of appreciation from the City. 8
9
Councilmember Webster shared that sometimes their leaders live a few lives and she has the 10
opportunity to know Mr. Casey from about twenty years ago when he was a Community Ed 11
Director and one of the things she recalled is she met Mr. Casey by serving on the Minnesota 12
Community Education Associations Board of Directors. At the time Mr. Casey was in 13
Annandale and she was in Bloomington and after he finished his term of service on the Board 14
she had heard from some of his colleagues on the Board that Mr. Casey actually left the field of 15
Community Ed and was hired by the City of Annandale. She was really sad that they lost such a 16
great leader in Community Ed across the State. Fast forward a few years and it turns out that Mr. 17
Casey was hired as St. Anthony City Manager. She indicated as her time knowing him as a 18
Community Ed Director in Annandale to the time she has had working with him as the City 19
Manager she thought back to how sad she was when he left the field of Community Ed and now 20
as a resident of St. Anthony, how grateful she was that Mr. Casey was the City Manager for the 21
past few years. She stated Mr. Casey helped the City through the most difficult time in the 22
community’s history and she will be eternally grateful for his service. 23
24
Councilmember Randle indicated this resignation stings. Integrity is a word that he can say most 25
describes Mr. Casey. He can tell the respect that the City Staff has for him, the Council has for 26
him but most of all, other community leaders have for him. He explained Mr. Casey is very 27
respected throughout, in particular, the league and he wished Mr. Casey luck and to this day he 28
did not know which side of the isle Mr. Casey is on, which in his mind Mr. Casey is doing things 29
the right way. Mr. Casey is serving the community as a whole and serving people the way 30
people should be served. He indicated he will miss Mr. Casey. 31
32
Councilmember Jenson stated nine years ago today as the Council interviewed for the City 33
Manager position, Mark Casey obviously stood out among all other candidates. On behalf of the 34
City he was excited when Mr. Casey accepted the offer. As City Manager, Mr. Casey has 35
proven to be a fine leader and has expanded his talents in many capacities while serving the 36
residents throughout the years. He stated Mr. Casey’s decorum in dealing with the staff, 37
Council, media, and the public is consistently professional and personable. Mr. Casey is a 38
strategic thinker and leader through encouragement, mentoring, stressing training, work/life 39
balance and most importantly, leading by example. The Council knows budget planning can be 40
difficult and Mr. Casey has coordinated his staff ensuring the City budgets provide service and 41
cost containment while improving the transparency of the process. He stated Mr. Casey has 42
coordinated several initiatives in light of significant events including Initiating the Government 43
Alliance for Racial Equity’s, the Collaborative Reform Initiative, the Body Camera 44
implementation, and push notifications. He thanked Mr. Casey for his dedication and service to 45
the City. Mr. Casey has made a positive difference with all his efforts and commitment. The 46
4
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2020
Page 5
City wants only the best for him and wish him and his family well as he steps into the next 1
ventures in his life and career. 2
3
Councilmember Walker stated his first encounter with Mr. Casey was when he was 4
campaigning, and he came from behind and shook hands with him and reached out to him in 5
initially a partisan alliance. He stated he really appreciated that. Mr. Casey is a very reserved 6
person but also very personable. Mr. Casey is a source of great knowledge which is a very rate 7
gift. He also does things by the book which is not a negative thing. He thought Mr. Casey has 8
done a very superb job. He indicated from the bottom of his heart; Mr. Casey will be missed. 9
10
Mayor Stille noted due to COVID-19 there will not be any cake or coffee. He also remembered 11
when Mr. Casey was hired. He knew within five minutes into the interview that Mr. Casey was 12
going to be the City Manager. He hope that the City can find someone like Mr. Casey in a new 13
City Manager. He thanked Mr. Casey for putting together a financial roadmap for the City along 14
with Ms. Rueckert. There is no way to extend appreciation for that and getting the City on a plan 15
in order to preserve their infrastructure and take care of the City’s assets. Under Mr. Casey’s 16
leadership the City became a GreenStep City, not only at the highest level but probably one of 17
the fastest City’s to achieve that status. That comes with organized collection. St. Anthony was 18
the first in the State to implement a new Statute that allowed them to organize the garbage 19
haulers, so it is most efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly for the community. The 20
voluntary review of the Police Department by the Department of Justice and as they asked for 21
and implemented best practices as provided by their technical assistance by subject matter 22
experts. Those were excellent foundations for the City’s Police Department to grab onto. 23
Finally, Mr. Casey has assembled a solid staff. This staff is going to keep going without Mr. 24
Casey because they are competent, dedicated, and intelligent. All these attributes make Mr. 25
Casey City Manager of the year. He stated the City is going to miss Mr. Casey’s dedication, 26
professionalism, his understanding of Government, how he has paid it forward to the youth and a 27
model for his profession. It has been an honor and privilege working with Mr. Casey and 28
everyone is going to miss him and wish him and Laurie the best. 29
30
Mr. Casey thanked the Council for their kind words. He explained it has also been an honor and 31
privilege being the City Manager for St. Anthony Village. He has appreciated this opportunity 32
and was thankful being in a position that has been well supported by the City Council and 33
Mayor. He explained he greatly appreciates this opportunity and has learned a tremendous 34
amount and always look at his years in St. Anthony very fondly and very happy to have this 35
opportunity. He wanted to personally thank Mayor Stille, Councilmember Jenson, Hale Gray 36
Jim Roth, and Jerry Faust because those people were the five that hired him nine years ago. He 37
stated it has been a great ride. He thought staff was amazing and appreciated the Council’s 38
support and the community support as well. 39
40
X. ADJOURNMENT. 41
42
Mayor Stille adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 43
44
Respectfully submitted, 45
Sue Osbeck 46
5
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2020
Page 6
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1
2
Mayor 3
ATTEST: 4
City Clerk 5
6
Saint Anthony Village
DATE: September 8, 2020 Approved:
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: License Clerk
ITEM: License and Permits for Approval:
General Contractors Licenses:
Fence Minnesota, Burnsville, MN
Signcrafters Outdoor, Blaine, MN
Mechanical Licenses:
Heating & Cooling Two, Maple Grove, MN
Hero Plumbing, Heating & Cooling, Bloomington, MN
Midland HVAC, St Louis Park, MN
Metro Heating & Cooling, Maplewood, MN
Perfection Heating, Maplewood, MN
The Fireplace Guys, Oakdale, MN
Walter Mechanical, Burnsville, MN
Commercial Rental License:
Applicant: Perch Properties
Location: 3721 Chandler Dr NE
Residential Rental Licenses:
Applicant: James Kirkendall
Location: 2804 33rd Ave NE
Applicant: Scott Becker
Location: 2420 39th Ave NE
Applicant: Doris Bachmeier
Location: 3100 - 3102 39th Ave NE
Applicant: James Brown
Location: 3638 Belden Dr NE
Applicant: Walter Sentyrz
Location: 3401 Coolidge St
7
Applicant: Robert Schmidt
Location: 3640 - 3644 Edward St NE
Applicant: Richard Herrmann
Location: 2601 Kenzie Ter #512 NE
Applicant: Urban Grove
Location: 2501 Lowry Ave #102, #104, #107, #112, #114, #120, #121
Applicant: Value Homes
Location: 3640 – 3642 Roosevelt St NE
Applicant: Hung Quan
Location: 3132 Silver Lake Rd NE
Applicant: Tom Filzen
Location: 3141 - 3143 Stinson Blvd NE
8
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 8/21/2020 - 9/9/2020 Sep 02, 2020 07:01AM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
11798 CENTRAL PENSION FUND LOCAL #49 41801 08/21/2020 3,840.00
10710 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 41802 08/21/2020 1,666.00
11813 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 41803 08/21/2020 32.00
12077 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 41804 08/21/2020 1,017.60
1118 56 BREWING 41805 09/09/2020 572.00
12933 AA EQUIPMENT COMPANY 41806 09/09/2020 4,097.59
1121 ABLE SEED HOUSE + BREWERY 41807 09/09/2020 663.00
10039 AIRGAS USA LLC 41808 09/09/2020 66.34
10092 APACHE GROUP 41809 09/09/2020 375.78
10098 ARAMARK 41810 09/09/2020 123.43
1100 ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY 41811 09/09/2020 5,877.94
10116 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC 41812 09/09/2020 174.33
12461 AXON ENTERPRISES INC 41813 09/09/2020 3,404.35
2030 BALD MAN BREWING 41814 09/09/2020 464.00
1013 BELLBOY CORPORATION 41815 09/09/2020 8,248.83
1014 BELLBOY CORPORATION 41816 09/09/2020 379.96
2009 BLACK STACK BREWING 41817 09/09/2020 405.00
11771 BLUE TARP FINANCIAL 41818 09/09/2020 39.99
10185 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 41819 09/09/2020 90.86
1018 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER 41820 09/09/2020 56,333.85
1011 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 41821 09/09/2020 10,093.48
1009 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 41822 09/09/2020 1,930.30
10216 BUREAU CRIMINAL APPREHENSION 41823 09/09/2020 250.00
1114 CANNON RIVER WINERY 41824 09/09/2020 144.00
1017 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 41825 09/09/2020 20,325.45
10258 CENTURY COLLEGE 41826 09/09/2020 525.00
12596 CINTAS 41827 09/09/2020 1,499.48
10290 CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON 41828 09/09/2020 6,527.22
10306 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE INC 41829 09/09/2020 85.50
12400 CIVICPLUS 41830 09/09/2020 3,573.20
1010 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE COMPANY 41831 09/09/2020 1,725.43
10332 COMPTON'S COMMERCIAL CLNG. INC 41832 09/09/2020 4,228.00
12924 COREMARK METALS 41833 09/09/2020 20.18
1042 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 41834 09/09/2020 769.50
10438 D ROCK CENTER & SMALL ENG 41835 09/09/2020 59.90
10373 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES 41836 09/09/2020 389.88
10375 DALCO 41837 09/09/2020 512.10
10393 DELL MARKETING LP 41838 09/09/2020 577.27
1063 DOMACE VINO 41839 09/09/2020 158.50
10473 EMERGENCY APPARATUS 41840 09/09/2020 4,296.12
10526 FLEETPRIDE 41841 09/09/2020 72.06
1110 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 41842 09/09/2020 21.36
10603 H & L MESABI INC 41843 09/09/2020 384.96
10607 HACH COMPANY 41844 09/09/2020 43.38
10624 HAWKINS, INC 41845 09/09/2020 3,295.18
10636 HEDBACK & CARLSON PLLC 41846 09/09/2020 3,500.00
10657 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 41847 09/09/2020 741.00
1019 HOHENSTEIN'S, INC 41848 09/09/2020 11,902.31
1027 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 41849 09/09/2020 362.55
11754 INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL, INC.41850 09/09/2020 617.00
10774 JERSEY MIKE'S SUBS 41851 09/09/2020 394.20
1016 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 41852 09/09/2020 26,260.03
1102 JOHNSON BROTHERS 41853 09/09/2020 1,626.88
9
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 8/21/2020 - 9/9/2020 Sep 02, 2020 07:01AM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
1004 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.41854 09/09/2020 5,639.71
1005 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41855 09/09/2020 10,068.25
1006 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41856 09/09/2020 14,314.36
1044 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41857 09/09/2020 4,450.42
12615 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP 41858 09/09/2020 678.40
1120 KEEPSAKE CIDERY LLP 41859 09/09/2020 214.00
2028 LADONA CERVECERIA 41860 09/09/2020 400.00
10831 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 41861 09/09/2020 9,065.00
10829 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 41862 09/09/2020 30.00
10861 LOFFLER COMPANIES - 131511 41863 09/09/2020 152.69
2010 LUPULIN BREWING 41864 09/09/2020 709.00
11985 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 41865 09/09/2020 12,376.58
10931 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - WASTEWATER 41866 09/09/2020 59,388.66
10939 MIDWAY FORD 41867 09/09/2020 164.58
10963 MINNEAPOLIS SAW COMPANY INC 41868 09/09/2020 88.04
12940 MINNEHAHA BLDG MAINTENANCE 41869 09/09/2020 67.57
2006 MODIST BREWING COMPANY 41870 09/09/2020 540.00
12441 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 41871 09/09/2020 541.36
11079 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 41872 09/09/2020 1,236.82
1125 NEGOCE 41873 09/09/2020 348.42
1051 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY 41874 09/09/2020 3,986.00
11131 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORPORATION.41875 09/09/2020 604.00
11163 OFFICE DEPOT 41876 09/09/2020 145.28
2011 OMNI BREWING 41877 09/09/2020 723.00
12779 OPTION ONE MECHANICAL LLC 41878 09/09/2020 49,121.00
11185 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.41879 09/09/2020 285.00
1012 PAUSTIS & SONS 41880 09/09/2020 2,877.50
2034 PEQUOD DISTRIBUTION 41881 09/09/2020 3,712.00
1001 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 41882 09/09/2020 7,065.84
1002 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 41883 09/09/2020 2,946.59
11246 PRAXAIR 41884 09/09/2020 63.57
11248 PREMIER WASTE SERVICES LLC 41885 09/09/2020 3,450.00
2019 PRYES BREWING COMPANY 41886 09/09/2020 777.00
12311 PUCKETTS RECYCLING 41887 09/09/2020 120.00
12482 QUALITY SIGNS & ENGRAVING 41888 09/09/2020 17.50
11319 RECREATION, SPORTS & PLAY, INC 41889 09/09/2020 34.75
1020 ROOTSTOCK WINE COMPANY 41890 09/09/2020 195.00
11345 ROSEVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE 41891 09/09/2020 543.60
12346 SHRED IT 41892 09/09/2020 50.36
2018 SMALL LOT WINES 41893 09/09/2020 1,022.65
1024 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41894 09/09/2020 3,064.72
1008 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41895 09/09/2020 1,279.45
1026 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41896 09/09/2020 10,054.38
1036 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41897 09/09/2020 289.15
11457 ST ANTHONY VILLAGE CENTER, LLC 41898 09/09/2020 2,321.25
2001 STEEL TOE BREWING 41899 09/09/2020 159.00
11502 STREICHER'S 41900 09/09/2020 1,396.16
12123 SUMMIT COMPANIES 41901 09/09/2020 265.20
12920 SVAP III SILVER LAKE VILLAGE LLC 41902 09/09/2020 5,268.80
11531 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS 41903 09/09/2020 195.00
11566 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 41904 09/09/2020 148.00
12702 TOKLE INSPECTIONS INC 41905 09/09/2020 1,674.40
2007 URBAN GROWLER 41906 09/09/2020 689.00
10
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 8/21/2020 - 9/9/2020 Sep 02, 2020 07:01AM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
11674 VERIZON WIRELESS 41907 09/09/2020 604.50
12338 VERSA LOK 41908 09/09/2020 8.91
11678 VESSCO INC 41909 09/09/2020 420.00
11681 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 41910 09/09/2020 233.97
1025 VINOCOPIA 41911 09/09/2020 745.25
12648 WINDSTREAM 41912 09/09/2020 161.69
1034 WINE COMPANY/THE 41913 09/09/2020 1,888.45
1038 WINE MERCHANTS INC 41914 09/09/2020 1,612.43
1032 WINEBOW 41915 09/09/2020 265.50
11731 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GRP, INC.41916 09/09/2020 212.48
11738 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.41917 09/09/2020 54,916.75
11740 XCEL ENERGY 41918 09/09/2020 21,694.03
11748 ZAHL PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO.41919 09/09/2020 1,496.01
Grand Totals: 504,063.25
11
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
12
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: September 8, 2020
Motion- Allocation of CARES Act funding
OVERVIEW:
Gov. Tim Walz announced on June 25,2020 a plan to distribute a portion of Minnesota’s allocation of
the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), to support local
government coronavirus (COVID-19) relief efforts. The plan provides funds for necessary
expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Staff’s recommendation is to allocate the $683,110 of CARES Act funding available to the City of
Saint Anthony for use, within the estimates ranges, in following areas:
● Personal protective equipment (PPE), sanitizers, and similar supplies ($15,000-$30,000).
● Modifications to facilities/parks to allow for and protective barriers and social distancing
($15,000-$75,000).
● Modifications to facilities HVAC systems to provide an ionization process which eliminates
viruses from the air exchange ($40,000-$50,000).
● New technology that will allow for contact-free processing of licenses & permits, and curbside
pick-up at our two municipal liquor stores ($35,000-$40,000).
● Computer equipment to allow greater efficiency for employees while working remotely ($3,000-
$15,000).
● Employment costs that help reduce employee exposure to COVID-19 ($50,000-$75,000).
● Public safety costs in a COVID-19 environment ($350,000-$550,000).
CARES Act funding covers expenditures incurred from March 1 to Nov. 15, 2020.
