Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
Please note: this meeting's minutes have not been finalized yet. Actions taken on legislation and their results are not available.
Meeting Name: City Council Agenda status: Final
Meeting date/time: 3/11/2020 3:30 PM Minutes status: Draft  
Meeting location: Council Chambers - 3rd Floor
Published agenda: Agenda Agenda Published minutes: Minutes Minutes  
Meeting video:  
Attachments:
File #Ver.Agenda #NameTypeTitleActionResultAction DetailsVideo
RES 20-297 11Setting Date of Hearing-Advance Sewer Connection ChargesResolutionApproving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for advance sewer connection charges by properties connecting to a sanitary sewer line. (File No. 19174, Assessment No. 156003)   Not available Not available
RES 20-257 12Setting Date of Hearing-Fairview Ave Sewer Connections in ROWResolutionApproving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for replacement of sanitary sewer services within the right-of-way as part of the Fairview Avenue paving and lighting project. (File No. 19231C, Assessment No. 206001)   Not available Not available
RES 20-292 13Setting Date of Hearing-Sanitary Sewer Connection (Assessed at Connection)ResolutionApproving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for a sanitary sewer connection at 1199 Winthrop Street South. (File No. 18938A1, Assessment No. 206045)   Not available Not available
RES 20-295 14Setting Date of Hearing-Sanitary Sewer Connection (Assessed at Connection)ResolutionApproving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for a sanitary sewer connection at 2161 Hadley Street. (File No. 18985A2, Assessment No. 206047)   Not available Not available
RES 20-373 15Setting Date of Hearing-2019 SMSP Sealcoating Street and/or AlleyResolutionApproving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for the 2019 Street Maintenance Service Program-Sealcoating Street and/or Alley. (File No. 195600, Assessment No. 195600)   Not available Not available
RES 20-444 16Preliminary Order - 2020 St. Paul Streets Paving and Lighting ProjectResolutionPreliminary Order setting the date of Public Hearing for April 15, 2020 to consider approval of the 2020 Saint Paul Streets Program (2020 SPS).   Not available Not available
RES 20-413 172019 HMEP Grant Application - Structural CollapseResolutionAuthorizing the Fire Department to apply for the 2019 Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grant in the amount of $3,300 from the State of Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for training for firefighters.   Not available Not available
RES 20-435 182019 AFG Grant ApplicationResolutionAuthorizing the Fire Department to apply for the 2019 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) in the amount of $425,475 from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to train 12 firefighters as paramedics, provide cardiac and cancer screenings for firefighters, and purchase a roof training prop.   Not available Not available
RES 20-403 19IAFF Local 3939 MOA Establishing Union Release BankResolutionApproving the Memorandum of Agreement for the purpose of establishing a Union Release Bank between the City of Saint Paul and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 3939.   Not available Not available
RES 20-425 110Amendment to the lease agreement between the City of Saint Paul and the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Twin CitiesResolutionAuthorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to enter into an amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Saint Paul and Boys and Girls Clubs of the Twin Cities.   Not available Not available
RES 20-372 111Grand Round North Master Plan ApprovalResolutionApproving the Grand Round North Regional Trail Master Plan.   Not available Not available
RES 20-217 112 ResolutionAuthorizing the Police Department to enter into an agreement with Independent School District #625 for the School Resource Officer Program.   Not available Not available
RES 20-441 113 ResolutionAuthorizing the Department of Public Works to amend the agreement with the State of Minnesota to increase the grant from the Minnesota Apprenticeship Initiative program.   Not available Not available
RES 20-433 114 ResolutionApproving the application of New Hope Grocery, LLC (License ID #20190003616) for a Cigarette/Tobacco license with conditions at 1132 Payne Avenue.   Not available Not available
RES 20-397 115Cups & Cheers - 1626 White Bear Ave NResolutionApproving the application with conditions, per the Deputy Legislative Hearing Officer, for Amazed Group LLC (License ID # 20190001176), d/b/a Cups & Cheers, to add a Gambling Location license to the existing Liquor On - Sale 101-180 seats, Liquor On Sale - Sunday, and Entertainment (A) licenses at 1626 White Bear Avenue North.   Not available Not available
RES 20-475 116 ResolutionAcknowledging March 12, 2020 as the first day to complete the 2020 Census online.   Not available Video Video
APC 19-4 1172495 Kasota Ave - St. Anthony Park Community CouncilAppeal-Planning CommPublic hearing to consider the appeal of St. Anthony Park Community Council to a decision of the Planning Commission denying the appeal and approving a conditionally approved site plan for improvement of a vacant lot for outdoor storage at 2495 Kasota Avenue.   Not available Video Video
Ord 20-8 118Rezoning of 197 Baker Street East from RT1 to RM2OrdinanceGranting the application of Glen Brown-Lowe to rezone property at 197 Baker Street East from RT1 Two-Family Residential to RM2 Multiple Family Residential, and amending Chapter 60 of the Legislative Code pertaining to the zoning map.   Not available Not available
Ord 20-9 219 OrdinanceGranting the application of Rondo Center of Diverse Expression to rezone the properties at 315 Fisk Street North and 820 Concordia Avenue from RT1 Two Family Residential to T1 Traditional Neighborhood, and amending Chapter 60 of the Legislative Code pertaining to the zoning map.   Not available Not available
Ord 20-10 120 OrdinanceAmending the Appendix to Chapter 409 of the Legislative Code Pursuant to Section 17.07.1 of the Charter, and Section 409.20 of the Legislative Code to create an additional Commercial Development District at 160 South Wabasha Street. (To be withdrawn)   Not available Not available
Ord 20-13 121 OrdinanceAmending the Appendix to Chapter 409 of the Legislative Code Pursuant to Section 17.07.1 of the Charter, and Section 409.20 of the Legislative Code to expand the Commercial Development District at 1 Leech Street to include 200 Grand Avenue. (To be withdrawn)   Not available Not available
Ord 20-14 122 OrdinanceCreating Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code (Title XIX) pertaining to Tenant Protections.   Not available Not available