13
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
14
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 8, 2020
TO: Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager
FROM: Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director
ITEM: 2021 Preliminary Levy / General Fund Budget
At the August 25th City council meeting, the city staff presented the proposed 2021 general fund
operating budget and the 2021 overall levy.
Staff’s has affirmed the proposed 2021 overall levy of $7,865,595. The 2021 proposal represents
an increase of $256,137 or a 3.37% increase from 2020.
The components of the 2021 proposed preliminary levy are as follows:
The standard parameters for preparing the General Fund Budget and Levy include:
• City revenues budgeted using current run rates for sources that are subject to trends and
conservative baseline estimates for re-occurring aids and charges for services.
• Expenses budgeted at amounts that will maintain present level of City services.
• Liquor transfer to the general Fund are based on operating results.
The General Fund Budget and Levy cost drivers are as follows
Each year the General Fund revenue and expenditure budget line items are examined for
changes in expected collections/charges, labor adjustments, changes in contract rates,
insurance rates, utility costs, usage of various materials or needs, etc. The findings of this
examination produce the drivers associated with the proposed 3.37% increase in the General
Fund Levy - see below:
2020 $ Change 2021 % Change
General Fund 4,571,013$ 183,637 4,754,650$ 4.02%
HRA Fund 185,064 12,500 197,564 6.75%
CIP Fund 283,200 - 283,200 0.00%
Debt Service Funds 2,487,181 - 2,487,181 0.00%
Infrastructure Fund - 60,000 60,000 na
Building Improvement Fund 83,000 - 83,000 0.00%
Total 7,609,458$ 256,137$ 7,865,595$ 3.37%
15
Expenditures:
• Personnel costs – 70.2% of expenditures, costs increased by $162,175 or 3.1% (wages
representing 2.1% and health insurance 1%).
• The Unions wage increases at the 2021 estimated contracts amounts.
• Health Insurance premium increase of 9.32% is shared 50/50 by City and the
Union and Non-union employees Consistent with the Union contracts.
• Union Longevity and Step increases.
• Contracted services – 10.8% of expenditures, overall increase of $34,848.
• Construction permits inspections at baseline activity and increased construction
costs results in slight expense increase of $1,772.
• Assessor, Attorney, Auditor, Engineer and Planner services reflect rate and activity
increases. In 2021 engineering for small scale improvement projects will supported
by the Infrastructure levy. The net result of these factors is cost impact of $2,450.
• Contracted Information Technology costs up $21,030.
• Miscellaneous service contracts are estimated to increase by $9,596.
• Other Insurance costs – 4.3% of expenditures, overall costs up by $41,986.
• Property, casualty and liability costs increased by $20,941 or 14.86%.
• Worker’s compensation costs increased $20,145 or 14.93%.
• Both Worker’s Compensation and Property and Liability coverages have
experienced rate increases in the prior and current renewal periods beyond budget
estimates.
• Pass through costs – 2.4% of expenditures, costs down $127,350.
• The Saint Anthony Fire Relief Association elected to transition the management of
its pension fund to the state plan managed by PERA. Therefore the State Aid for
the Fire Relief Association will not be a budgeted pass through cost in 2021,
reduced costs by $52,083.
• The City of New Brighton has expanded their Public works facility to
accommodate refueling City vehicles on-site. January 2021 will be the last month
gas purchases will include New Brighton’s use. Therefore 2021 gasoline purchases
are expected to decline by $77,478 (net impact on budget is approximately
$3,000).
• Remaining budget line items – 12.3% of overall expenditures or $954,264, costs down
$17,450. The overall decrease is substantially due to the annual sealcoating costs of
approximately $35,000 will now be supported by the Infrastructure levy.
• Costs include repairs and maintenance, utilities, fuels, training, supplies,
communications, etc.
Revenues:
• Liquor transfer to the General Fund remains at $250,000 for 2021.
• 2021 State funded Local Government Aid has increased by $30,833.
• Police contracted services has increased by $26,147.
• Excess Tax Increment collections are projected to decrease by $20,386 in 2021.
• General Fund investment earnings are expected to decline by $10,500 in 2021.
16
The 2021 HRA Budget and Levy cost driver is substantially personnel and professional costs.
Therefore the proposed Levy increase for the HRA is 6.75% or $12,500.
The 2021 Debt Related Levies are proposed to increase by $0 over the 2020 combined levies.
A debt levy reduction program (Peak to Plateau) began in 2014 to stabilize the annual increase in
levies created by the annual street reconstruction plan. Without the use of resources committed to
this program the impact of 2020 street bonds issued along with existing debt service
requirements would have required a 10.42 % increase in the overall Levy.
The 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 2021 Building Improvement Levies
annually proposed increases of $25,000 and $5,000 respectively are being deferred for 2021.
Adjustments have been made to CIP and Building Improvement replacement schedules to
make the zero levy increase in these capital improvement funds possible.
For 2021 a levy to support Infrastructure improvements is proposed at $60,000. As
discussed earlier specific costs supported by the general Fund levy in 2020 will now be
supported by the Infrastructure levy in 2021. Therefore there is no overall levy increase due to
establishing an additional capital fund levy.
2020 CARES Act funding
The City has received CARES Act funding to reimburse the City for necessary expenditures
incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19). The COVID -19 costs incurred or are in progress include:
• Personal protective equipment, sanitizers, and similar supplies.
• Modifications to facilities for social distancing / protective barriers.
• Modifications to facilities HVAC systems to provide an ionization process to which
eliminates viruses from the air exchange.
• New Technologies to provide online ordering and curbside pick-up at the Liquor stores,
added modules to financial software for the licenses, permits and inspection to provide
for contact free processing.
• Computer equipment to enable efficiently in working remotely.
• Employment costs incurred to reduce the employee’s exposure to COVID-19.
• Public Safety costs in a COVID-19 environment.
Covid -19 expenditures in 2020 are not expected to negatively affect the current budget process.
Upcoming Budget meetings
The final presentation of the 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy is scheduled for the December
8, 2020 Council Meeting. At the meeting, Staff will present a recap of the 2021 Budget and the
impact of the 2021 Property Tax Levy.
17
Path to the 2021 Tax Levy
Cost of City Services:
$7,880,250
Police, Fire, Public
Works, Parks,
Emergency Mgmt,
Finance,
Administration, HRA
City Revenues Generated:
$2,928,214
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Aids
Charges for Services,
Fines, Reimbursements
and Transfers
Gap:
$4,952,214
Levy Amount
$4,952,214
Buildings Maintenance &
Equipment Replacement:
$200,000 - $850,000*
City Buildings, Fleet, Snow
Plows, Fire Engines,
Equipment, Technology,
Park Shelters
City Revenues Generated:
$220,500
Transfers, Equipment
Sales, Park Dedication
Fees, Grants, Fees
Gap:
$426,200*
Levy Amount
$426,200
2021 Debt Service
Obligations:
$3,023,856
Street and Utility
Reconstruction, Flood
Mitigation, Parks and
City Facilities
R i
Debt Levy Reduction
Program Resources:
$536,675
Municipal State Aid,
Excess Bond Funds,
Project Savings,
Stormwater Fees
Gap:
$2,487,181
Levy Amount
$2,487,181
Total Levy
Amount
$7,865,595
Cost of Services Less Operational Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Replacement Costs Less Generated Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Debt Payments Less Debt Reduction Resources Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Nd
Operating Funds Capital Improvement Debt Levy * Annual needs range from
$200,000 - $850,000 based
on timing of replacement.
* Gap determined by
monitoring fund balance
annually to maintain 15-
year replacement plan.
18
2021 PROPOSED BUDGET September 8, 2020
2021 BUDGET CALENDAR
•January 16 & 17, 2020: Goal Setting, Financial Management and Planning
•February 26, 2020: Adopted Strategic Plan including financial
management and planning
•March 31, 2020: Council work session to review proposed infrastructure
improvement schedule and resulting 2021 Debt levy requirements
•May - July: Staff Meetings with Department Heads – Discussion on 2021
Operating Budget and Capital Budgets
19
2021 BUDGET CALENDAR
July 7, 2020: Council work session to review initial overall Property Tax
Levy estimates and General Fund Budget
August 25, 2020: Presentation of Proposed 2021 Budget & Property Tax
Levy to the City Council
September 8, 2020 (tonight’s meeting): Public Hearing to pass resolution
setting the Preliminary 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
December 8, 2020: Public Hearing for Presentation of 2021 Operating
Budget and Levy with Public Input. Adoption of the 2021 Operating
Budget and Property Tax
2021 BUDGET PARAMETERS
•City revenues budgeted using current run rates for sources that are
subject to trends and conservative baseline estimates for re-occurring aids
and charges for services
•Expenses budgeted at amounts that will maintain present level of City
services
•Liquor transfers are based on operating results
20
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Cost of Services Less Operational Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Cost of City Services:
$7,880,250
Police, Fire, Public
Works, Parks,
Emergency
Management, Finance
Administration and
HRAOperating FundsCity Revenues
Generated:
$2,928,036
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Aids, Charges for
Services, Fines,
Reimbursements and
Transfers
Gap:
$4,952,214
Levy Amount
$4,952,214
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Replacement Costs Less Generated Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Capital Improvement* Annual needs range from
$200,000 ‐$850,000 based
on timing of replacement.
Buildings Maintenance &
Equipment Replacement:
$200,000 -
$850,000*
City Buildings, Fleet,
Snow Plows, Fire Engines,
Equipment, Technology,
Park Shelters and City
Infrastructure
City Revenues
Generated:
$220,500
Transfers,
Equipment Sales,
Park Dedication
Fees, Grants, Fees
Gap:
$426,200*
Levy Amount
$426,200
* Gap determined by
monitoring fund
balance annually to
maintain a 15 year
replacement plan.
21
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Debt Payments Less Debt Reduction Resources Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Debt LevyLevy Amount
$2,487,181
Gap:
$2,487,181
2020 Debt Service
Obligations:
$3,023,856
Street and Utility
Reconstruction, Flood
Mitigation, Parks
and City Facilities
Debt Levy
Reduction Program
Resources:
$536,675
Municipal State
Aid, Excess Bond
Funds, Project
Savings,
Stormwater Fees Total Levy
Amount
$7,865,595
GENERAL FUND AND LEVY
2020 2021 Increase
General/HRA $4,756,077 $4,952,214 $196,137
Debt Service $2,487,181 $2,487,181 $0
Capital/Building/Infrastructure
Improvements $366,200 $426,200 $60,000
Overall Levy $7,609,458 $7,865,595 $256,137
Total Percent Change 3.37%
22
OVERALL LEVY BY FUND TYPE
General & HRA
Operating,
63%
Debt Service,
32%
Capital & Building
Improvements,
5%
2021 GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Tax Levy
64%Licenses, Permits,
& Fines
5%
Intergovernmental
Revenue
13%
Contracts
12%
Miscellaneous
3%
Transfers
3%
23
2021 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Administration
11%Finance
4%
Police
47%
Fire
16%
Public Works
12%
Parks
4%
All Other
6%
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Personnel costs: 70% of expenditures, overall costs up $162,175 or
3.1% ( wages representing 2.1% and health insurance 1%)
Union wage increases at 2021 estimated settlement amounts.
9.32% Health Insurance premium increase shared 50%
Employee/Employer
Union’s scale steps and longevity costs
24
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Contracted services: 10.8% of expenditures, overall costs up $34,848
Contracted Information Technology costs up $21,030
Assessor, Attorney, Auditor, Engineer, Inspector and Planner
services up $4,222. Engineering costs for small scale improvement
will be an Infrastructure Fund expense in 2021
Miscellaneous service contracts are estimated to increase by $9,596
•Insurance costs: 4.3% of expenditures, overall higher by $41,985
Worker’s Compensation and Property and Liability coverages have
experienced rating increases in the prior and current renewal
periods beyond budget estimates
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Pass through costs: 2.4% of expenditures, costs down $127,350, decrease
primarily due to:
State Aid for the Fire Relief Association will go directly from the
State to PERA in 2021, budgeted at $52,083 in 2020
City of New Brighton gasoline purchasing ending in January 2021,
sales decrease of $77,478
•Remaining budget line items combined total $954,264 or 12.3% of
expenditures, net costs down $17,450 or 1.8%
This decrease is due to the annual street sealcoating expense will be
an expenditure of the Infrastructure Fund beginning in 2021
25
2021 BUDGET - OTHER FACTORS
•Liquor transfer to the General Fund remains at $250,000 for 2021
•2021 State funded Local Government Aid has increased by $30,833
•Police contracted services has increased by $26,147
•Excess Tax Increment collections are projected to decrease by
$20,386 in 2021
•General Fund investment earnings are expected to decline by
$10,500 in 2021
2021 PROPOSED LEVIES
2020 Actual 2021 Proposed
$ Increase/
(Decrease)% Change
General Fund $4,571,013 $4,754,650 $183,637 4.02%
C.I.P. $283,200 $283,200 $0 0%
Road Improvement Debt $1,927,204 $1,913,699 $(13,505) (0.70)%
Lease Revenue Bonds $341,602 $344,897 3,295 .96%
HRA Levy $185,064 $197,564 $12,500 6.75%
Tax Abatement $218,375 $228,585 $10,210 4.68%
Building Improvement $83,000 $83,000 0 0%
Infrastructure Improvement $0 $60,000 $60,000 NA
Total Percent Change 3.37%
26
ISSUANCE OF 2020A G.O. BONDS
•2020A General Obligation Bonds - $3,000,000
Street Reconstruction and Utilities replacement
32nd Avenue - from Rankin Road to Croft Drive
Croft Drive – from 32
nd Avenue to 31st Avenue
Silver Lake Terrace
Mill and Overlay
Silver Lane – from Stinson Boulevard to Silver Lake Road
•In 2020 the median value home’s property taxes were $57.63 monthly for road, utility, parks and facility improvements
IMPACT OF DEBT LEVY RELIEF
•Overall levy increase without DLR: 10.42%
•With debt levy relief: 3.37% increase
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
27
SUMMARY OF 2021 BUDGET
•General Fund operating budget totals $7,695,184, supported by a
property tax levy of 4,754,650
•Personnel costs represent 70.2% of General Fund expenditures:
•Costs up $162,175 or 3.1%
•Insurance expenditures up $41,986
•Contracted services up $34,848
•Increase in Local Government Aid $30,833
•Capital Funds levies increased by $60,000
•Increase in all levies totals $256,137 or 3.37%
WHAT DOES THE GENERAL FUND
LEVY SUPPORT?
•The following city services:
Administration
Police
Fire
Public Works
Finance
Parks
•In 2020 the average homeowner paid $1,270.94 for City services
Home valued at $322,000
$105.91/month
28
GRANTS/DONATIONS – PARTNERSHIPS
•Since 1999 to date:
City has been awarded $33,119,871
Grants
Donations from local businesses/residents
$3,586 per resident (Based on population of 9,234)
•Partnerships:
City of Birchwood Village
2020 CARES ACT FUNDING
Provides funds for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public
health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019.
•Personal protective equipment, sanitizers, and similar supplies
•Modifications to facilities for social distancing / protective barriers
•Modifications to facilities HVAC systems to provide an ionization process to
which eliminates viruses from the air exchange
•New Technologies to provide for contact free processing licenses & permits and curb side
pick up at Liquor stores
•Computer equipment to enable employee's greater efficiently in working remotely
•Employment costs incurred to reduce the employee’s exposure to COVID-19
•Public Safety costs in a COVID-19 environment
29
NEXT STEPS
•September 8, 2020 (tonight’s meeting): Public Hearing
Resolution setting the Preliminary 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
•December 8, 2020: Public Hearing
Approving the Final 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
Adoption of 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
QUESTIONS?Call Finance Director: Shelly
Rueckert 612‐782‐3316
30
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-064
A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PRELIMINARY 2021 TAX LEVY AND GENERAL
OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires that the City of St. Anthony Village provide Hennepin and
Ramsey Counties with a proposed 2021 certified property tax levy and operating budget;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a work session reviewing the infrastructure improvement schedule
and 2021 Debt Levy requirements on March 31st ; and an July 7th work session to review
the initial 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy estimates
WHEREAS, the City Council further reviewed the proposed 2021 property tax levy and general
operation budget at the August 25, 2020, City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the allowed Debt Levies will be reduced by $614,910 based on sufficient funds; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary tax levy and budget is contingent upon any revisions allowed if the current
law is modified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will determine a final property tax levy and budget at the
Tuesday, December 8, 2020, public hearing held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1) The preliminary 2021 Property Tax Levy is:
General Operating Levy $4,754,650
Capital Improvement Project Levy $ 283,200
Road Improvement Levy $1,913,699
Lease Revenue Bonds $ 344,897
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Levy $ 197,564
Tax Abatement Levy $ 228,585
Building Improvement Levy $ 83,000
In frastructure Levy $ 60,000
$7,865,595
2) The preliminary 2021 General Operating Budget totals $7,695,184
Adopted this 8th day of September, 2020.
_________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: _________________________________
Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager
31
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
32
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on September 8, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road the
Saint Anthony Village City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the 2021 Operations Budget and
Preliminary Levy Certification.
Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken
at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until
the date of the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the Finance Director at 612-782-3316.
Shelly Rueckert
Finance Director
Published: August 27, 2020
33
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
34
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Stille and St. Anthony Village City Council
Charlie Yunker, Acting City Manager
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: City Council Meeting – September 8, 2020
NAC Project No. 323.01 - 20.14
Request: Request for a Preliminary Plan Planned Unit Development –
Stinson Apartments
Property Address: 3725 Stinson Lake Road
Property PID: 313023330209
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the R-4, Multiple Family Residential
District as a baseline. The Comprehensive Plan promotes high density multiple family
residential uses of up to 40 units per acre upon the subject site.
The proposed PUD meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the majority of the
baseline standards. The principal areas of flexibility which have been requested under the PUD
include the following:
1) Residential Density. The allowance of a residential density greater than 40 units per
acre upon the subject site. Specifically, a density of 44.7 units per acre is proposed (38
units on 0.85 acres of land). For comparison purposes, the baseline R-4 zoning district
allows up to 25 units per acre without PUD flexibility.
2) Side Yard Setback. A side yard setback less than 30 feet. The City’s R-4 District
imposes a 30-foot building setback requirement along side yards which are adjacent to
public rights-of-way. A 20-foot setback is proposed on the north side of the
apartment building (along 38th Avenue NE).
35
September 8, 2020
Page 2
3)Parking Supply. A parking supply of less than 2 spaces per unit as imposed in the R-4
zoning district. A total of 46 parking spaces are proposed which results in a ratio of 1.2
spaces per unit. This number is equal to the total number of bedrooms proposed in
the project.
4)Covered (Enclosed) Parking. The allowance of no covered (enclosed) parking stalls.
The City’s R-4 District standard requires at least half of all parking stalls to be
covered/enclosed.
5)Impervious Surface Coverage. The allowance of impervious surface coverage which
exceeds 50 percent of the area of the site (as imposed in the R-4 zoning district). The
proposed site plan calls for 76.7 percent of the site to be devoted to impervious
surface.
Planning Commission Action.
The Planning Commission considered this item at its August 18th meeting as a part of a public
hearing on the request. A motion to approve the item was seconded, but failed to prevail, with
the vote split at 2 in favor, 2 opposed, and 3 members abstaining. The votes opposed raised as
primary issues a concern over parking supply, the concern with converting potential
commercial property to residential, and a concern over the lack of attention to racial justice.
Abstention votes primarily cited the inability to ensure that the applicant’s primary project
asset – affordability – was not a guarantee, but only a goal of the project. The applicant noted
that the proposal was essentially “market rate”, in that it is being designed to succeed
financially by attracting tenants who are willing to accept lower levels of amenities in exchange
for lower rents. The primary support for ensuring the lower rents was the applicant’s
contention that unit size and the lack of amenities would not attract tenants at higher rent
levels.
The Planning Commission declined to take up a second motion, and forwards the application to
the City Council without a final recommendation.
Staff Recommendation.
Staff believes that the flexibility requested under the PUD can be considered appropriate, given
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the related improvements and amenities
proposed as part of the project. Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plan stage
of the PUD for the Stinson Apartments project, with a series of conditions as noted in the
summary section of the report which follows.
36
September 8, 2020
Page 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Interstate Development
Owner: Apache Redevelopment, LLC
Location: 3725 Stinson Boulevard
Existing Land Use Vacant
Zoning: PUD, Silver Lake Village PUD
Surrounding Land North: Multi-family housing, zoned PUD
Use / Zoning: South: Restaurant, zoned PUD
East: Multi-family housing, zoned PUD
West: Multi-family housing (City of Columbia Heights)
Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: July 23, 2020
Action: 60 Days: September 21, 2020
Letter Sent: NA
120 Days: November 20, 2020
ANALYSIS
Background. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story, 38-unit apartment
building upon a vacant, 0.85-acre site located south of 38th Avenue Northeast and east of
Stinson Boulevard. Of the 38 proposed units, 30 are to be one-bedroom and 8 are to be
two-bedroom.
According to the applicant, the apartment units are intended to target renters who wish to
live in “new construction” but cannot afford rents associated with typical luxury
apartments. In this regard, the target resident profile for the proposed apartment building
project is an annual household income starting in the low to mid $40,000 range.
The applicant has indicated that the apartment building will incorporate several features
which are common in luxury apartment developments. These features include the
following:
•Quality exterior finishes (cement board and brick veneer siding)
•Quality interior fixtures, flooring, cabinetry and countertops (solid surface)
•Ceilings which measure 9 feet in height
•In-unit washers and dryers
37
September 8, 2020
Page 4
The subject site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Within PUD zoning districts, uses
and development parameters/requirements are specified in a PUD development
agreement.
Planned Unit Development
Purpose. In consideration of PUD applications, it is important that the purpose of
planned unit development be considered and that a determination be made that such
purpose will be fulfilled.
Generally speaking, planned unit development is intended to allow a mixture of uses
and/or flexibility from the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance in return for higher site
and building design standards than what would otherwise be allowed.
Section 152.202 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that planned unit
development may allow the following:
38
September 8, 2020
Page 5
(A)Variety. Within a comprehensive site design concept, a mixture of land uses, housing
types and densities;
(B)Sensitivity. Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks,
yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other
performance standards associated with traditional zoning, a PUD can maximize the
development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable
natural characteristics;
(C)Efficiency. The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths
and other utility-related expenses;
(D)Density transfer. The project density may be clustered, basing density on a number
of units per acre in place of specific lot dimensions; and
(E)District integration. The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning
districts such as:
1.Mixed residential uses to allow both densities and unit types to be varied within
the project;
2.Mixed residential uses with increased density based upon the greater sensitivity
of PUD projects to regulation; and
3.Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project.
Existing PUD. While the subject site lies within the boundaries of the Silver Lake PUD
(approved in 2004), the PUD does not include an approved conceptual development
plan for the subject site. In this regard, no modifications to the original terms of the
PUD approval or the processing of a PUD amendment are necessary.
Processing. To accommodate the project, a two-stage review process will take place.
The application under consideration is the Preliminary PUD Plan stage. Generally
speaking, Preliminary Plan approval is similar to a basic rezoning in that it establishes
that the proposed use is appropriate for the subject site. Also, as part of Preliminary
Plan review, various conditions of approval are typically imposed. The Preliminary Plan
will be subject to a public hearing, review and recommendation by the Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council.
The second stage is the Final PUD Plan which basically serves to implement the various
conditions of Preliminary Plan approval and ensure that such conditions have been
satisfied. The Final Plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Council. No
public hearing is required for Final Plan consideration.
39
September 8, 2020
Page 6
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan. According to the St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the
Metropolitan Council has classified St. Anthony Village as an “urban community.”
“Urban communities” are expected to plan for forecasted population and household
growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for new development and
redevelopment. In addition, “urban communities” are expected to target opportunities
for intensive development near regional transit investments.
The Land Use Plan included in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan directs high density
residential use of the subject site. The Plan also establishes a desired density range of
20 to 40 units per acre for high density residential development.
Proposed Residential Density. The applicant has proposed a residential density of 44.7
units per acre (38 dwelling units/0.85 acres) which exceeds the density range directed
by the City’s draft 2040 Plan. As previously indicated, the applicant has requested
flexibility from this density directive via the PUD.
In previous review of the PUD concept plan, Staff raised two options available to the City
to address the density issue. These options were as follows:
A.Expand the area of the subject site such that the density directives of the Plan can
be satisfied. This would basically involve the acquisition of a portion of the
restaurant property which abuts the subject site to the south.
B.Consider areas of the Silver Lake PUD which have been built out at lower density and
transferring a portion (or portions) of that allowance to the subject site such that the
“overall density of the PUD is consistent with the density directives of the Plan.
In consideration of the preceding options, the City Council and Planning Commission
were supportive of the idea of allowing the proposed development to utilize dwelling
unit / development density rights which were afforded other sites in the Silver Lake PUD
but were not used. Densities in the Silver Lake PUD vary widely, and there is little
remaining land to develop. Capping the project at 40 units per acre would result in a
unit count of 34 units. As such, the increase proposed by the applicants is a total of 4
units over the cap. Averaging this unit count over the larger district would result in an
insignificant impact to the PUD density.
Affordable Housing. The housing aspect of the project potentially raises the issue of
affordability. The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies several aspects of affordability
and density. The Plan notes that for existing housing stock, St. Anthony Village provides
a greater ratio of affordable housing, a greater ratio of rental housing, and a greater
40
September 8, 2020
Page 7
ratio of multiple family housing that the metropolitan area in general. This is also true
for most aspects of affordability when compared to nearby suburban communities.
With regard to planned housing and affordability, the Metropolitan Council assigned (as
a part of the 2040 Plan Update process) an allocation for 152 additional “affordable”
units to St. Anthony for the 2021-2030 decade. The Plan accommodates this allocation
with land designated for affordable residential development of more than 460 units.
The proposed apartment project serves to implement the City’s Land Use Plan which
directs high density residential uses upon the subject site. In this regard, the project
provides a potential “opportunity” for additional affordable housing units in the City.
Moreover, it is worthwhile noting that this supply of affordable units would be provided
without need for public subsidy.
Land Use Compatibility. In consideration of the proposed apartment building project, a
determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses.
The subject site is bordered by multi-family housing to the northeast, east and west, and by
a commercial uses to the south and north: restaurant to the south, car wash and vacant
retail center to the north. With this in mind, the proposed multi-family housing project will
be contiguous to similar uses and therefore is considered generally compatible with
surrounding uses (and not an isolated use).
Site Access. Access to the subject site is to be provided from the north via 38th Avenue NE
and from the west via Stinson Boulevard. Appropriately, both access points are located a
significant distance form the Stinson Boulevard/38th Avenue NE intersection such that
stacked vehicles at the intersection will not negatively impact site entry and exit maneuvers.
Access-related issues should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer.
Site and Building Layout. The site and building layout are considered well-conceived and
respectful of the site’s context.
The proposed apartment building is situated in the northwest corner of the site which
enables site access and egress to occur in locations which will not conflict with traffic at the
Stinson Boulevard / 38th Avenue NE intersection.
Also, to be noted is that front yard planting areas are proposed along both Stinson
Boulevard (30 feet in depth) and 38th Avenue NE (20 feet in depth).
Setbacks. The PUD zoning district does not impose specific structure setback requirements.
For reference purposes however, the following table illustrates setback requirements
41
September 8, 2020
Page 8
imposed in the City’s R-4 Multiple Family Residential zoning district (commonly applied to
high density residential housing projects) and setbacks proposed by the applicant:
R-4 District Setback Proposed Setback
Front Yard 30 feet 30 feet
Side Yard
Along ROW
Interior
30 feet
20 feet
15 feet (north)
77 feet (south)
Rear Yard 40 feet or 20 % of the lot
depth, whichever is greater
61 feet
With the exception of the north side yard, proposed structure setbacks meet or exceed the
requirements imposed in the City’s R-4 District. As shown above, a 20-foot setback is
proposed north of the apartment building. As a result, setback flexibility via the PUD has
been requested. Compliance with the 30-foot setback is problematic in consideration of the
limited width of the lot, parking lot dimensional requirements (necessary to ensure proper
functioning) and interior dwelling unit configurations.
For context, the two multi-family buildings to the east are placed approximately 15-20 from
the curb line of the extension of 38th Avenue NE through their development. With a 20 foot
setback proposed on this project, and the street right of way, the Interstate project would
be approximately 33 feet from the curbline of 38th Avenue.
Off-Street Parking
Supply. According to the Zoning Ordinance, apartments must provide two off-street
spaces per unit, one of which is enclosed. In this regard, a total of 76 off-street parking
stalls are required, 38 of which must be covered or enclosed.
The applicants have proposed a total of 46 spaces (1.2 spaces per unit) on the site. The
46 parking stalls match the number of bedrooms to be provided in the apartment
building.
As previously indicated, the applicant has requested flexibility from the required parking
supply via the PUD. In this regard, the City would need to allow flexibility from the
general ordinance requirement as part of the PUD approval.
Reliable research related to the number of parking spaces required for suburban
multiple family buildings with access to transit is provided in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking Generation” manual. There is extensive transit
coverage in the Silver Lake Village area, and Metro Transit is currently working on
enhancing its transit stop capacity along Silver Lake Road.
42
September 8, 2020
Page 9
For such developments, a parking requirement equal to one parking space per .9
bedrooms can predict actual parking demand. As previously indicated, the total number
of bedrooms in the proposed apartment building is 46, which results in a ratio of 1.2
spaces per bedroom, which should be adequate to serve the project. The applicant is
cautioned that overflow parking would likely need to be accommodated on its
companion property to the south if needed, as on-street parking can be tightly limited in
the area.
Covered (Enclosed) Parking. According to the Ordinance, apartments must provide two
off-street spaces per unit, one of which is enclosed. The applicant has requested
flexibility from the covered (enclosed) parking requirement via the PUD in order all
surface parking stalls, none of which are to be covered/enclosed.
According to the applicant, the limited size of the subject site (0.85 acres), coupled with
a desire to provide units which are affordable to the majority of residents in the area,
make the construction of enclosed parking spaces not financially feasible.
As a condition of preliminary plan PUD approval, City Officials should make a
determination that the proposed surface parking stalls (uncovered) are acceptable.
Dimensional Requirements. According to the Ordinance, off-street parking spaces must
measure not less than 9 feet in width and 19 feet in depth. Appropriately, all surface
parking stalls and drive aisles meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the
Ordinance.
Disabled Parking. According to the American Disability Act, required accessible spaces
(for persons with disabilities) varies by the number of spaces in a parking lot. For
parking lots which provide 26 to 50 spaces, two spaces must be devoted to use by
disabled persons. Appropriately, two spaces are proposed which are to be devoted to
use by persons with disabilities.
Building Height. While the PUD zoning district does not impose a specific height
requirement and can provide for “flexibility” in this regard, it is important to note that the
City’ R-4, Multiple Family Residential District imposes a maximum height requirement of 3
stories or 35 feet.
The proposed apartment building measures 34 feet in height which meets the maximum
height requirement imposed in the R-4 zoning district.
Impervious Surface Coverage. The R-4 zoning district imposes a maximum impervious
surface coverage requirement of 50 percent of the area of the site. According to the
submitted site plan, 76.7 percent of the subject site (0.65 acres) is to be impervious. Via the
43
September 8, 2020
Page 10
PUD, the applicant has requested flexibility from the maximum 50 percent impervious
surface coverage requirement.
The applicant has noted that the proposed amount of impervious surface is similar to the
gas station/carwash use which previously occupied the subject site. The applicant has also
indicated a stormwater management plan being developed for the site is expected to satisfy
both the Rice Creek Watershed agency and the City.
Issues related to the referenced stormwater management plan and impacts associated with
the proposed impervious surface coverage should be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
Building Materials. According to the submitted building elevations, the apartment building
is to be finished in a variety of materials including brick veneer, fiber cement lap siding,
prefinished metal accents and glass.
The apartment building will primarily be finished in varieties of earth tone colors.
The proposed building materials are consistent with Ordinance requirements and the color
scheme is considered consistent with the neighborhood and with applicable standards
found in the City’s newer multi-family housing stock.
Landscaping. A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan
illustrates a significant number of tree plantings along Stinson Boulevard and 38th Avenue
NE. Included are a series of Boulevard Linden trees along 38th Avenue NE and what appears
to be Prairiefire Flowering Crabapple trees along Stinson Boulevard.
Also proposed are a variety of plantings near the building’s western entrance (along Stinson
Boulevard) and adjacent to an outdoor patio space located in the northwest corner of the
site. Foundation plantings are also on all sides of the apartment building.
According to the Ordinance, multi-family residential buildings which are located in R-4
zoning districts and include over 25 dwelling units must provide 12 trees plus one tree for
every five units over 25. In this regard, the proposed 38-unit apartment building is required
to provide a minimum of 14 trees. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 21 trees are
proposed upon the subject site.
The Ordinance does not impose minimum size requirements for plantings.
Sidewalks. The submitted site plan illustrates concrete sidewalks along the north and west
sides of the site (along Stinson Boulevard and 38th Avenue NE). The sidewalk along Stinson
Boulevard presently exists while the sidewalk along 38th Avenue NE will be new. Both
sidewalks are expected to serve the site well, and connect it to neighboring pedestrian and
bicycle routes.
44
September 8, 2020
Page 11
Lighting. To date, a lighting plan has not been submitted for review. As a condition of Final
PUD approval, a lighting plan should be submitted for review which demonstrates
compliance with City requirements.