RES PH 20-69 123SLV - MNUFC v New York Redbulls - PH 3-11-2020Resolution-Public HearingApproving the application of Minnesota United FC & Allianz Field for a sound level variance for amplified music within the Beer Garden area at 400 Snelling Avenue North during the MN United FC vs New York Redbulls - MLS Game on March 15, 2020.   Not available Not available
RES PH 20-67 124SLV - NCHC Frozen Faceoff Fan Fest - PH 3-11-2020Resolution-Public HearingApproving the application of Visit Saint Paul for a sound level variance for live music and DJs at 199 W. Kellogg Boulevard (outside Gate 1 along Kellogg Blvd) during the NCHC Frozen Faceoff Fan Fest on March 20 and 21, 2020.   Not available Not available
RES PH 20-68 125SLV - KXH Events - Lucky Palooza - PH 3-11-2020Resolution-Public HearingApproving the application of KXH Events for a sound level variance for outdoor amplified music between 174 and 258 7th Street West during Lucky Palooza on West 7th on March 14, 2020.   Not available Not available
RES PH 20-70 126SLV - New Bohemia - Lucky Palooza - PH 3-11-2020Resolution-Public HearingApproving the application of New Bohemia for a sound level variance for amplified music at 222 7th Street West during a Lucky Palooza 2020 Event on March 14, 2020.   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-64 228971 Beech StreetResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 971 BEECH STREET. (File No. J2010A, Assessment No. 208509)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-78 2521016 MARION STREETResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1016 MARION STREET. (File No. CG1904C2, Assessment No. 190153)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-77 254755 MINNEHAHA AVENUE WESTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 755 MINNEHAHA AVENUE WEST. (File No. CG1904C4 , Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-34 227335 ARBOR STREETResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 335 ARBOR STREET. (File No. CG1904B1, Assessment No. 190148)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-37 22948 BELVIDERE STREET EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 48 BELVIDERE STREET EAST. (File No. CG1904A4, Assessment No. 190147)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-123 2301727 BERKELEY AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1727 BERKELEY AVENUE. (File No. CG1904B1, Assessment No. 190148)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-73 2312148 CARTER AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2148 CARTER AVENUE. (File No. CG1904B4, Assessment No. 190151)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-149 232222 CONGRESS STREET EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 222 CONGRESS STREET EAST. (File No. CG1904A4, Assessment No. 190147)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 19-926 23325 DELOS STREET WESTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 25 DELOS STREET WEST. (File No. CG1903A3-1, Assessment No. 190164)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-135 234463 EDMUND AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 463 EDMUND AVE. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-57 235828 FAIRMOUNT AVEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 828 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-52 2361459 FAIRMOUNT AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1459 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 19-935 2372054 4TH STREET EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2054 FOURTH STREET EAST. (File No. CG1903E2-1, Assessment No. 190166)   Not available Not available
RLH VBR 20-11 238181 Front Ave.Resolution LH Vacant Building RegistrationAppeal of Tamla & Derick Crockett to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning Letter at 181 FRONT AVENUE.   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-35 2391562 GOODRICH AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1562 GOODRICH AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-70 2401661 GURNEY STREETResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1661 GURNEY STREET. (File No. CG1904B3, Assessment No. 190150)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-113 241882 HAGUE AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 882 HAGUE AVENUE (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-54 242941 HAGUE AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 941 HAGUE AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-127 2431059 HAGUE AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1059 HAGUE AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-59 2441531 HOLTON STREETResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1531 HOLTON STREET. (File No. CG1904C1, Assessment No. 190152)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-79 245679 HOYT AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 679 HOYT AVENUE WEST. (File No. CG1904C2, Assessment No. 190153)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-74 2461000 HUBBARD AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1000 HUBBARD AVE. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-72 247834 IROQUOIS AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 834 IROQUOIS AVENUE. (File No. CG1904C3, Assessment No. 190154)   Not available Not available
RLH FCO 20-16 248507 Kenny RoadResolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction OrderAppeal of Neng C. Yang to a Fire Inspection Correction Notice at 507 KENNY ROAD.   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-163 1491553 Lafond AvenueResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealAmending Council File No. RLH AR 20-9 to delete the assessment for Collection of Vacant Building Registration Fees billed during January 18 to August 19, 2019 at 1553 LAFOND AVENUE. (File No. VB2005, Assessment No. 208804)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-125 250908 LAUREL AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 908 LAUREL AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-22 251923 LINCOLN AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 923 LINCOLN AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-55 253559 MCKNIGHT RD SResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 559 MCKNIGHT ROAD SOUTH. (File No. CG1904B1, Assessment No. 190148) (To be referred back to Legislative Hearing on April 23; Council public hearing to be continued to May 20)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-69 2551801 MORGAN AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1801 MORGAN AVENUE. (File No. CG1904B4, Assessment No. 190151)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-48 2561243 PALACE AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1243 PALACE AVENUE. (File No. CG1904B1, Assessment No. 190148)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-71 257711 PARKWAY DRIVEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 711 PARKWAY DRIVE. (File No. CG1904B3, Assessment No. 190150)   Not available Not available
RLH VO 20-11 2581108 Payne Ave.Resolution LH Vacate OrderAppeal of Jon Oulman to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 1108 PAYNE AVENUE.   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-160 1591153 Payne AvenueResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealAmending Council File RLH AR 19-133 to delete the assessment for Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during April to June 2019 at 1153 PAYNE AVENUE. (File No. CG1903D2, Assessment No. 190134)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-111 260466 PORTLAND AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 466 PORTLAND AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-154 261628 PORTLAND AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 628 PORTLAND AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-67 2621697 ROSE AVENUE EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1697 ROSE AVENUE EAST. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-81 2631062 RYDE STREETResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1062 RYDE STREET. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-150 2642119 SARGENT AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2119 SARGENT AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A3, Assessment No. 190146)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-129 2651043 SEMINARY AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1043 SEMINARY AVENUE. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-80 2661364 7TH STREET EResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1364 SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-124 2671705 SEVENTH STREET EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1705 SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH RR 20-2 3681286 Sherburne Ave Remove/RepairResolution LH Substantial Abatement OrderOrdering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1286 SHERBURNE AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the February 12, 2020 City Council public hearing. (Amend to remove only within 30 days)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-53 26972 SIDNEY STREET EASTResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 72 SIDNEY STREET EAST. (File No. CG1904A4, Assessment No. 190147)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-116 270693 SIMON AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 693 SIMON AVENUE. (File No. CG1904C3, Assessment No. 190154)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-161 171Amending 550 Snelling Ave NResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealAmending Council File RLH AR 20-13 to delete the assessment for Graffiti Removal services during September 23 to October 27, 2019 at 550 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH (AKA 556 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH). (File No. J2004P, Assessment No. 208403)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-47 2721003 SUMMIT AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1003 SUMMIT AVENUE. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-49 273766 SYNDICATE STREET SOUTHResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 766 SYNDICATE STREET SOUTH. (File No. CG1904B2, Assessment No. 190149)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-51 2742016 UPPER AFTON ROADResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2016 UPPER AFTON ROAD. (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-36 2752028 UPPER SAINT DENNIS ROADResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2028 UPPER SAINT DENNIS ROAD. (File No. CG1904B2, Assessment No. 190149)   Not available Not available
RLH RR 20-1 37631 Winter St Remove/RepairResolution LH Substantial Abatement OrderOrdering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 31 WINTER STREET within fifteen (15) days after the February 12, 2020 City Council public hearing. (Amend to remove within 15 days)   Not available Not available
RLH TA 20-68 2771572 YORK AVENUEResolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1572 YORK AVENUE. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-14 278Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904A1, Assessment No. 190144)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-15 279Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904A2, Assessment No. 190145)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-16 280Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904A3, Assessment No. 190146)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-17 281Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills Jult to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904A4, Assessment No. 190147)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-18 282Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904B1, Assessment No. 190148)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-19 283Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bill July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904B2, Assessment No. 190149)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-22 284Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904B3, Assessment No. 190150)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-23 285Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904B4, Assessment No. 190151)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-24 286Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904C1, Assessment No. 190152)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-25 287Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904C2, Assessment No. 190153)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-26 288Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904C3, Assessment No. 190154)   Not available Not available
RLH AR 20-27 289Q3 Delinquent Garbage Bills July to September 2019Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during July to September 2019. (File No. CG1904C4, Assessment No. 190155)   Not available Not available
File #Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
Ord 20-14 3/29/2020 9:45 PMJasmine Parker  For Im for the change . We need more stability and access to safe housing systems. Not just with new housing developments but with the current available housing as well. The rent needs to be capped based off of the geometric location as well. Inner city renters paying suburban prices for rent. Rent spiking up due to the economy falling. .. We are the people. Hard everyday working people still stuck in the struggle because of the systemic deprivations we've already been subjected to. Less fortunate communities need to be protected from homeless as well.