Signage. The Preliminary PUD application does not include any information related to
signage. As a condition of Final PUD approval, a sign plan must be submitted which
demonstrates compliance with applicable City sign requirements.
Trash Handling. A trash handling enclosure is proposed in the extreme southeast corner of
the site. As a condition of Final PUD approval, the applicant should provide details related
trash enclosure design. The enclosure should utilize materials typical of the principal
building.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
PUD Agreement. As a condition of Final PUD approval, the applicant will be required to
enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by
it.
SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary Plan PUD - Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City
Engineer.
2. In recognition of other development sites within the Silver Lake PUD which were
developed at densities less than 40 units per acre, the City finds the proposed
residential density (44.7 units per acre) to be acceptable.
3. The City finds that the proposed 20-foot building setback along 38th Avenue NE will
not negatively impact adjacent properties and is therefore considered acceptable
(within the context of the PUD).
4. The City finds that the proposed parking supply (and the deficit based on Ordinance
requirements) is adequate to serve the parking demand generated by the proposed
apartment building.
45
September 8, 2020
Page 12
5.The City finds that the limited size of the subject and target tenant base justify an off-
street parking supply which does not include covered spaces (within the context of the
PUD).
6.In consideration if the limited site size and previous site development conditions, the
City finds the proposed impervious surface coverage of 76.7 to be acceptable.
7.Impacts associated with the proposed impervious surface coverage shall be subject to
comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
8.As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a lighting plan be submitted for review which
demonstrates compliance with City requirements.
9.As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review
which demonstrates compliance with City requirements.
10.As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, details shall be provided related to the
proposed trash enclosure design.
11.Issues related to grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities shall be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
12.The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary
securities required by it.
13.Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with the conditions cited, is
consistent with the requirements for PUD consideration, with the long-term objectives of
the Silver Lake Village PUD, and with the recommendations and policies of the St. Anthony
Comprehensive Plan.
As noted previously, the Planning Commission did not arrive at a recommendation as a part
of its review.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
46
47
48
July 23, 2020
49
6390 Carlson Drive | Eden Prairie, MN 55346 | 651.406.8050 | www.interstatedevelopment.com
July 22, 2020
RE: PUD Amendment Application Project Narrative – Stinson Apartments, St. Anthony, MN
Interstate Development, an Eden Prairie based development company, in partnership with Belden River
Properties, a St. Anthony based real estate company, are under contract to purchase a 0.85 acre site at
3725 Stinson Blvd, St. Anthony, MN. The partnership intends to develop an exciting new 38-unit multi-
family project on this last vacant parcel of Silver Lake Village (the “Project”). The lot has sat vacant since
2006 after the demolition of the former use as a gas station/car wash. As the Project is within the Silver
Lake Village PUD, we are anticipating going through a Preliminary and Final PUD Amendment process.
The Project site is located at the southwest intersection of Stinson Blvd and 38th Ave NE. It is bordered
by 1960’s vintage 3-story apartments to the west (in Columbia Heights), a car wash to the north, the
Silver Lake Village apartment community to the east, and the Unofficial restaurant/bar to the south.
The same development partnership that is planning to build this Project is also the owner of the
Unofficial parcel (land and improvements). The business owner of the Unofficial restaurant is fully
supportive of this Project as he recognizes the additional residents will expand his customer base as well
as that of the other retail in Silver Lake Village.
The Development team at Interstate and Belden River are excited about this Project as we both see the
need for not just more housing but for housing that most residents in St. Anthony can afford. The price
of new construction has skyrocketed the past five years which has led to most new construction having
to target the higher-end demographic or the low-income demographic using tax credit financing. Our
Project is targeting the renter that wants to live in new construction but can’t quite afford the typical
luxury new development rents but also do not qualify for affordable housing. Our targeted resident
profile will have household income starting in the low to mid-$40K range.
The Project will have the same first-class finishes found in the new luxury developments with quality
fixtures, flooring, cabinetry, solid surface countertops, 9-foot ceilings, and in-unit washer/dryers. The
exterior design will also be of quality materials including large windows, cement board and brick veneer
siding, and is comparable to the other multi-family projects in Silver Lake Village. The way that our
Project can still deliver quality design and finishes yet target rents $200 to $300 below other new luxury
developments are the intentional small and efficient floor plan layouts and the use of modular
construction. Modular construction uses the same wood-frame construction techniques used by
traditional builders, however, 90% of the construction is built offsite in a controlled factory. This leads
to better quality control, reduced waste, and a shorter construction window, which all contribute to an
overall lower development cost.
The Project will consist of 38 units, 79% one bedrooms and 21% two bedrooms. The Project will be
three stories over a concrete foundation. The site will have 46 parking spaces, one per bedroom, all of
which will be surface parking. The project will have controlled access with a package room for deliveries
and a lobby and outdoor patio for resident’s communal use.
50
6390 Carlson Drive | Eden Prairie, MN 55346 | 651.406.8050 | www.interstatedevelopment.com
Some of the project elements we have incorporated in our Project are a slight departure from current
city zoning guidelines. Although the site is guided as high-density residential, the small in-fill location of
the Project requires these variances to make the development economically viable. As the project is
already located within a PUD, we are seeking the city’s approval of these elements within the flexibility
of the PUD. The main project elements needing PUD flexibility are as follows:
1) Density - The 2040 Comprehensive Plan for St. Anthony has designated the Project site as high-
density residential at up to 40/units an acre. At 0.85 acres, the guidelines would limit the
Project density to 34 units. Under our Project application, we are requesting a density transfer
within the PUD that would allow us to build 38 units which is equivalent to 44.7 units per acre.
The higher density is necessary to reduce the per unit project development and operating costs.
2) Parking – Current R-4 parking code requires two parking spaces per multi-family unit. Under our
Project application, we are showing a total of 1.2 spaces per unit for a total of 46 spaces, all of
which will be uncovered. Based on research from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
in the 5th edition of their Parking Generation Manual, the average demand generated for a
suburban 3-story apartment project would have average peak parking demand of 1.31 spaces
per unit. ITE also publishes average peak demand per bedroom as they do recognize that a
project of one bedroom units (the Project is 79% one bedrooms) will have a lower parking
demand than a project of two or more bedroom units. ITE projects the parking demand for a
suburban apartment project with 95% confidence to be 0.80 spaces per bedroom, which would
generate a demand much lower than the 1 space per bedroom supplied within the Project.
When looking at both ITE calculations together, we feel comfortable the Project has a sufficient
number of parking spaces to meet demand. If we are short of parking, as owners of the retail
parcel to the south with an abundance of parking available, we will ensure the parking demand
could be satisfied without the need for on-street parking.
The other departure from parking code we are seeking flexibility on is the removal of the
requirement of half of the parking to be covered. Due to this small in-fill location and our
mission to create housing the majority of residents could afford, building a parking deck is not
financially feasible. In addition, due to the modular construction design, we could only get a
max of 18 parking spaces within the deck which falls well short of the parking code of 38
covered spaces. With covered parking spaces renting for $75/month at other communities, our
total rents at our project will be that much further lower than our competition. Yes, we will lose
some potential renters that want covered parking, but there are plenty of options for those
residents to choose from in the neighboring apartment communities. However, we are
confident that the first-class finishes we are offering and at a reasonable rent will be attractive
enough for residents to be comfortable with the slight inconvenience of uncovered parking
through the winter months.
3) Impervious Surface – The current R-4 standard for impervious surface area is 50%. Under our
project application, our impervious surface area is projected to be 76.7% (0.65 acres of
impervious surface area of the 0.85-acre site). Although this site had a similar impervious
51
6390 Carlson Drive | Eden Prairie, MN 55346 | 651.406.8050 | www.interstatedevelopment.com
surface percentage under its former use as a gas station/car wash, since that use was
demolished in 2006, the current impervious area is now 0.34 acres (40%). The Project will be an
increase of these current levels of 0.31 acres of impervious surface area. Our civil engineer has
been working on a storm water management plan and has begun conversations with the Rice
Creek Watershed agency. Based on initial design work, we are confident our Project’s storm
water management plan will satisfy both the watershed agency and the city of St. Anthony.
Although we are asking for some PUD flexibility around these key project elements, we feel the Project
fits perfectly within the PUD and is consistent with the themes residents of St. Anthony shared during
the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Housing section and are noted in
bold italics below:
• Overwhelming positivity for the “small town feel” of St. Anthony. These small in-fill apartment
projects are a nice alternative to the self-contained, massive apartment developments that are
increasingly becoming the norm.
• Balance the need for housing redevelopment and property improvements with the need to maintain
an affordable housing stock. The targeted rental rate is comparable to rent charged at older projects
that have been renovated. The Project will add new multi-housing stock at these attractive rents
without diminishing the supply of the naturally occurring affordable housing that occurs when these
older projects are redeveloped.
• There is an interest in increasing housing density in strategic locations (along transit routes or in
underutilized areas). The Project is delivering high-density residential housing along a major transit
route on Stinson Blvd.
• Being inviting to new residents will keep the community vibrant. We believe the Project’s low price
point for new construction and its attractive finishes and design will attract new residents to St.
Anthony.
• The City has housing for all types of families, households and residents at all stages of their lives.
We believe the Project is offering a product type not being served by the other communities in the PUD,
which are larger and heavily amenitized including covered parking. We are trying to create a modern,
boutique living environment at a low price point that we feel will be attractive to a younger
demographic early in their careers.
• Prioritize mixed uses and allowing housing to co-occur within proximity to services, businesses, and
critical infrastructure. The Project completes the Silver Lake Village PUD as it is the last remaining
vacant parcel and will help bring additional customers to the struggling retail that has been hit hard by
the pandemic.
We look forward to working with the city of St. Anthony to further this Development Plan submittal.
Sincerely,
Michael Holst
Interstate Development
52
STINSON APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA
PROJECT TEAM
OWNER
LAND USE APPLICATION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
Currently Un-named
ARCHITECT
DJR Architecture, Inc.
333 Washington Avenue N
Union Plaza, Suite 210
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Contact: SCOTT ENGLAND
612.676.2720
612.676.2727 (fax)
SENGLAND@djr-inc.com
STRUCTURAL
MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
CIVIL
INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT
6390 Carlson Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Contact: MICHAEL HOLST
952.658.6443
MHOLST@interstatedevelopment.com
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING + LAND SURVEYING
3339 W. Germain St.
Suite 250
St. Cloud MN 56301
Contact: DAN FOLSOM, PE
320.227.0202
DJF@dte-ls.com
Currently Un-named
Currently Un-named
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
RINGDAHL ARCHITECTS, INC.
510 22nd Avenue East
Suite 102
Alexandria, MN 56308
Contact: DUSTIN TOMOSON
320.763.9368
DUSTIN@ringdahlarchitects.com
STANDARD PARKING 44 STALLS
ACCESSIBLE PARKING 2 STALLS
TOTAL 46 STALLS
SURFACE PARKING
Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
G001
COVER SHEET
ST. ANTHONY, MN
3725 STINSON
BLVD
20-034
07/22/2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
SHEET INDEX
Sheet Number Sheet Name
GENERAL
G001 COVER SHEET
ARCHITECTURE
A110 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1
A120 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 & 3
A150 ROOF PLAN
A200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Area Schedule
Name Level Count Area
CIRCULATION LEVEL 1 1 711 SF
LOBBY LEVEL 1 1 528 SF
MECH/ELECT LEVEL 1 1 360 SF
ST LEVEL 1 2 334 SF
UNIT 1A LEVEL 1 1 517 SF
UNIT 1B LEVEL 1 9 4,665 SF
UNIT 2A LEVEL 1 1 1,045 SF
UNIT 2B LEVEL 1 1 868 SF
LEVEL 1 9,030 SF
CIRCULATION LEVEL 2 1 711 SF
ST LEVEL 2 2 335 SF
UNIT 1B LEVEL 2 10 5,194 SF
UNIT 2A LEVEL 2 1 1,045 SF
UNIT 2B LEVEL 2 2 1,744 SF
LEVEL 2 9,030 SF
CIRCULATION LEVEL 3 1 711 SF
ST LEVEL 3 4 335 SF
UNIT 1B LEVEL 3 10 5,194 SF
UNIT 2A LEVEL 3 1 1,045 SF
UNIT 2B LEVEL 3 2 1,744 SF
LEVEL 3 9,030 SF
Grand total 27,090 SF
UNIT SCHEDULE
Name Count Area
UNIT 1A 1 517 SF
UNIT 1B 29 15,053 SF
UNIT 2A 3 3,136 SF
UNIT 2B 5 4,357 SF
Grand total 38 23,063 SF
53
UP
UP
STINSON BLVD5'-0"SPRINKLER ROOM
MAIL
126'-10"
5"16'-0"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"16'-0"5"
A200B3
A200
D2
A200
D1
A200 F3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F5"22'-5"10'-6 1/2"5'-9"10'-6 1/2"22'-5"5"UNIT 2A
101
UNIT 1A
103
UNIT 1B
105
UNIT 1B
107
UNIT 1B
109
UNIT 1B
111
MECHANICAL /
ELECTRICAL
125
UNIT 1B
112
UNIT 1B
110
UNIT 1B
108
UNIT 1B
106
UNIT 1B
104
UNIT 2B
102
LOBBY/AMENITY
120
STAIR A
121
CORRIDOR
123
STAIR B
124
SETBACK BOUNDARY
PROPERTY LINE
TRASH ENCLOSURE
18'-8"12'-0"
38TH AVE. NE
40'-0"30'-0"20'-0"30'-0"72'-6"PACKAGE ROOM
517 SF 517 SF 517 SF 517 SF 517 SF
517 SF 528 SF517 SF517 SF517 SF868 SF528 SF
1,045 SF 360 SF
Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
A110
FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1
ST. ANTHONY, MN
3725 STINSON
BLVD
20-034
07/22/2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
1/8" = 1'-0"A1 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1
N
54
UP
UP
DN
DN
A200B3
A200
D2
A200
D1
A200 F3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
UNIT 2A
201
UNIT 1B
203
UNIT 1B
205
UNIT 1B
207
UNIT 1B
209
UNIT 2B
211
UNIT 1B
212
UNIT 1B
210
UNIT 1B
208
UNIT 1B
206
UNIT 1B
204
UNIT 2B
202
UNIT 1B
200
STAIR A
222
STAIR B
224
CORRIDOR
223 5'-0"126'-10"
5"16'-0"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"16'-0"5"5"22'-5"10'-6 1/2"5'-9"10'-6 1/2"22'-5"5"72'-6"517 SF 517 SF 517 SF 517 SF
517 SF 528 SF517 SF517 SF517 SF868 SF528 SF
1,045 SF 876 SF
A200B3
A200
D2
A200
D1
A200 F3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
UNIT 2A
301
UNIT 1B
303
UNIT 1B
305
UNIT 1B
307
UNIT 1B
309
UNIT 2B
311
UNIT 1B
312
UNIT 1B
310
UNIT 1B
308
UNIT 1B
306
UNIT 1B
304
UNIT 2B
302
UNIT 1B
300
STAIR A
56
STAIR B
57
CORRIDOR
58 5'-0"126'-10"
5"16'-0"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"16'-0"5"5"22'-5"10'-6 1/2"5'-9"10'-6 1/2"22'-5"5"72'-6"517 SF 517 SF 517 SF 517 SF
517 SF 528 SF517 SF517 SF517 SF868 SF528 SF
1,045 SF 876 SF
Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
A120
FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 2
& 3
ST. ANTHONY, MN
3725 STINSON
BLVD
20-034
07/22/2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
1/8" = 1'-0"A1 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 2
1/8" = 1'-0"A3 FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 3
N
N
55
A200B3
A200
D2
A200
D1
A200 F3
SLOPE 1/4" / FT
RD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
OF RD
RD
OF RD
SLOPE 1/4" / FT
SLOPE 1/4" / FT SLOPE 1/4" / FT
SLOPE 1/4" / FTSLOPE 1/4" / FTSLOPE 1/4" / FTSLOPE 1/4" / FT
PREFIN. ALUM
CAP FLASHING, TYP.