Ord 20-14 3/25/2020 9:42 PMTram For Currently, countless renters are barred from housing because of discriminatory screening practices and high security deposits that further harm communities of color who have already suffered disparate policing and incarceration, as well as economic marginalization. What is clear is that housing is a public health issue. Increased housing stability for St Paul residents is crucial in creating safe and thriving communities, and that only happens when we increase access to homes through systemic changes like these ordinances. As a renter, I fully support these ordinances. I don't fall for the fear-mongering narrative that's supposed to scare me into denying housing to my fellow community members. I believe that everyone should have a chance to access housing - especially those who have previously been evicted, don't have a strong credit history, or have served their time. If tenants don't follow the rules of the lease, the formal eviction process is still 100% in play. -1
Ord 20-14 3/25/2020 12:34 AMBen W For Renters need more protections! Landlords shouldn't be getting rich by exploiting poor people. +1
Ord 20-14 3/23/2020 6:21 PM    Are you guys nuts -1
Ord 20-14 3/21/2020 11:43 PMEric L Against DO A CITY’S WELL-INTENTIONED ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? Locally, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent on lawsuits in which courts have said, “No.” //// EXAMPLE #1: Requirements that landlords distribute voter information to tenants. Excerpts from the Court's decision: “… the government is ‘putting particular messages in the mouths of private speakers,’ namely, unwilling speakers. … The Court recognizes Defendants’ laudable goal of encouraging participation in such a fundamental practice of our democracy as voting. But this goal cannot be achieved by the unconstitutional means of compelled speech. … Defendant City of Saint Paul is Permanently Enjoined from enforcing Saint Paul, Minn., Code of Ordinances ch. 48, Sec 48.02.” //// EXAMPLE #2: City of St Paul's denial of voters’ sufficient petition for a referendum on coordinated collection of trash. MN Supreme Court decision, “Put it on the ballot.” //// City leaders should listen to all stakeholders - Not a select few. +1
Ord 20-14 3/21/2020 2:55 PMMelissa Wenzel For We all appreciate landlords wanting to have rights to protect themselves from bad tenants. However, landlords ALREADY HAVE a lot of protection and ways they can take actions, illegally. What we're concerned about is discrimination and illegal activity taken on behalf of tenants, which happens with enough frequency to require p***ing ordinances like this in the first place. Over half of our city population are renters, which means over half of our population is paying property taxes and mortgage through their rent. Many renters want a stable home and a stable life, so they can provide for themselves and their family. Providing more security and safeguards for renters (preventing discrimination, unreasonable damage deposits, etc) will provide for more stable housing opportunities for many. Laws already exist for landlords to take action on the minority of renters cause problems for them. But keeping inconsistent and restrictive requirements on renters does very little good for anyone. +1
Ord 20-14 3/18/2020 4:59 PMAlyssa Against As a small landlord in St. Paul, we bear the burden of policies like this. Rents at my fourplex are affordable (50-60% AMI). The reason I have raised the rent in the past few years has been due to the fact my property taxes have gone up no less than 15% yearly over the past 5 years and our garbage bill quadrupled with the new trash collection service. Margins are thinner than you’d think for most landlords, so increased costs impact affordable rent. I understand there are bad eggs in this business like every business. Please don't limit our ability to screen tenants based on factual criteria. Consider incentivizing landlords (especially landlords with over 250 doors) to help solve the problem of affordability and finding a safe place for everyone to live. Small landlords provide a significant amount of affordable housing in the city. You will push away these types of owners with policies like this resulting in making housing less affordable not more. +3
Ord 20-14 3/17/2020 6:24 PMTerry King   There's been no community engagements and discussions on this ordinance from City Councils. How and when is it ok for the City to mandate Sexual Predators and Murderers to live next door to me. I am an extremely concerned single mother of 3. City Councils should be ashamed of yourselves to try and p*** an ordinance without engaging with your constituents. +2
Ord 20-14 3/15/2020 4:59 AM  Against I searched years for an apartment that I could afford and where I felt safe. I've lived in an owner occupied 4-plex on the West Side for the better part of two decades. I've been a renter for more than 30 years. I'm appalled at what the City Council is trying to p*** as "Tenant Protections." I sincerely hope the Council will act in the best interests of tenant protection by not stripping away the rights of responsible landlords to manage their properties in the best interests of community. +4 -1
Ord 20-14 3/14/2020 6:49 PMBetsy Mowry Voss For I've heard so MANY illegal and unethical actions against renters,it’s sickening.There may be honest landlords-but the immoral make ordinances a necessity. Villages on McKnight was purchased by Bigos, and at least 2 seniors had to put down 6 MONTHS of rent to stay in their units; a separate renter was reqd to put down first+last months rent, PLUS a deposit; another was given 30 days to find a new home when his bldg. sold(which he was unaware of); another has had basement mold in her townhome for 2+ yrs; in another, women were being sexually preyed on by the mngr, or risk losing their home. We also know that landlords don’t clearly share rental requirements, and they accept high app. and “admin” fees for people they know they’re not going to take. Laws are needed because of the unethical landlords conducting business illegally and acting predatorily. Owners and landlords-start demanding greater accountability and ethics in your industry! +3 -1
Ord 20-14 3/13/2020 9:38 PMBarb Lager Against My husband and I own rental properties. After reading this ordinance which deeply effects our choices, our responsibilities and finances. I was wondering where are the landlord's rights? Why were we not notify? Please do not p*** this ordinance. +4 -1 1
Ord 20-14 3/13/2020 8:27 PMRamsey Against As a renter I feel unsafe with the bill that up. I am drawn to move to an owner occupied plex on west side because I know the owners care about their tenants and it is a safe haven for those like myself. I know they care about the condition of the property. They live there and make it a safe community in which to live. The bill is completing unfair and makes me as a renter feel unsafe. It feels like an abuse of power when the only people who should have a say in who lives on their property is the owners of that property. I would say no and please stay in your lane and respect what rentals owners have spent years building and providing excellent housing. +5
Ord 20-14 3/13/2020 7:02 PMEllen Against As a 26 year resident, parent and grandparent, I am not in agreement with the proposed changes. I think the property owner should have the ability to not re-rent to a tenant at the end of the lease without penalty. I also believe the property owner has the right to determine if they rent to a newly released criminal who was in prison due to one of the listed convictions. Past behavior is often a predictor of future behavior. Safety in our community is a real priority and concern. +5 -1
Ord 20-14 3/13/2020 7:01 PMDanette Lincoln Against I would also recommend slowing this process down to allow for thoughtful deliberation and input on these ordinances. There is no rush. Let's get it right. Also, the public hearing is a concern for me as the corona virus makes it way through the community. I believe it is in the public interest to push the public hearing to a later date not only for the safety and health of attendees and council members, but so the virus will not become a barrier to those who'd like to address the council in person regarding these ordinances. +4
Ord 20-14 3/13/2020 6:27 PMDanette Lincoln Against Although I believe tenants should have rights, the landlord has rights as well. I believe many of the proposed ordinances are an over reach of government and which only apply to certain sectors of landlords. Developers of market rate housing will not feel the impact of these ordinances as they have rental prices well beyond the reach of the people these ordinances are intended to protect. Gentrification in Ward 4 is happening with the approval of City Council. Single family homes on Marshall are being demolished to make way for higher density apartments at market rate. Additional market rate apartments are going up on University, Snelling, Dayton, St. Clair. None of it "affordable housing". Yet those landlords that do serve the community with lower rents are being held to account for the city's lack of planning, gentrification, displacement policies by taking away certain landlords' rights to make a determination on who gets the responsibility of taking care of their property. +4
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 8:49 PMCharles Borden Against These ordinances will actually decrease safe & affordable housing in St Paul. The notification & procedural requirements for every single rental turnover will create overwhelming financial & time costs. The provisions requiring proof of “just cause,” & compensation for evictees are onerous. The restrictions on screening tenants block our ability to provide tenant safety. But then the ordinance imposes crushing procedures for buying & selling buildings with additional penalties & potential prosecutions? Stop! Please slow down this process long enough to get some common sense input. No renter or property owner who truly understands it would support it. 25 years ago my wife & chose a life of living in & providing affordable housing in the inner city. This is the first time that we’ve ever thought about selling & leaving Saint Paul. +11 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 8:15 PMG Brooks Against I live on the West Side and have rented for 25 years. I think this ordinance is an extreme overstretch (not a first for this council!) and threatens to raise my rent to unsustainable levels (for me). How many landlords, or tenants for that matter, have you interviewed regarding this ordinance?? Like many of the councils recent decisions, I'm concerned that this, too, will have unexpected (at least by the council) consequences that will make life more expensive for many and be difficult to come back from. Please pull your head out and come up for air !! +14 -2
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 6:41 PMBob B   MPLS and St. Paul do not exist in a rental market vacuum; i.e. people are free to move about the metro area, state and nation. Everything that is being proposed will have the opposite effect of affordable housing, these proposals will drive rents up. +7 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 4:30 PMTim Wheeler Against Property owners should have more of a say about this issue. Gather your input then show the science behind the decision that would justify this move. Tenants families and children's safety are more important than the speed of this process surely? +9 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:36 PMTou H Against As a property owner within district 2, Ward 6, I am greatly concern if this ordinance p***es. I believe housing is a universal basic human need, and we all should have access to safe and affordable housing. While the overall ordinance's intention is to meet these basic housing needs, some of the language within the provision is concerning. Instead of taking a "one size fit all approach" to restrict landlord ability to mitigate risk, counsel member should reconsider p***ing the ordinance until all unintended consequences are considered from both renters, landlords, and residents of St Paul. If the ordinance p***es, I have no choice but to sell my property. While selling my property may not have a large implication to the community, if other homeowners and property owners within the city liquidates their properties as a result of the ordinance, this will cause a major wave of unstable housing and increased rents to the most vulnerable residents of St Paul. +8 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 2:51 PMBob B   MPLS and St. Paul do not exist in a rental market vacuum; i.e. people are free to move about the metro area, state and nation. Everything that is being proposed will have the opposite effect of affordable housing, these proposals will drive rents up. +6 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 8:36 AMTopper Against Abandon this STICK and find some CARROTS. +11 -2