ROOF HATCH
PARAPET WALL
BRACE LOCATIONS
PARAPET WALL
BRACE LOCATIONS
Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
A150
ROOF PLAN
ST. ANTHONY, MN
3725 STINSON
BLVD
20-034
07/22/2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
1/8" = 1'-0"D1 ROOF PLAN
56
LEVEL 1
100' -0"
LEVEL 2
110' -10 13/16"
LEVEL 3
121' -9 5/8"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
130' -11 1/8"
5 6
7 7 7 4 4 8982
2310'-10 13/16"10'-10 13/16"9'-1 1/2"3'-4"ABCDEF
9
337
10
LEVEL 1
100' -0"
LEVEL 2
110' -10 13/16"
LEVEL 3
121' -9 5/8"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
130' -11 1/8"
1 2 3
4 33
126'-10"9'-1 1/2"10'-10 13/16"10'-10 13/16"35'-0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 4878
9 2
9 7
29
LEVEL 1
100' -0"
LEVEL 2
110' -10 13/16"
LEVEL 3
121' -9 5/8"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
130' -11 1/8"
9 7
2
73 3
123
8
35'-0"10'-10 13/16"10'-10 13/16"9'-1 1/2"3'-4"123456789
126'-10"
2
48 8
9 9
9 7
LEVEL 1
100' -0"
LEVEL 2
110' -10 13/16"
LEVEL 3
121' -9 5/8"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
130' -11 1/8"
5 21 29
9 7 74 34377
10'-10 13/16"10'-10 13/16"9'-1 1/2"3'-4"A B C D E F
8
Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
A200
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
3725 STINSON
BLVD
20-034
07/22/2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
F1 3D BUILDING VIEW AT CORNER
1/8" = 1'-0"B3 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"D2 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"D1 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"F3 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
KEYNOTE - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Note #Note
1 PREFINISHED METAL CANOPY AT ENTRANCE
2 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE
3 PREFINISHED METAL EYE BROW
4 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP
5 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR & WINDOW SYSTEM
6 HOLLOW METAL DOOR - GLASS
7 FIBERGLASS WINDOWS
8 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, 4" EXPOSURE
9 BRICK VENEER
10 HOLLOW METAL DOOR - PAINT
57
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FO
FO FO FO
FO FOlllllllllllllllllllFOFOFOFOFOFO
lOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGASGASGASGASlllllllllllllllllllllllllllTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-BASE PROPOSED.DWG #### 7/20/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
0 20'40'
OHE
LEGEND
HYDRANT
SANITARY MANHOLE
GATE VALVE
POWER POLE
LIGHT POLE
CATCH BASIN
SIGN
DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
SHRUB
PEDESTAL
GUY WIRE
BOLLARD
POWER BOX
ELECTRIC METER
MONITORING WELL
SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT
WOOD FENCE
CHAINLINK FENCE
WIRE FENCE
STORM SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
WATERMAIN
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND FIBER
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND GAS LINE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
AGGREGATE SURFACING
LANDSCAPING
BUILDING
UGT
FO
UGE
GAS
l
W
CO
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND REMOVAL
LIMITS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.
2. SAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, OR REMOVE AT NEAREST
EXPANSION JOINTS.
3. SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH AT ALL TIE-IN LOCATIONS.
4. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN
ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND/
OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING
LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN
OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL UTILITIES AND SERVICES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN SHALL BE REMOVED OR
ABANDONED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES. COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GAS
COMPANY, UTILITY COMPANY, OR PROPER AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO REMOVAL OR
ABANDONING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
6. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES.
1-800-252-1166.
X
38TH AVENUE NE
STINSON BLVDREMOVALS PLAN
C101
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
SAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER
OR REMOVE AT NEAREST
EXPANSION JOINTSAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER
OR REMOVE AT NEAREST
EXPANSION JOINT
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
SAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER
OR REMOVE AT NEAREST
EXPANSION JOINT
SAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER
OR REMOVE AT NEAREST
EXPANSION JOINT
SAWCUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS
PAVEMENT AT PROPERTY LINE
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND REINSTALL
LIGHT POLE
REMOVE TREESHANDHOLE TO REMAIN
(ADJUST CASTING AS
NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
PROPOSED GRADES)
REMOVE EXISTING
TRUNCATED DOMES
REMOVE AND RELOCATE
EXISTING UTILITY PEDESTAL
(COORDINATE WITH LOCAL
UTILITY COMPANY)
SAWCUT EXISTING CONCRETE
SIDEWALK OR REMOVE AT
NEAREST EXPANSION JOINT
SAWCUT EXISTING CONCRETE
SIDEWALK OR REMOVE AT
NEAREST EXPANSION JOINT
58
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FO
FO FO FO
FO FOlllllllllllllllllllFOFOFOFOFOFO
lOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGASGASGASGASlllllllllllllllllllllllllllTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-BASE PROPOSED.DWG #### 7/20/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
0 20'40'
PARKING INFORMATION
PARKING STALLS 44 STALLS
ACCESSIBLE STALLS 2 STALLS
TOTAL STALLS 46 STALLS
PROPERTY INFORMATION
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 0.850 AC
DISTURBED AREA 0.93 ±AC
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.342 AC
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.652 AC
NET INCREASE IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.310 AC
LEGEND
PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
PROPOSED NON-REINFORCED CONCRETE
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE
PROPOSED PAINTED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL
PROPOSED MANHOLE
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FLOW LINE, CENTERLINE OF FENCE, OR
EDGE OF PAVEMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION.
3. ALL CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR.
4. ALL INTERIOR PARKING STALL STRIPING SHALL BE 4" AND YELLOW IN
COLOR.
5. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL STRIPING, ACCESS AISLE, AND SYMBOL
SHALL BE PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENTS.
6. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED
UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166.
FREE-STANDING GREEN SCREEN TRELLIS
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING SETBACK
BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACKTRASH ENCLOSUREPROPERTY LINE46 PARKING STALLS
SITE PLAN
C201
38TH AVENUE NE
STINSON BLVDPROPOSED BUILDING
9.00
(TYP)
8.04
9.009.00
9.00
(TYP)9.00(TYP)19.00
(TYP)19.00(TYP)19.00(TYP)8.31R
4
.
0
0
R4.0
0
R4
.
0
0
11.92
6.92
5.0023.148.93
7.005.00
8.07
12.0022.0019.31
21.54
18.00
24.00
24.003.483.443.3020.0020.0030.00
60.834.004.0043.00
R4.00R4.0
0
29.98
30.2821.785.00PROPOSED CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED 5' PUBLIC SIDEWALK
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN RAMP
PROPOSED CONCRETE
DRIVE APRON
PROPOSED CONCRETE
DRIVE APRON
PROPOSED CONCRETE
INTEGRAL SIDEWALK
PROPOSED B612
CURB & GUTTER (TYP)
PROPOSED B612
CURB & GUTTER (TYP)
1.5' HIGH BACK CURB
RETAINING WALL
17.065.0062.00R
4
.
0
0
ACCESSIBLE PARKING
SIGN
NO PARKING SIGN
15
16
15
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN RAMP
59
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FO
FO FO FO
FO FOlllllllllllllllllllFOFOFOFOFOFO
lOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGASGASGASGASllllllllllllllllllllllllllll >959
959
960
961
961
96
1
960959958
958.40 959.00
958.49
958.49
958.65
959.55
961.64 962.05
961.83
961.65 961.65
959.42958.99
958.84
958.77
958.84
959.00957.23 959.00
957.35
957.32957.23
957.78 958.04
958.15
958.55
958.00
959.89
960.59
959.00
960.15
960.50
961.13
960.53
961.22960.50959.41958.30 961.65
958.50
957.15
957.67
958.97 959.07
960.38
960.38
960.35
958.30
958.30
958.91
959.82 960.00
960.00959.82
???
960.39
959.79
959.54 958.95959.60
958.48
960.25
THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-BASE PROPOSED.DWG #### 7/20/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
XXXX.XX
GRADING LEGEND
= EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
= EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
= EXISTING CONTOUR LABEL
= PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
= PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
= PROPOSED CONTOUR LABEL
= EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION*
= PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION*
*SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG CURB & GUTTER AND OTHER
REVEALS ARE TO FLOWLINE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
100
0 20'40'
NOTES:
1. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN
HEREIN ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE
SURVEYS AND/ OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
FIELD VERIFYING LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY
EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
2. SIDEWALKS SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED
2.00% CROSS SLOPE, OR 5.00% LONGITUDINAL SLOPE.
3. CONCRETE ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.00%
CROSS SLOPE IN SIDEWALK AREAS.
4. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND
SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.00% CROSS SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
5. ONCE SUBGRADE ELEVATION IS REACHED, SCARIFY EXISTING SUBGRADE
AND RECOMPACT TO 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
6. SUBGRADE AND FILL AREAS UNDER PROPOSED PAVEMENT, SIDEWALKS,
AND CURBS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 100% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
7. ALL EXCESS OR WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED AS PART OF CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
8. IN ADDITION TO THESE PLANS, A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY HAS
BEEN PROVIDED. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY INCLUDES
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING STORMWATER PROTECTION FOR
THE SITE, SUCH AS CONCRETE WASH-OUTS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HANDLING/SPILLS, EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION, EROSION CONTROL
MAINTENANCE, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE STORMWATER
BOOK AND USE THE INFORMATION TO COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND
LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
9. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED
UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166.
GRADING PLAN
C301
38TH AVENUE NE
STINSON BLVDPROPOSED BUILDING
FFE=960.50
MATCH INTO EXISTING CONCRETE
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CURB AND GUTTER
MNDOT STANDARD PEDESTRIAN RAMP
(MATCH INTO EXISTING TOP BACK OF CURB)
MNDOT STANDARD PEDESTRIAN RAMP
(MATCH INTO EXISTING CONCRETE)
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CURB AND GUTTER
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CURB AND GUTTER
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CURB AND GUTTER
MATCH INTO EXISTING
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
UNDERGROUND
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2.00% MAX. CROSS SLOPE
TOWARDS STREET
GRADE BREAKMATCH INTO EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
MATCH INTO EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
1.5' HIGH BACK CURB
RETAINING WALL
60
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FO
FO FO FO
FO FOlllllllllllllllllllFOFOFOFOFOFO
lOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGASGASGASGASllllllllllllllllllllllllllll >THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-BASE PROPOSED.DWG #### 7/20/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
= EXISTING HYDRANT
= EXISTING CURB STOP
= EXISTING GATE VALVE
= EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
= EXISTING CLEANOUT
= EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
= EXISTING CATCH BASIN
= EXISTING CULVERT APRON
= EXISTING WATER LINE
= EXISTING SANITARY LINE
= EXISTING STORM LINE
0 20'40'
NOTES:
1. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN
ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND/
OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING
LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN
OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND COORDINATE BUILDING UTILITY CONNECTION
SIZES, LOCATIONS, AND ELEVATIONS WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, AND
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS.
3. ALL WATER PIPING SHALL BE BURIED A MINIMUM OF 8'.
4. SEE WATER DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
5. WATER LINES SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 10' OF SEPARATION FROM
SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE.
6. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING
FOR UNIT'S CONNECTION.
7. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 90'.
8. SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2.00% GRADE.
9. SEE SANITARY SEWER DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
10. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MINNESOTA STATE PLUMBING CODE.
11. ALL PIPING SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE
PLUMBING CODE.
12. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL REMAIN VISIBLE FOR INSPECTION .
13. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES.
1-800-252-1166
= PROPOSED HYDRANT
= PROPOSED CURB STOP
= PROPOSED GATE VALVE
= PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE
= PROPOSED CLEANOUT
= PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
= PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
= PROPOSED CULVERT APRON
= PROPOSED WATER LINE
= PROPOSED SANITARY LINE
= PROPOSED STORM LINE
CO
D
lUTILITY LEGEND
l>DESCRIPTION
CB 1
CB 2
STMH 1
STRUCTURE TYPE
MNDOT STORM MANHOLE 48-4020
MNDOT STORM MANHOLE 48-4020
MNDOT STORM MANHOLE 48-4020
UTILITY PLAN
C401
38TH AVENUE NE
STINSON BLVDPROPOSED BUILDING
FFE=960.50
CB-2
RIM:958.00
INV:952.50
CB-1
RIM:957.15
INV:952.50
CORE DRILL AND CONNECT
TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN
INV:952.10
54 LF - 12" RCP
@ 0.50%
20 LF - 12" RCP @ 0.50%
CONNECT TO EXISTING
6" GATE VALVE
27 LF - 6" PVC C900
@ 8' MIN. BURY
29 LF - 6" PVC SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE
@ 2.00% MIN.
STMH-1
RIM:957.58
INV:952.37
SUMP:950.37
UNDERGROUND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOTTOM ELEV:951.00
3 LF - 12" RCP @ 0.50%
CONNECT TO EXISTING
6" SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE STUB
6" CLEANOUT WITHIN
5' FROM BUILDING
30 LF - 8" PVC
@ 0.50%
CONNECT TO ROOF DRAIN
(SEE ARCHITECTURAL)
61
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FO
FO FO FO
FO FOlllllllllllllllllllFOFOFOFOFOFO
lOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGASGASGASGASllllllllllllllllllllllllllll >==========THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-BASE PROPOSED.DWG #### 7/20/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
0 20'40'
NOTES:
1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE FINAL GRADED AND PERMANENTLY STABILIZED
WITH THE SEED MIX IDENTIFIED ON PLANS.
2. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ALL CATCH BASINS AND INLETS DOWN
GRADIENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.
3. PROVIDE SILT FENCE PERIMETER CONTROL DOWN GRADIENT OF ALL CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY AND TEMPORARY STOCKPILES.
4. TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT
THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.
5. NO OFFSITE VEHICLE TRACKING IS PERMITTED. STREETS SHALL BE CLEANED AND
SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT
IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS.
6. REFER TO THE SWPPP AND THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY EROSION CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER EROSION CONTROL SEQUENCING.
7. IN ADDITION TO THESE PLANS, A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY HAS BEEN
PROVIDED. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY INCLUDES IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING STORMWATER PROTECTION FOR THE SITE, SUCH AS
CONCRETE WASH-OUTS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING/SPILLS, EROSION
CONTROL INSTALLATION, EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE, ETC. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE STORMWATER BOOK AND USE THE INFORMATION
TO COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
8. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES.
1-800-252-1166.
EROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES:
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (200 SY)
SILT FENCE (330 LF)
MNDOT SEED MIX 25-151 (HYDROSEED) OR SOD (1,170 SY)
INLET PROTECTION (3 EA)
=
EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
C501
38TH AVENUE NE
STINSON BLVDPROPOSED BUILDING
PROVIDE ROCK
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROVIDE ROCK
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION
PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION
PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION
SILT FENCE
SILT FENCE
SILT FENCE
62
THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-DETAILS.DWG #### 7/21/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
CIVIL DETAILS
C601
63
VARIES
VARIABLE
WIDTH
2% MAX.
CROSS SLOPE
1/2" EXPANSION JOINTS AT ADJACENT
WALK OR STRUCTURE MN/DOT 3702
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
MN/DOT SPEC. 2521,
MIX NO. 3F52
CONTRACTION JOINTS PER
MN/DOT SPEC. 2521
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL6"
4"
CURB AND GUTTER
MATCH EXISTING
2" SPWEB340B WEAR COURSE OR MATCH
THICKNESS WHICHEVER IS GREATER
2" SPNWB330B NON-WEAR COURSE OR
MATCH THICKNESS WHICHEVER IS GREATER
2357 TACK COAT BETWEEN LIFTS
COMPACTED CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
(MATCH EXISTING THICKNESS)
MATCH ROAD SLOPE
SAW CUT
EXISTING BITUMINOUS SURFACE
6"4'-0"36"60" MIN. - 66" MAX.NOTE:
1. PROVIDE "NO PARKING" SIGN AT ACCESSIBLE PARKING
ACCESS AISLE STALLS.
16" DIA. CONC. FOOTING
CAULK TO SIDEWALK/PAVEMENT
GRADE
6" PIPE W/ CONC. FILL & HDPE
BOLLARD COVERS BY G.C.
SLEEVE @ SIGNAGE LOCATIONS
2" DOME CONC.
SEALANT @ SIGNAGE LOCATIONS
2" SQ. - 12 GA. PERFORATED
STEEL SIGN POST
BLUE BACKGROUND, FRONT,
BACK, AND POST
12" x 18" - 16 GAUGE
GALV. STEEL SIGN
1" WHITE HELVETICA
MEDIUM LETTERS
1/2" WHITE BORDER
LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTIONTYPICAL SIDEWALK DETAIL
BITUMINOUS STREET REPAIR, CURB & GUTTER INSTALLATION DETAIL
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
-NOTIFY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING
AGGREGATE BASE IF ORGANIC MATERIAL
IS ENCOUNTERED IN SUBGRADE
8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
2" NON-WEARING COURSE
(SPNWB330B)
TACK COAT
1-1/2" WEARING COURSE
(SPWEB340B)
NOTES:
1. ALL ORGANIC OR OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL
BE REMOVED FROM BENEATH THE ROADWAY.