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 5:20 AMMeng Her Against I have just finished reading the whole chapter and section of this proposed tenant protection ordinance; although for a very noble cause, I am against this Ordinance 20-14. I will be a resident of Saint Paul shortly and I sure"DO NOT" want my safety and my rent increase due to the stipulation of this ordinance. This ordinance defeats the purpose of housing affordability. Just watched a do***entary on the Seattle rent crises and if that's the Road the Leaders of Saint paul wants us to go then so be it. I Fully support tenant protection right because there are bad and discriminatory landlords out there, but that shouldn't be an excuse to gun down all landlord. Leave the transaction and ramification to the people that sign the contract when renting. These choices are purely and consciously agreed upon by two parties that have their own rights. And if the legal matters are of that concern there are proper channels to consult. This ordinance will hurt both Landlord and renter in STP. +13 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 5:15 AMMai Bao Xiong  Against As law abiding, hard working individual that have worked tremendously to provide for my family and purchase my home. My home, safety, piece of mind has been taken away from me at no fault of mine with these ordinances I am frantically considering selling and moving out of Saint Paul completely. Sadly, my home is surrounded by numerous commercial apartments that are currently well maintained . With these new ordinances taking away the ability to properly screen and make decisions based on safety for the greater community my family no longer are safe . I have four small children under the age of 10. This will not only affect my family but all my neighbors whom are proud home owners. Our kids will no longer be able to play in our own yard due to safety! +11 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 4:20 AMTony Against This is not fair for the rest of Saint Paul, for you have wrongfully made a bad decision based off of less than 100 peoples opinions. I'm a young investor living here in Saint Paul, and I wanted to reinvest money back into my city so I can say that I've helped my own city by providing families with a place to stay. I am now reconsidering this because of these new ordinance laws that are being pushed to p***. Please consider the views of both the renters and landlords. Preventing landlords to conduct credit checks, running criminal background checks, and etc. just doesn't make any sense at all. How do we determine where to draw the line for our renters? These decisions will draw away investors, and local investors will spend their money else where. The prices of rent will go up for liability reasons to protect the property if renters choose to neglect it. This is just beyond me that something like this is really going to happen. Please take our words into consideration! +9 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:32 AMAdam J Wiensch Against The tenant nonrenewal exception to the just cause requirement does not make sense. The language “after the lease expires” doesn’t make sense. It refers to the time when the landlord requests in writing that the tenant renew or extend the lease. I cannot imagine a cir***stance when a landlord would wait until after the lease expires to first offer to renew a tenant. +6
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:29 AMAdam J Wiensch Against The time period for being able to include a criminal conviction in your screening analysis is based on the time from the “dates (sic) of sentencing.” Sentincing is the date when the sentence is handed down by the judge. In the case of serious crimes the sentence will often be longer than the permissible time period for inclusion of the criminal conviction in your screening process. Example: an individual murders his landlord and burns down the duplex he lives in because the landlord filed to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent. Sentenced to and serves 10 years. The proposed ordinance prohibits you from refusing to rent to the murderer/arsonist the day after he leaves prison. If you mean for the time period to run from the end of a person's sentence you should say so. +8 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:23 AMAdam J Wiensch Against I am confused by the credit history language. 193.04(b)(2) says a landlord cannot disqualify an applicant for . . . “Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills.” The language about failure to pay rent or utility bills makes no sense. The word “however” implies that what comes next is an exception to the just stated general rule about credit score. But no person would think that a statement that you cannot use credit score by itself could ever mean you could not use the substantive information in the credit report itself. What is the reason for this extra language? +6
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:21 AM  Against This ordinance is most likely to discourage construction of lower-end market rate housing. +8 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 3:21 AMAdam J Wiensch Against I am confused by the credit history language. 193.04(b)(2) says a landlord cannot disqualify an applicant for . . . “Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills.” The part about not using a credit score “by itself” is clear. It means that you cannot have an application criterion that says that you must have a credit score of at least X. Implicit in this provision is that you can use a credit score in conjunction with other factors. Whether this means other unrelated criteria or other information from the credit report is unclear. +3
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 1:55 AMJeffery T Against Tennant and community safety is very important. Please continue to allow landlords to do background checks. +10 -1
Ord 20-14 3/11/2020 12:52 AMTeng Against According your Tenant Protections Engagement Policy Report August 2019, you had a total of 186 participants - 98 individuals in one session, another 71 additional participants in another session (could be the same individuals from the first session), and then 17 property managers and staff. According to the U.S. Census, as of July 1, 2019, the estimated St. Paul population is 307,695. Let's go with the highest number - 186. You engaged 186 participants, which is 6% of the population and created a tenants ordinance over it. If we want to play dirty, we can also take 186 landlords and create a landlord ordinance to make evictions faster, make it harder for bad tenants to find a place to live etc etc. City council members -- your data is invalid! Caught you playing dirty!!!! +8 -2
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 11:56 PMMary Vang Against This ordinance is taking screening rights away from landlords, forcing them to make poor decisions, putting them at financial and legal risks and putting their tenants at safety risks. Please also put into considerations the smaller landlords, like myself, who cannot afford any financial or legal risks. As we've seen in Minneapolis, Seattle and other places with tenant screening ordinances, rents have skyrocketed. If your ultimate goal is affordable housing, this has proven not to be effective. Just like the trash issue, this ordinance was going to p*** before I even became aware of it. We need transparency and trust with the leaders in our city! I urge all city council members to work with landlords and tenants to come up with better solutions. +9 -1
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 10:28 PMJamie Hendricks Against This ordinance would affect whole communities, from renters, to homeowners, to sellers, and buyers. Tenant protections should include those who wish to keep their families safe. These decisions need broader community input. +10 -1
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 7:37 PMDaniel Ph.  For I think this ordinance is a good start to making housing more secure in St. Paul. We desperately need to move away from market based housing and towards a more socialized structure. The first step in that is limiting landlord’s ability to summarily kick tenants out of their (the tenant’s) home. I would love to see this ordinance go even further in extending notice of sale and relocation ***istance protections to all tenants. Not just those in affordable housing. I would also love to see a provision for a right of first refusal for tenants to have a chance to buy their home or have a proxy such as a Community Land Trust do it for them. +7 -17 1
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 6:19 PMChue Against This ordinance does not take the safety of other renters and neighbors in the area into consideration. This policy also force landlords to take on more risks of getting sued for negligence, if the renter with a known criminal behavior, causes harm or sexually ***aults other renters in the building or the neighbors that live in the area. +9 -1
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 5:19 PMTou Fang Against 1. The study sited for this ordinance is flawed. It only have 98 participants out of the 304,442 in Saint Paul, which is 0.03%. That sample size is hardly a representation of the city. https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Mayor%27s%20Office/Fair%20Housing%20Convenings%20Report%20Aug%202019.pdf 2. (Sec. 193.03. Security deposits) Security Deposit is a risk mitigation tool. If landlords are not allow to mitigate risk through security deposits, landlords will be forced to mitigate that risk through the rent. The tenants will end up paying for this through increase rent. YES, rent will increase. 3. (Sec. 193.04. Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants) Loose guidelines will create unsafe environment to other tenants and/or neighbors. 4. (Sec. 193.06. Advance notice of sale (of affordable housing)) 90 Days restrictions will reduce property values. There is also a cost to this, which will again increase rent. Tenants end up paying for this again. +13 -2 1
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 3:52 PMBruce Clark   Unbelievable! When the Council next asks "why isn't there more affordable housing in St. Paul?" perhaps somebody will hold up this proposed ordinance as an example of politicians who (apparently) have never owned rental property and had to deal with dead beat and destructive tenants. The organizations lobbying for this also probably have leaders who have no direct experience dealing with those kind of tenants either. Micromanage another industry that you know nothing about (as you did with the trash collection issue), but don't be surprised by the unintended consequences of another short-sighted "do-gooder" ordinance. +14
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 1:39 PMFong    Before you p*** this ordinance, I'm asking that you have more community engagement to see if the whole community agrees with this or if it's just a select few. I feel as if you City Councils are rushing to push this through as fast as possible so those who are looking for open dialogue cannot react in time. Your actions will result in higher rents over all should the Ordinance p***. How? Property Owners are small business owners, and they will adjust their pricing to cover the risk of loss, evictions, and court fee's and liabilities. The Ordinance if p***ed will also result in more oversight from the City. This will require more employees to run and oversee the program, resulting in higher property taxes to compensate for the additional employees, and in the end resulting in higher rents. Instead of shutting down dialogue with your constituents who are concerned, I'm asking that you as City Councils open up dialogue so we can all find a bi-lateral Ordinance that makes sense for all. +12
Ord 20-14 3/10/2020 2:00 AMAlisa Lein Against Please hit the pause ****on on this ordinance. Sure, you have to start somewhere, but you don't have to p*** these mandated rules so quickly after drafting up the ordinance. Now, engage in thoughtful dialogue with the public, landlords, tenants, etc and use the drafted wording now as your starting point. Don't p*** an ordinance just because on it's face "it sounds good". Do it right and do it fair. Don't ***ume changes to wording will happen later. Let's not relive the organized trash unintended consequences drama because "oops, we forgot about XYZ". We have all been there and this is headed quickly down the exact same path. We all want St. Paul to thrive, businesses to be successful, and people to have a place they call home. The ordinance as written will go against all of those things and it will do more harm than good to tenants and landlords. St. Paul landlords need flexibility, not negative mandated rules on how to run their business. +12 -1
APC 19-4 3/10/2020 1:50 AMStephen Sage For This project was presented and sold as a place to store paper. However, it has become clear that the intent of Rohn is to establish a trucking hub on a wetland adjacent to Saint Anthony Park. There are houses within 350 feet of this development. We are on the other side of Highway 280, but the bridge over Kasota Ave. and the railway is an open space through which all of the noise and fumes created by these trucks will be funneled. There is no barrier between the site and our community. At the March 4 hearing we learned that while long term paper storage is a permitted use, parking is not. The city staffer argued that this was a technicality. I am writing to say that for those of us who live near this proposed development, this is not a technical matter. If approved, this development will exponentially increase the noise, pollution, and traffic congestion in our area. The community is clearly against this project. Please act accordingly.