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN & POST DETAIL
THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-DETAILS.DWG #### 7/21/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
CIVIL DETAILS
C602
64
AA
PLAN
SECTION A-A
EXCAVATED WASHOUT STRUCTURE
PLAN SECTION B-B
BB
STAPLE DETAIL
WASHOUT STRUCTURE WITH STRAW BALES
NOTE:
CAN BE TWO STACKED BALES OR PARTIALLY EXCAVATED TO REACH 3 FT DEPTH
BB
PLAN
SECTION B-B
WASHOUT STRUCTURE WITH WOOD PLANKS
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
1. LOCATE WASHOUT STRUCTURE A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET AWAY FROM OPEN CHANNELS, STORM DRAIN INLETS, SENSITIVE
AREAS, WETLANDS, BUFFERS AND WATER COURSES AND AWAY FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.
2. SIZE WASHOUT STRUCTURE FOR VOLUME NECESSARY TO CONTAIN WASH WATER AND SOLIDS AND MAINTAIN AT LEAST
4 INCHES OF FREEBOARD. TYPICAL DIMENSIONS ARE 10 FEET X 10 FEET X 3 FEET DEEP.
3. PREPARE SOIL BASE FREE OF ROCKS OR OTHER DEBRIS THAT MAY CAUSE TEARS OR HOLES IN THE LINER. FOR LINER,
USE 10 MIL OR THICKER UV RESISTANT, IMPERMEABLE SHEETING, FREE OF HOLES AND TEARS OR OTHER DEFECTS
THAT COMPROMISE IMPERMEABILITY OF THE MATERIAL.
4. PROVIDE A SIGN FOR THE WASHOUT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE FACILITY.
5. KEEP CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE WATER TIGHT. REPLACE IMPERMEABLE LINER IF DAMAGED (E.G., RIPPED OR
PUNCTURED). EMPTY OR REPLACE WASHOUT STRUCTURE THAT IS 75 PERCENT FULL, AND DISPOSE OF ACCUMULATED
MATERIAL PROPERLY. DO NOT REUSE PLASTIC LINER. WET-VACUUM STORED LIQUIDS THAT HAVE NOT EVAPORATED
AND DISPOSE OF IN AN APPROVED MANNER. PRIOR TO FORECASTED RAINSTORMS, REMOVE LIQUIDS OR COVER
STRUCTURE TO PREVENT OVERFLOWS. REMOVE HARDENED SOLIDS, WHOLE OR BROKEN UP, FOR DISPOSAL OR
RECYCLING. MAINTAIN RUNOFF DIVERSION AROUND EXCAVATED WASHOUT STRUCTURE UNTIL STRUCTURE IS
REMOVED.
WOOD FRAME
IMPERMEABLE
SHEETING
IMPERMEABLE
SHEETING WOOD FRAME SECURELY
FASTENED AROUND
ENTIRE PERIMETER WITH
TWO STAKES
STAKE
(TYP.)
STAKE
(TYP.)
IMPERMEABLE
SHEETING
STRAW BALE
(TYP.)
STAPLES
(2 PER BALE)
BINDING WIRE
STRAW BALE
(TYP.)
IMPERMEABLE
SHEETING
1/8" DIA.
STEEL WIRE
WOOD OR
METAL STAKES
(2 PER BALE)
SANDBAG
IMPERMEABLE SHEETING
IMPERMEABLE
SHEETING
1:1 OR FLATTER
SIDE SLOPE
SANDBAG
OR EQUIVALENT
10' TYP.
10' TYP.3' TYP.
10' TYP.
2"
4"
3' TYP.
10' TYP.
10' TYP.
3' TYP.
10' TYP.
10' TYP.
CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAILS
THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS
THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE
ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF
DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF
THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN
ERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC.
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO
LEGAL PROSECUTION.
COPYRIGHT @ 2020 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO.:
NO.DATE DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY:NOT F
O
R
CONSTRUCTIONDATE:LICENSE #:
PRINTED NAME:F:\DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\000 - MISC 20\00020057 - 3725 STINSON BLVD APARTMENTS\CONSTRUCTS\CIVIL\00020057-C-DETAILS.DWG #### 7/21/2020JEREMY E. ANDERSON
44223
00020057
3725 STINSON
BLVD
APARTMENTS
ST. ANTHONY, MN
07/22/20
RJK
JEA
EROSION
CONTROL DETAILS
C603
65
66
67
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
68
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
3725 Stinson Boulevard
Interstate Development: Preliminary Plan PUD
PRELIMINARY –SITE LOCATION
69
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –BUILDING PERSPECTIVE DRAWING
70
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –FIRST FLOOR PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATION
71
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS
Parking supply (code requires 2 per unit, total of 76); applicant proposes 46 spaces –
1.2 per unit or 1 per bedroom.
Open parking (code requires 50% of parking spaces to be covered)
Lot coverage/impervious surface (R-4 code limits this to 50%); applicant’s proposal is
approximately 76.7%.
Density (R-4 code limits this to approximately 24 units per acre, Comprehensive Plan
calls for 20-40 units per acre); applicant is proposing approximately 44 units per acre.
72
PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Consideration of recommending approval for a Preliminary Plan PUD as
presented by Interstate Development at 3725 Stinson Blvd., and with
conditions, including those recommended by staff.
73
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
74
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-065
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN STAGE
PUD, CONSITUTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SILVER LAKE VILLAGE PUD,
FOR THE INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT OF 38 DWELLING UNITS AT 3725 STINSON BOULEVARD NE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Interstate Development for
an amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD, developing the site for a multiple family
residential development of 38 dwelling units in a single building at 3725 Stinson Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately .85 acres is located in the Silver Lake
Village PUD district; and
WHEREAS, The subject parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant; and
WHEREAS, the project would be consistent with the St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan
related to multiple family residential use; and
WHEREAS, the density of the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
density range for such use, when considering overall density in the PUD area and the remaining
developable land in said PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2020 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan PUD
with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution
for approval:
1. The property is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential use.
2. The proposed improvements to the property are consistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which it is located.
3. The various aspects of the proposed development are consistent with requirements of the
City’s high density housing requirements, or are supported by the goals and objectives of
the requirements for PUD consideration, and the long-term expectations of the Silver
Lake Village PUD.
4. With the modification to the site plan under conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property.
75
5. The density, parking, and other aspects of the site constitute reasonable accommodations
within the expected range of PUD consideration.
6. The flexibility offered under the PUD, including setbacks, parking, and impervious
surface are reasonably consistent with other development in this area of the PUD.
7. The proposed PUD will accommodate reasonable use without negative impacts on
neighboring property nor on public improvements and services.
NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the
City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff
report and approves Preliminary Plan for Amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD as shown
on the plans submitted on July 23, 2020, at 3725 Stinson Boulevard NE:
1. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City
Engineer.
2. In recognition of other development sites within the Silver Lake PUD which were
developed at densities less than 40 units per acre, the City finds the proposed
residential density (44.7 units per acre) to be acceptable.
3. The City finds that the proposed 20-foot building setback along 38th Avenue NE
will not negatively impact adjacent properties and is therefore considered
acceptable (within the context of the PUD).
4. The City finds that the proposed parking supply (and the deficit based on Ordinance
requirements) is adequate to serve the parking demand generated by the proposed
apartment building.
5. The City finds that the limited size of the subject and target tenant base justify an
off-street parking supply which does not include covered spaces (within the context
of the PUD).
6. In consideration if the limited site size and previous site development conditions,
the City finds the proposed impervious surface coverage of 76.7 to be acceptable.
7. Impacts associated with the proposed impervious surface coverage shall be subject
to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
8. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a lighting plan be submitted for review
which demonstrates compliance with City requirements.
9. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review
which demonstrates compliance with City requirements.
10. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, details shall be provided related to the
proposed trash enclosure design.
11. Issues related to grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities shall be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
12. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary
securities required by it.
13. Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
76
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the 8th day of September, 2020.
____________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: ____________________________________
Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager
77
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
78
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 25, 2020
Organized Collection Contract Amendment
______________________________________________________________________________________
OVERVIEW:
In front of you this evening an amendment to the agreement for residential solid waste and recycling
collection services. On April 1, 2015 the City entered into an organized refuse and recycling agreement
with Walter Recycling and Refuse, Republic Services and Waste Management.for five years. The
agreement permits three one-year extensions. At the November 26, 2019 City Council meeting, a one-year
extension to April 1, 2021 was approved.
Staff is recommending renewing the agreement for two years until April 1, 2023 with the same terms and
conditions except for the Yard Waste price. Current Yard Waste pricing is well below market pricing, to
the extent they are barely breaking even on the service today. Disposal costs for yard waste have increased
substantially since the first agreed to pricing in 2015. There is limited capacity in the metro area with three
processors used by all haulers to turn the yard waste into compost. With the programs growing across all
cities and limited processing, prices have reacted accordingly.
Because of this, the collectors are proposing a 2-step increase:
• For the 2021 season, the collectors are proposing a $9.81 annual increase from the current $79.19 to
$89.00.
• For the 2022 season, the collectors are proposing for a $5.00 increase to get to $94.00 for the
season.
Their request seems very fair and reasonable. In the market with both municipal contracts as well as open
subscription cities, pricing identified between our current three collectors as well as others ranges anywhere
from $90 on the low side to up to $140 per season. This proposed adjustment would still keep St. Anthony
on the very low end of the market but provide a little margin relief to the collectors. The contract
amendments have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
79
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
80
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
COLLECTION SERVICES IN SAINT ANTHONY
VILLAGE
The City of Saint Anthony Village, Minnesota
81
City of Saint Anthony Village
Amendment to Agreement for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Page 1
Second Amendment to Agreement for Residential Solid
Waste and Recycling Collection Services
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
AND RECYCLING COLLECITON SERVICES (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into
this [____] day of [_____________], 2020, by and between the CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY
VILLAGE, a Minnesota statutory city in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“City”), and ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC DBA ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF THE TWIN CITIES –
EDEN PRAIRIE // REPUBLIC SERVICES OF THE TWIN CITIES – EDEN PRAIRIE, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Republic Services”); WALTERS RECYCLING AND
REFUSE, INC., a Minnesota corporation (“Walters”); and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
MINNESOTA, INC., a Minnesota corporation (“Waste Management”) (individually and
collectively, “Contractor”).
STATEMENTS
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Agreement for Residential Solid Waste
and Recycling Collection Services (“Agreement”) with an effective date of April 1, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, the Agreement at Section 10.1 sets forth a five (5) year term of the
Agreement, ending April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement at Section 10.2 authorizes the parties to renew the
Agreement for up to an additional three (3) one-year terms, upon the mutual agreement of
the parties; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2019, the parties executed Amendment #1 to the
Agreement to extend the termination date for an additional one (1) year, to April 1, 2021;
and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined that it is in their mutual best interest to further
amend the Agreement to extend the termination date for an additional two (2) years, to
April 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the parties have further determined that, in order to bring the Agreement in
better alignment with market pricing, the price for full season yard waste pickup listed in
Exhibit E to the Agreement shall be amended to $89.00 for the 2021 yard waste season,
and $94.00 for the 2022 yard waste season; and
WHEREAS, the parties have further determined that Sections 2.11, 5.4, 11.1, and 14.2 of
the Agreement should be amended to better reflect the relationship among and
obligations of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree to keep all other provisions of the Agreement in force.
82
City of Saint Anthony Village
Amendment to Agreement for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual obligations of the parties
hereto, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Section 2.11 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.11 The Contractor shall be obligated to protect all public and private utilities whether
occupying public or private property. If such utilities are damaged by reason of
the Contractor’s negligence or willful misconduct, the Contractor shall repair or
replace same or, failing to do so promptly, the City shall cause repairs or
replacements to be made and the cost of doing shall be paid by the Contractor.
2. Section 5.4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
5.4 Painting
The vehicle bodies shall be painted and numbered, and shall have the Contractor’s
name and telephone number or website painted in letters of a contrasting color, at
least four (4) inches high or easily readable under normal conditions.
3. Section 10 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
10 Term of Agreement.
10.1 Term. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for the period beginning on
the Effective Date, and ending on April 1, 2023.
4. Section 11.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.1 Notice of Default. If any of the services or obligations to be performed under this
Agreement are abandoned by the Contractor, or if the Contractor assigns or
transfers this Agreement without the City’s prior written consent, or if the
Contractor is adjudged bankrupt, or if a general assignment of assets is made for
the benefit of Contractor’s creditors, or if a receiver is appointed for the
Contractor of any of its property, or if at any time the City determines that the
performance of any of the services or obligations under this Agreement are being
unnecessarily delayed, in violation of the Agreement itself, or executed in bad
faith, then the City may serve written notice upon the Contractor of the City’s
intention to terminate this Agreement with respect to the individual Contractor. If
the City breaches any material obligation under this Agreement, which breach
remains uncured, the Contractor may serve written notice upon the City of the
Contractor’s intention to terminate this Agreement.
5. Section 14.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
14.2 Indemnity. The parties agree to indemnify, defend and hold the other, its agents,
contractors, subcontractors, officials, employees, attorneys, boards, Councils,
agents, volunteers and representatives harmless against and in respect of any and
83
City of Saint Anthony Village
Amendment to Agreement for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Page 3
all claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, losses, costs, expenses,
obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries, and deficiencies, including interest,
penalties and attorneys’ fees, that the party incurs or suffers, which arise out of,
result from or relate to the other party’s negligence or willful misconduct. In no
event shall a party be responsible to indemnify the other party for any claims,
demands, actions, suits, proceedings, losses, costs, expenses, obligations,
liabilities, damages, recoveries and deficiencies, including interest, penalties and
attorneys’ fees, that are incurred due to the negligence or intentional misconduct
of the other party. The parties further agree that this indemnity obligation shall
survive the completion or termination of this Agreement.
6. Exhibit E to the Agreement at Page E-1 is hereby amended as follows:
a. Under Yard Waste, delete “$69.00” and replace it with “$89.00 (2021) / $94.00
(2022)**”; and
b. At the bottom of Exhibit E, add the following statement: “** The price for Full
season yard waste subscription service shall be $89.00 for the 2021 yard waste
season, and $94.00 for the 2022 yard waste season. The annual CPI adjustment
described above shall not apply to these yard waste prices for 2021 and 2022.”
7. Except as herein specifically amended, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect and unaltered hereby.
[Signature page to follow]
84
City of Saint Anthony Village
Signature Page to Amendment to Agreement for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor have executed this document as of the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MINNESOTA,
a Minnesota statutory city
By:
Randy Stille
Its: Mayor
By:
Charlie Yunker
Its: Interim City Manager
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC DBA
REPUBLIC SERVICES OF THE TWIN CITIES – BLAINE, a
Delaware limited liability company
By:
[name]
Its: [title]
WALTERS RECYCLING AND REFUSE, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation
By:
[name]
Its: [title]
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MINNESOTA, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation
By:
[name]
Its: [title]
85
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
86
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-066
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE ORGANIZED
COLLECTION AGREEMENT FOR TWO YEARS UNTIL APRIL 1, 2023
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village entered into an organized refuse and
recycling agreement with Walters Recycling and Refuse, Republic Services, and Waste
Management for five years April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony and the haulers agreed to a one year extension,
with the contract expiring April 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the agreement allows for three one year extensions; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village and the haulers have agreed to renew the
agreement for two years until April 1, 2023 under the same terms and conditions, except for
an increase in seasonal yard waste services beginning in 2021 to $89.00 and in 2022 to
$94.00.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Anthony Village City
Council approves the renewal of the Agreement for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling
Collection Services in Saint Anthony Village between the City and the Haulers and
authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute said Agreement.
Adopted this 8th day of September, 2020.
________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: ___________________________________
Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager
87
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
88
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: September 8, 2020
Dangerous Dog Ordinance – Final Reading and Adoption
OVERVIEW:
At the August 3, 2020 City Council Work Session, staff presented a memo from the City Attorney on
the Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance which included a summary of their findings, along with a
proposed redline of the current ordinance, state statute (MS 347.50-.565), and the ordinances of the
other cities that they reviewed (Roseville, New Brighton, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Plymouth).
By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to follow the city attorney’s
recommendation that the City ordinances be amended to adopt the state statutory scheme by reference
and repeal the prohibition on dangerous dogs in § 91.36.
If approved, any dangerous dog must be in a proper enclosure while on the owner’s property. If outside
the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash. Owner must
display a warning symbol, supplied by the City, that there is a dangerous dog on the premise. Also, all
dangerous dogs must be annually registered in the City and have a tag affixed to their collar reflecting
their dangerous dog registration. The City will have a map on the City’s website showing the
registered sites of both potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs. Failure of this ordinance, per
State Statue, a dangerous dog can be seized if it is not maintained in a proper enclosure, or if it is not
properly restrained (i.e. muzzled) when off the property.
To obtain a registration, the owner must present sufficient evidence that:
(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog on the premises, as well as a warning sign that there
is a dangerous dog on the property;
(2) the owner has obtained a surety bond or liability insurance policy of at least $300,000, payable to
any person injured by the dangerous dog;
(3) the owner has paid an annual fee of $500; and
(4) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the details to the City.
Traditionally, when we amend the City Code, the City Council has a reading of the proposed changes
at three consecutive City Council meetings and the amendment become official after being published
in the designated official newspaper. The first reading was at the August 11, 2020 City Council
meeting, second was at the August 25 2020 City Council meeting and the September 8, 2020 City
Council meeting serving as the final reading and adoption.
At the first reading a question was raised who deems what is a “proper enclosure”. A “proper
enclosure” per State Statue is defined as securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked
pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the
89
elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house,
garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure
in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the
dog from exiting. Chief of Police or designee would determine if the enclosure is appropriate in his or
her sole and absolute discretion.
Attachments: July 28, 2020 Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance memo
Animal Control Ordinance
90
MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
TO: Mark Casey, City Manager
City of St. Anthony
FROM: Jay Lindgren
Paul Beck
DATE: 28 July 2020
RE: Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance
I. Background
At its July 14, 2020 meeting, the City Council heard an appeal of a dangerous dog designation
made pursuant to City Code § 91.36. As part of the appeal, the dog owner/resident asked the
City Council to conduct a review of § 91.36, asking that the ordinance be repealed or amended
because it is inconsistent with state statute and the practice of other metro area communities.
The Council upheld the dangerous dog designation under the current § 91.36, but stayed
enforcement of the mandatory prohibition on dangerous dogs pending its review of the
ordinance.
This Memorandum summarizes the current St. Anthony ordinance, the detailed state statutory
scheme surrounding the designation and regulation of dangerous dogs, and a sample of
ordinances from other metro area communities. Ultimately, we recommend that the City
ordinances be amended to adopt the state statutory scheme by reference and repeal the
prohibition on dangerous dogs in § 91.36. Additionally, we recommend that the Council
consider adopting additional clarifying language to fill in the gaps in the state statute, including:
regulation of potentially dangerous dogs, clarifying the roles of city staff in designations and
appeals, and specifying the annual registration fee for dangerous dogs.
A redline of the current ordinance reflecting our recommended changes is enclosed with this
Memorandum.
II. Current St. Anthony Ordinance
St. Anthony city ordinance § 91.36 provides “[n]o person may keep on their premises, or on
premises occupied by them, nor permit to run at large in the city, any dog or other
domesticated animal of a ferocious or vicious character, habit, or disposition as defined by
M.S. § 347.50(2).” The referenced state statute is the definition of “dangerous dog,” as
discussed in Section III.A of this Memorandum. Section 91.36 further provides that “[a]ny
animal which is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid, or exposed to rabies may be impounded,”
and that if the animal cannot be impounded without serious risk to the person seeking to
impound it, it may be killed immediately by a police officer or other designated person.
The City Code provides an aggrieved owner with the opportunity to appeal a dangerous dog
designation to the City Council within 14 days of the designation. St. Anthony Mun. Code §
91.44. Additionally, the ordinance provides for an appeal of a designation of a potentially
dangerous dog by appointment with the Chief of Police or his/her designee.
91
2
City ordinance § 91.45 provides that the animal control authority shall immediately seize any
dangerous dog if:
(A) The owner does not appeal the Police Chief’s order within the appeal period.
(B) The dog is not destroyed or permanently removed from the city within 5 calendar
days after the City Council has denied an appeal.
The ordinance provides that “[p]olice officers or others designated by the City Manager will
enforce” the ordinance. St. Anthony Mun. Code § 91.39. It further provides that the animal
control authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if (1) the appeal period for the
designation has passed, or (2) the dog is not destroyed or permanently removed within five
calendar days after the City Council has denied an appeal. St. Anthony Mun. Code § 91.45.
The St. Anthony dangerous dog ordinance differs from the state dangerous dogs statute and
other city ordinances that we reviewed in that it prohibits any keeping of dangerous dogs in
the city, rather than allowing them to be kept under strict requirements relating to registration,
housing, insurance, and sterilization. To this end, the St. Anthony ordinance provides for the
immediate seizure of any dangerous dog if the owner does not appeal the designation, or
within five days if the owner’s appeal is denied. As discussed below, the state law provides for
immediate seizure of dangerous dogs in some circumstances, but allows them to be present
in the jurisdiction if properly registered and kept under the law.
III. State Dangerous Dogs Law
Minn. Stat. §§ 345.50-565 sets forth a detailed framework for designating and regulating
dangerous dogs in Minnesota. Significantly, the statute requires that “Sections 347.50 to
347.56 must be enforced by animal control authorities or law enforcement agencies, whether
or not these sections have been adopted into local ordinance.” (Emphasis added).
A. Definition of Dangerous Dog
State law defines a “dangerous dog” as a dog that:
1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or
private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog
is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety
of humans or domestic animals.
Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2. There are exemptions from this definition for law enforcement
dogs used for police work, Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 4, and a dog cannot be designated as
dangerous if the threat or injury it caused was to a person who was trespassing, committing a
crime, or provoking or tormenting the dog. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 5.
A “potentially dangerous dog” is any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private
property;
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle,
upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog
owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing
injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals
92
3
Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 3.
B. Designation and Right to Hearing
The state statute does not specify precisely which individuals within the jurisdiction may
designate a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. However, the authority declaring a
dog as dangerous must provide the owner with notice and the opportunity for a hearing before
an impartial hearing officer. Minn. Stat. § 347.541. The statute sets forth detailed requirements
for the notice that is sent to the owner. See Minn. Stat. § 347.541, subd. 3. The hearing officer
must be an impartial employee of the local government or an impartial person retained to
conduct the hearing. Minn. Stat. § 347.541, subd. 4. Note that these notice and hearing
requirements in the statute only apply to dangerous dog designations, not to designations of
potentially dangerous dogs.
C. General Requirements for Dangerous Dogs
The statute requires an owner of a dog designated as a dangerous dog to keep the dog in a
proper enclosure 1 while on the owner’s property. If outside the proper enclosure, the dog must
be muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(a). If the owner rents
the property where the dog will reside, the owner must disclose the designation to the property
owner when entering into or renewing the lease. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(e). Additionally,
dangerous dogs must be sterilized at the owner’s expense within 30 days of their designation,
or if the owner fails to do so, the authority may seize the dog and sterilize it at the owner’s
expense. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d).
As discussed below, all dangerous dogs must be annually registered in the applicable
jurisdiction and have a tag affixed to their collar reflecting their dangerous dog registration.
Minn. Stat. § 347.51, sub. 1, 7.
D. Registration of Dangerous Dogs
State law requires all dangerous dogs to be registered with the municipal or county authority
that has responsibility for animal control in the jurisdiction (the “animal control authority”). Minn.
Stat. §§ 347.51, subd. 1; 347.52(b). To obtain a registration, the owner must present sufficient
evidence that:
(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog on the premises, as well as a
warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property;
(2) the owner has obtained a surety bond or liability insurance policy of at least
$300,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog;
(3) the owner has paid an annual fee of not more than $500,2 in addition to any regular
dog licensing fees; and
(4) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the
details to the authority.
1 “Proper enclosure” means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or
structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for
the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other
structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows
are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting.
Minn. Stat. § 347.50, Subd. 4.
2 The statute expressly authorizes local jurisdictions to charge owners of dangerous dogs an annual fee
in addition to any regular dog licensing fees. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 3.
93
4
Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2. The animal control authority is required to provide the owner
with a warning symbol to warn children that there is a dangerous dog on the premises. The
warning symbol can be obtained from the state, and the animal control authority may charge
the applicant a fee to cover its costs of obtaining the warning symbol. Minn. Stat. § 347.51,
subd. 2a.
Beginning six months after a dog is designated as a dangerous dog, the owner may request
an annual review of the designation. If the animal control authority determines the owner
presented sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has changed due to the dog’s age,
neutering, environment, training, or other factors, the authority may rescind the designation.
Minn. Stat. § 347.52, subd. 3a.
The owner must renew the registration of the dog annually until the dog is deceased, and if it
is removed from the jurisdiction, the dog must be registered as a dangerous dog in the new
jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(b). The owner must notify the animal control authority in
writing within 30 days if the dog dies or is transferred to another jurisdiction.
E. Seizure and Destruction of Dangerous Dogs
State law requires the animal control authority to immediately seize any dangerous dog if the
dog has not been validly registered and insured within 14 days of the designation; the dog is
not maintained in the proper enclosure or is not properly restrained when outside of the
enclosure; or the dog is not sterilized within 30 days. Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 1. A dog
seized by the animal control authority may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of
boarding fees and presentation of proof that that the requirements are met. Minn. Stat. §
347.54, subd. 2. A dog that is not claimed with seven days may be disposed of by the animal
control authority in a manner permitted by law, and the owner is liable for the costs of confining
and disposing of the dog. Id.
In certain extreme circumstances, the state statute authorizes any dog to be destroyed under
an abbreviated process, for example if a dog inflicted substantial bodily harm without
provocation, or if it bit one person multiple times or multiple people in the same attack without
provocation. Minn. Stat. § 347.56, subd. 1. In these circumstances, the animal control authority
must still give the owner the opportunity to have a hearing before destroying the dog. Minn.
Stat. § 347.56, subd. 2.
F. Penalties and Restrictions on Ownership
Violations of the dangerous dog statute are a misdemeanor, including failure to renew the
registration of dangerous dog, failure to comply with all registration and care requirements,
failure to notify the animal control authority on the sale or transfer of the dangerous dog, and
failure to disclose ownership of a dangerous dog to a landlord. Minn. Stat. § 347.55.
State law also prohibits individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes from owning
any dog, including those who have been convicted of: three or more violations of the
dangerous dog statute; a gross misdemeanor for allowing a dangerous dog to commit
additional harm; or second degree manslaughter for negligently allowing a vicious animal to
run free. Minn. Stat. § 347.542.
IV. Analysis of Other City Ordinances
The residents who appealed the dangerous dog ordinance to the City Council claimed to have
reviewed 25 city ordinances in the metro area and could not find one that was similar to the
St. Anthony dangerous dog ordinance. We reviewed several ordinances for surrounding cities
94
5
and did not find a similar prohibition on dangerous dogs as in § 91.36. Below we summarize
the approach taken by a handful of neighboring cities.
A. Roseville
The City of Roseville has essentially written much of the state statute into its ordinances,
including the definitions, registration requirement, ownership requirements, and exemptions.
However, the Roseville ordinance differs from the state law in a handful of respects. For
example, while the state statute does not provide for any regulation of potentially dangerous
dogs, the Roseville ordinance requires potentially dangerous dogs to be kept in a proper
enclosure and muzzled when outside of the enclosure and requires the owner to microchip
the potentially dangerous dog and provide proof of current vaccinations. Additionally, the
owner of a potentially dangerous dog may be required to complete animal obedience classes.
Roseville City Code § 501.16(C)(1). The Roseville ordinance states that the determination of
whether an animal is “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” shall be made by the Chief of
Police or his or her designee, and that an appeal of such a designation must be held before
an impartial hearing officer. Roseville City Code § 501.16(E), (G). The hearing officer is “an
impartial employee appointed by the City, or an impartial person retained by the City.”
Roseville City Code § 501.16(A).
B. New Brighton
The New Brighton dangerous dog ordinance similarly writes much of the state statute into its
ordinance verbatim, but it also adopts the state dangerous dog statute by reference. New
Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(1). The ordinance specifies that a “public safety officer or Animal
Control Officer may declare a dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.” New Brighton
Mun. Code § 6-144(2). Additionally, the ordinance details the procedure for a hearing on a
designation before an impartial hearing officer, with the opportunity to appeal to the City
Council. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(6), (8). Significantly, the ordinance applies the
same registration requirements to potentially dangerous dogs as to dangerous dogs (proper
enclosure, annual fee, microchip, warning sign, tags), except for the surety bond/insurance
requirement, which only applies to dangerous dogs. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-146.
Additionally, both potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs must be sterilized at the
owners expense, and the owner must notify the city upon the death or transfer of the dog. New
Brighton Mun. Code § 6-147.
C. Edina
The Edina ordinance adopts the state statute by reference and provides a handful of additional
clarifying provisions. Edina Mun. Code § 8-298. First, the ordinance provides that the animal
control officer has authority to declare a dog to be potentially dangerous, and may require that
such dogs “be confined or restrained when on the owner’s property and restrained and
muzzled when not on the owner’s property.” Edina Mun. Code § 8-299. Second, the ordinance
provides that the Police Chief has authority to designate a dangerous dog, which may be
appealed to the city council, and specifies the annual registration fee for a dangerous dog is
$100. Edina Mun. Code § 8-300. Third, the ordinance provides that an appeal must be filed
within 10 days of the designation (whether it is a “potentially dangerous” or “dangerous”
designation), and the council must hear the appeal within 30 days. Edina Mun. Code § 8-301.
D. St. Louis Park
The St. Louis Park dangerous dog ordinance generally mirrors the state statute, but does not
expressly adopt it by reference and uses slightly different language in some cases. The
ordinance specifies that an Animal Control Officer designates dangerous dogs, and it sets
95
6
forth a hearing procedure in which the City Manager or designee is the impartial hearing
officer. St. Louis Park Mun. Code § 4-88(a), (g). The ordinance also provides for notice and a
hearing of a designation of a potentially dangerous dog, and requires owners of potentially
dangerous dogs to register and license the dog as potentially dangerous and have a microchip
implanted. St. Louis Park Mun. Code § 4-89(b)-(c). The applicable fees are not specified.
E. Plymouth
The Plymouth ordinance does not adopt the entire state statute by reference like Edina, but it
does refer to provisions of the state law repeatedly. The Plymouth ordinance expressly
provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing for a “potentially dangerous” designation,
which is not provided for in the state law. Plymouth Mun. Code § 915.25, subd. 2. The
ordinance does not, however, impose any registration or other restrictions on potentially
dangerous dogs.
V. Analysis and Recommendations
A. Potential Liability
In certain extreme circumstances, a City can be held liable for failure to enforce its dangerous
dogs ordinance. In Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 214 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1974), St. Paul was
found liable for injuries caused by two dogs that had bitten seven other people in the previous
13 months and were known to city officials to be vicious and prone to unprovoked attacks on
sidewalk pedestrians. The court held that this was a narrow extension of the city’s common-
law duty to maintain its streets and sidewalks, when (1) vicious dogs prowl the public
sidewalks, (2) the appropriate municipal officials have knowledge, (3) the officials know that
the owner is failing in its duty to restrain, and (4) confinement and impoundment are
reasonably achievable.
While the Supreme Court made sure to specify that it was only narrowly expanding liability to
this extreme situation, this case does demonstrate that cities can be held liable for failure to
properly regulate dangerous dogs when the city is on notice. Thus it is important that the City
have an ordinance that is enforceable and enforced.
B. Preemption of Existing Ordinance
The residents that requested this review argued that City Code § 91.36 conflicts with the state
dangerous dog statute and is thus preempted. The state law expressly provides local
jurisdictions with broad authority to regulate dangerous dogs:
Any statutory or home rule charter city, or any county, may regulate potentially
dangerous and dangerous dogs. Except as provided in section 347.51, subdivision 8,
nothing in sections 347.50 to 347.565 limits any restrictions that the local jurisdictions
may place on owners of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs.
Minn. Stat. § 347.53. The only limitation on this authority, referenced in the above provision,
provides:
A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance
regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed
of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void.
Thus the only restriction on local regulations of dangerous dogs under the state law is that the
local jurisdiction cannot discriminate by breed of dog. Other than this limitation, the state law
96
7
does not “limit[] any restrictions that the local jurisdiction[] may place on owners of potentially
dangerous or dangerous dogs.” While we are not aware that it has even been considered by
a court, presumably this broad grant of local authority would include the ability to ban
dangerous dogs altogether. However, while the City’s flat prohibition on dangerous dogs is
likely not preempted by the state law, it could be argued that by not creating and enforcing a
registration program for dangerous dogs, the City is violating Minn. Stat. § 347.565, which
provides that the state dangerous dogs statute “must be enforced by animal control authorities
or law enforcement agencies, whether or not these sections have been adopted into local
ordinance.” (Emphasis added). Thus we recommend that the City adopt the state statutory
scheme in lieu of the flat prohibition, with some clarifications as outlined below.
C. Recommended Amendments to Ordinance
Given the above considerations, we recommend amending the City ordinance as follows:
1. Adopt the state dangerous dogs statute by reference. Given that the City is required to
enforce the state statute whether it adopts it by reference or not, we believe there is
value in pointing to this statute so that residents are aware that it applies. In addition
to adopting the state law by reference, the Council may want to amend the ordinance
to include many or all of the provisions of the state statute into the ordinance. This is
not necessary from a legal perspective by may assist residents in understanding the
law if they do not need to turn to a different statute book.
2. Repeal the ban on dangerous dogs in § 91.36. The prohibition on dangerous dogs in
current § 91.36, while perhaps not preempted by the state law, is somewhat
inconsistent with it and other ordinances in the metro area, which allow for the keeping
of dangerous dogs subject to strict registration and handling requirements.
3. Clearly specify which city employees can designate a dog as dangerous or potentially
dangerous. The state law is unclear on this point, and many of the better city
ordinances specify which employees can make each of these designations (e.g. police
officers, animal control officers, City Manager), particularly if there is no animal control
officer.
4. Repeal current § 91.45. This ordinance providing for confiscation of dangerous dogs
is no longer applicable if the prohibition in § 91.36 is repealed, and the state law
provides for confiscation of dangerous dogs if the registration and other requirements
are not met.
5. Specify the annual fee for registering a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog.
Alternatively, the ordinance could authorize the City Manager or another City employee
to determine the amount of the fee.
6. Enact registration and other regulations on potentially dangerous dogs, similar to the
restrictions in place for dangerous dogs. As discussed above, many cities require
potentially dangerous dogs to be registered, sterilized, microchipped, and kept in
proper enclosures, the same as dangerous dogs. Some cities only require them to be
registered and microchipped. If the Council were to impose these requirements, it
should also amend the ordinance to put in place clear notice and hearing provisions
for designations of “potentially dangerous” dogs.
Our recommended amendments to the ordinance are attached to this Memorandum in redline.
97
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
98
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-02
SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MULTIPLE SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 91 OF THE ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village ordains as follows:
Section One. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code amending multiple sections in
Chapter 91 of the Animal Control Ordinance of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended
as follows. The deleted language is represented by strikethrough text. The additional language is represented by
single underlined text.
ANIMAL CONTROL
§ 91.35 DESTRUCTION OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS PROHIBITED.
No person may kill or destroy any dog or other domesticated animal found running at large within
the city, except as authorized under this subchapter.
(1993 Code, § 1205.01) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.36 DANGEROUS OR DISEASED ANIMALS.
(A) Incorporation by Reference. Minnesota Statutes §§ 347.50 through 347.565 are hereby
incorporated by reference and adopted as part of this chapter. Incorporation of said statutes shall not be
a release by the city of any powers or authority which it has without such incorporation.
(B) Designation. Police officers or others designated by the City Manager may declare a dog to be
a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog as defined by M.S. § 347.50. If a dog is declared a
dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog, a notice shall be delivered or mailed to the owner,
informing the owner of the designation, the basis for the designation, the procedures for appealing the
designation as set forth in Section 91.44, and the result of a failure to contest the designation as set forth
in Section 91.42.
(C) Effect of Potentially Dangerous Designation. The registration requirements and other
requirements applicable to dangerous dogs in M.S. §§ 347.51, 347.515, and 347.52 shall also apply to
potentially dangerous dogs, provided that the owner of a potentially dangerous dog shall not be required
to obtain a surety bond or liability insurance policy pursuant to M.S. § 347.51(2)(2) in order to obtain a
certificate of registration. Violations of M.S. §§ 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52 with respect to potentially
dangerous dogs are subject to the penalties provided in M.S. §§ 347.54, 347.541, and 347.55. Beginning
six months after a dog is declared a potentially dangerous dog an owner may request annually that the
animal control authority review the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior
has changed due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that includes
99
modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. If the animal control authority finds sufficient
evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority may rescind the designation.
(D) Registration Fee. The annual fee to obtain a certificate of registration for a dangerous dog or
potentially dangerous dog shall be per fee schedule.
(1993 Code, § 1205.02) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.37 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED.
No owner or keeper of any dog or other domesticated animal may permit the animal to be at large
and must at all times keep the animal under physical restraint. An animal is deemed “at large” whenever
it is off the property of the owner or keeper and not under physical restraint.
(Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.38 DROPPINGS.
It is the responsibility of the owner, keeper, or other person in control of an animal to clean up any
droppings of the animal and to dispose of the droppings in a sanitary manner.
(1993 Code, § 1205.04) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.39 ENFORCEMENT AND IMPOUNDING.
Police officers or others designated by the City Manager will enforce the provisions of this
subchapter and the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.565 incorporated herein. A violation
of the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.565 shall also be a violation of this subchapter.
Any person with authority to enforce this subchapter will impound animals kept or running at large
contrary to this subchapter, and any animal which is diseased, vicious, rabid, or exposed to rabies may
be impounded. If the animal cannot be impounded without serious risk to the person attempting to
impound the animal, it may be killed immediately by a police officer or other person designated by the
City Manager.
(1993 Code, § 1205.05) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
100
§ 91.40 RECLAIMING ANIMALS.
(A) Notice. When an animal is impounded, the keeper of the pound will provide the police with a
description of the animal impounded within 24 hours of the impoundment. The keeper must make a
reasonable effort to determine whether a license for the animal has been issued by the city or any
adjoining city, and to ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the license was issued. If
the license was issued during the preceding license year, then before the animal may be disposed of, by
sale or otherwise, the keeper of the pound must give notice to the license holder not less than 24 hours
before any disposal of the animal. If the license holder gives notice to the keeper of intent to reclaim the
animal, the animal must be kept available for reclaiming for 24 hours after receipt of that notice.
(B) Payment of fees. The city may employ or contract with a person or organization for capturing
and impounding animals not properly licensed, collared, and tagged, and all other domesticated animals
kept in violation of this subchapter. All animals impounded will be kept with kind treatment and
sufficient food and water for their comfort for at least 5 regular business days, unless sooner reclaimed
by their owners. A dog or other domesticated animal may be reclaimed upon payment by the license
holder or owner of the impounding fee set forth in Chapter 33, plus the pound fee and cost of the food
and care at the rates established between the pound and the city, plus any medical costs reasonably
incurred while the animal was impounded. For each subsequent violation for the same animal, the
impounding fee will be double the amount of the previous impounding fee. If an animal which is required
to be licensed is unlicensed, the regular license fee must be paid in addition to the foregoing amounts.
(1993 Code, § 1205.06) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
§ 91.41 QUARANTINE.
If a dog or other animal within the city bites any person or is reported as diseased, the police may
require that the animal be impounded at the designated pound for observation for sufficient time to
determine whether it is diseased. The animal may not be killed or reclaimed and returned to the owner
until ordered by the police. Any animal impounded for having bitten a person, which is subsequently
released by the police, may be reclaimed by its owner upon payment of the impounding fee, cost of food
and care, and any medical costs incurred while impounded.
(1993 Code, § 1205.07) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
§ 91.42 DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS.
At the expiration of at least 7 full calendar days, including 5 full regular business days from the time
any animal is impounded, except in the case of an animal ordered held in quarantine for a longer period
by the police, if the animal has not been reclaimed and the fees paid under § 91.40(B), the keeper of the
pound may cause the animal to be humanely killed. Alternatively, the keeper may sell the animal, as
abandoned and unclaimed by the owner, to any person upon payment of a sum of money not less than
101
the license fee and not more than the amount the owner would have to pay to reclaim the dog.
Notwithstanding the 5-day limitation, if an animal has not been disposed of, it may be reclaimed upon
payment of the amounts provided for in § 91.40(B). For purposes of this section and § 91.40,
REGULAR BUSINESS DAY means a day on which the establishment having custody of an animal is
open to the public for not less than 4 consecutive hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
(1993 Code, § 1205.08) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
§ 91.43 ACCOUNTING OF ANIMALS.
The keeper of the place of impounding must keep an accurate account of all animals impounded,
and of all animals killed, sold, or released, together with a record of all moneys received and costs
expended. The information will be reported at regular intervals to the city as required by the city.
(1993 Code, § 1205.09) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
§ 91.44 APPEALS.
(A) Any owner who feels aggrieved by a dangerous dog notice or order of the Chief of Police, or
the Chief’s designee may request a hearing before the City Council, which serves as the city’s Hearing
Officer, by filing an appeal in writing with the Chief of Police within 14 days after receipt of the notice
or order. Upon the filing of such appeal, no further action shall be taken by the city until the matter has
been decided by the City Council and all appeals or appeal opportunities have been exhausted. The owner
may appear with or without legal counsel and present evidence in opposition to the notice or order.
Following the appeals hearing, the City Council shall make a determination of facts and shall, based upon
such determination, affirm, repeal, or modify the Police Chief’s notice or order. The City Council shall
also establish a date for compliance with the order as affirmed or modified, which date shall be not less
than five 5 days thereafter, in compliance with M.S. § 347.541.
(B) By appointment, the Chief of Police or his or her designee will hear appeals on potentially
dangerous dogs.
(Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
102
§ 91.46 REPORT OF DOG BITE.
Any person knowing of a human being bitten by a dog shall immediately notify the Police
Department and the dog shall then be confined and kept under observation for a period of 10 days before
being disposed of, if necessary.
(Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008)
ANIMALS PROHIBITED AS NUISANCES
§ 91.55 HABITUAL BARKING.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries.
Habitual barking shall be defined as barking for repeated intervals of at least 5 minutes with less than 1
minute of interruption. The barking must also be audible off of the owner’s or caretaker’s premises.
(B) The animal control officer or police officer shall not enter the property of the owner of an animal
described in this section unless the officer has first obtained the permission of the owner to do so or has
obtained a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, as provided for in § 10.20, to search for
and seize the animal.
Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.56 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS.
No person may keep swine, cattle, horses, goats, or more than 2 dogs or 3 dogs allowed under § 91.01
through 91.05 or fowl, within the city nearer than 500 feet to any human habitation or platted land,
without approval of the City Council. The City Council may, before approving or denying any request
for approval, request a report from the Health Officer concerning the effect on public health.
(1993 Code, § 1210.02) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 91.57 INTERFERENCE WITH CITY PERSONNEL.
No person may in any manner molest, hinder, or interfere with any person employed by the city to
capture and impound dogs or other animals while the person is within the course and scope of
employment.
(1993 Code, § 1210.03) Penalty, see § 10.99
103
Section Two. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment shall be in full force and effect upon its publication
as provided by law.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective as of its publication.
First Reading: August 11, 2020
Second Reading: August 25, 2020
Adopted: September 8, 2020
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
By:_________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Publish: Star Tribune
Publication Date: September 11, 2020
104
PAGE | 1 OF 2
Dangerous/Potentially Dangerous Dog Registration
Complete this registration and return it to City Hall. Upon issuance of the registration, the city will provide the
owner with a uniform warning symbol provided by the commissioner of public safety to be placed on the
property to inform children that there is a dangerous dog on the property. The city will also provide the owner
with a tag to be affixed to the dog’s collar at all times identifying the dog as dangerous. The city will also add
the dog to a map available on our website showing the registered sites of both potentially dangerous and
dangerous dogs.
Dog owner’s name: _____________________________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: _________________ ZIP code: ____________
Home phone: ________________________Cell phone: _______________________________
Has this dog previously been declared as potentially dangerous or dangerous in any other jurisdiction?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Please describe the enclosure the dog will reside in and attach a site plan showing the location of the enclosure.
(“A “proper enclosure” per State Statue is defined as securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and
locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the
elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or
other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows
are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Chief of
Police or designee would determine if the enclosure is appropriate in his or her sole and absolute discretion.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
☐Potentially dangerous**One-year license $500
**(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog on the premises, as well as a warning sign that there is a
dangerous dog on the property;
(2) the owner has paid an annual fee of not more than $500, in addition to any regular dog licensing fees; and
(3) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the details to the authority.
☐Dangerous**One-year license $500
**To obtain a registration, the owner must present sufficient evidence that:
(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog on the premises, as well as a warning sign that there is a
dangerous dog on the property;
(2) the owner has obtained a surety bond or liability insurance policy of at least $300,000, payable to any
person injured by the dangerous dog;
(3) the owner has paid an annual fee of not more than $500, in addition to any regular dog licensing fees; and
(4) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the details to the authority.
105
PAGE | 2 OF 2
Dog’s name: ____________________ Breed: _____________________
Coat color: _________________
Sex: ☐ Male ☐ Neutered male ☐ Female ☐ Spayed female
Dangerous/Potentially Dangerous Dog Registration expires annually on March 15th
Signature of Applicant __________________________________________ Date ___________
For City Use Only
Please return this page with your signature and comments to the City Clerk as soon as possible
Department Signature of Approval Date Staff Comments
Police Department ____________________ ___________ ____________________________________
106
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-067
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE 2020-02
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Anthony has adopted the above referenced ordinance
concerning Animal Control; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the
case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent
of Ordinance 2020-02.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the following summary of Ordinance 2020-02 shall be
published in the official paper in lieu of the entire ordinance.
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
Ordinance 2020-02
An Ordinance Amending Multiple Sections of Chapter 91 of the Animal Control Ordinance;
The City Council of the City of St. Anthony adopted Ordinance 2020-02 on September 8, 2020, amending
multiple sections of Chapter 91 of the Animal Control Ordinance.
The amended ordinance elements include:
• Repeal the prohibition of dangerous dogs.
• Incorporation of Minnesota Statutes §347.50 through §347.565 Regarding Dangerous and Potentially
Dangerous Dogs
• Addition of registration requirements and registration fees for dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.
The full Ordinance is available for review at City Hall, St. Anthony City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.
Anthony, MN 55418.
Adopted this 8th day of September 2020.
_________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: _________________________________
Charlie Yunker, Interim City Manager
107
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
108
Date Type Staff Present
September 22 Regular
Fire Prevention Presentation
Night to Unite Presentation
Night to Unite Proclamation
Spirit of St. Anthony Award
Rescind Peacetime emergencies
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
Police Chief
October 13 Regular
Planning Commission items from September
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Waste Hauler Accounts-Consent Agenda
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts-Consent Agenda
Quarterly Goals Update
City Council
City Manager
October 27 Regular Approval of CIP
1st Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater-Public Hearing
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
November 10 Regular
Planning Commission items from October
75th Anniversary
2nd Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater
Authorizing polling places for 2021
Declaring members of AB Ballot Board for 2021
City Council
City Manager
November 24 Regular
Fire Prevention Poster Winners
Water Conservation Poster Winners
Final Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater
2021 Fee Schedule
Students in Government Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
Public Works Director
December 8 Regular
Planning Commission items from November
Appoint Parks and Planning Commissioners and Chair/Vice Chairs
Setting Salary of City Manager
Authorizing Transfers & Closing of Specified Funds
Setting the 2021 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy -Public Hearing
2021 Street Project Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Approval of 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan (motion only)
Body Camera Audit
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
City Engineer
December 22 Regular City Council
City Manager
January 12 Regular
Planning Commission items from December
Housekeeping Resolutions
Resolution for the Street Improvement Bond Reimbursement
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
January 26 Regular
Public Works Snow Plowing Operations presentation
NYFS Agreement
Winterfest
Outside Orgs-Council
City Council
City Manager
February 9 Regular Planning Commission items from January
2021 Planning Commission Work Plan- (motion only)
City Council
City Manager
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
2021
2020
109
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
February 23 Regular
Administration Annual Report
Adoption of Strategic Plan
2021 Parks and Environmental Commission Work Plan- (motion only)
2021 Street Project Call for Hearing on Improvements, Call for Hearing on Assessments,
Order Preparation of Assessments
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
March 9 Regular
Planning Commission Items from February
Liquor Annual Report
Liquor License Renewals
GreenCorp Member application-resolution
CTV Presentation
Public Works Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Manager
Public Works Director
March 23 Regular
Police Annual Report
Wyland Water Challenge
Public Hearing-Budget Calendar
City Council
City Manager
Police Dept
Finance Director
April 13 Regular
Planning Commission Items from March
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Fire Annual Report
Spirit of St. Anthony Award
2021 Street Project Public Hearing, Order Improvements, Adopt & Confirm Assessments,
Award Contract for Construction, Call for Sale of GO Bonds
Arbor Day Proclamation
Earth Day Proclamation
Public Hearing-Budget Calendar
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
City Engineer
April 27 Regular 2020 Street Project-Approve Sale of Bonds City Council
City Manager
May 11 Regular
Planning Commission items from April
Insurance Renewal
Tort Limits - Consent
Order 2022 Feasibility Study
Police Department Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
May 25 Regular
Salo Park Concert Series
Chamber of the Year and Business of the Year
Finance Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
June 8 Regular Planning Commission Items from May City Council
City Manager
June 22 Regular Audit Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
July 13 Regular
Planning Commission items from June
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
110
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
July 27 Regular
Liquor Operations Mid Year Report
VillageFest Presentation
Quarterly Goals Update
Wyland Mayor's Water Challenge
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Mgr
August 10 Regular Planning Commission items from July
Approve 2022 Feasibility Study and Order Plans and Specs
City Council
City Manager
August 24 Regular
Budget Presentation
Students in Leadership-Consent
SANB #282 Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 14 Regular
Planning Commission items from August
2022 Preliminary Operating Budget and Levy-Public Hearing
Kiwanis Peanut Day
Union Contracts
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
111