Ord 20-14 3/9/2020 11:10 PMScott Hesselgrave Against This type of legislation will lead to disintegration of affordable and well maintained rental housing. Screening processes are proven boundaries which protect all residents from unsafe prospective neighbors within their secure environments, as well as protecting them from excessive rent increases which inevitably occur whenever government inflicts additional expenses and controls. I've kept my Eastside rents as much as $200/month under market value for 20 years. If this p***es, I won't sell nor move, I'll find another use for the property, which will end its 90 year history as affordable housing. As mentioned in other objections, this legislation is an egregious overreach akin to weaponized eminent domain, sold pseudo altruistically as tenant protection, which we as private landlords are only empowered to truly do ourselves with our own rules, legal boundaries and vetting... screening. Please don't do this to our city. You're driving private equity and affordable housing away. +10
Ord 20-14 3/9/2020 10:59 PM    This type of legislation will lead to disintegration of affordable and well maintained rental housing. Screening processes are proven boundaries which protect all residents from unsafe prospective neighbors within their secure environments, as well as protecting them from excessive rent increases which inevitably occur whenever government inflicts additional expenses and controls. I've kept my Eastside rents as much as $200/month under market value for 20 years. If this p***es, I won't sell nor move, I'll find another use for the property, which will end its 90 year history as affordable housing. As mentioned in other objections, this legislation is an egregious overreach akin to weaponized eminent domain, sold pseudo altruistically as trenchant protection. Please don't do this to our city. +6
Ord 20-14 3/9/2020 7:30 PMRobert For Thanks for introducing something that will help protect renters against screening that isn't based on science and instead on prejudices. These screening practices result in many people being unable to find housing at all and I hope this will help to maintain housing stability for renters. +8 -14 1
RES 20-373 3/9/2020 7:15 PMSharonLegalEagle Against http://sharon4legaleagle.blogspot.com
RES 20-373 3/8/2020 11:03 AMSharonUSA Against Sharon Lee Anderson ;Proof SealCoat paid http://stpaul-code-cops.blogspot.com 697 Surrey Av St Paul MN 55106-5521 *697 SURREY AVE *Ward: 7 *Pending as of : 12/30/2019 LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL LOT 5 BLK 46 Sealcoating - Surrey (2) 6.22 40.00 $248.80 32-29-22-41-0053 $248.80 *** Owner and Taxpayer *** $248.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $248.80 Total ***essment: This Payment: Current Year Principal: Current Year Interest: Payoff Amount: StPaul_***essment_Roll_***essment_by_PID_Fee_to_Asmt.rpt -1
Ord 20-14 3/8/2020 8:36 AMEric Lein Against I echo the concerns submitted by Bill Bisanz of Real Estate Equities in his letter dated March 4, 2020 (one of the attachments to this file). My abbreviated statement of opposition distills down to the view that this ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation by the government to thousands of St. Paul property owners. For example: The proposed "just cause" lease termination restrictions dictate control of supposedly-private business transactions in which tenants can terminate leases for any reason, or for no reason; meanwhile, landlords are to be locked in to the mandated one-sided perpetual contracts until such time as fully-compliant (no problems) tenants agree to terminate their leases after landlords offer them big dollars to vacate their apartments -- all with ZERO compensation by the government to the landlord. As I see it, ORD 20-14 looks like Eminent Domain and Rent Control disguised as "tenant protection." +14 -1 1
Ord 20-14 3/8/2020 7:56 AMYer Against Sounds to me these cm are trying to push out privatization of rental real estate. Why are you doing that? If you get rid of all the private owners are you willing to lose millions in property tax revenue that you’ve been using to fund your housing and other social programs? What kind of Trojan horse is this? +7
Ord 20-14 3/8/2020 3:37 AMLori N Purdy Against Approval needs to be delayed until the kinks can be worked out of the proposed ordinances. According to Ord 20-14, Sec. 193.05(a)(7), I will have to pay $4050.00 to my existing tenant 90 days prior to the end of their lease term if I don't offer them a lease renewal & they don't want to move because I need/want to do renovations to their 2 bedroom unit that require it to be unoccupied. Do you follow? If I, the property owner, want/need to do work to a 2 bedroom unit that requires it to be unoccupied (i.e. bathroom remodel on only bathroom), but the tenant does not want to move at the end of their lease, I have to give them $4050 for "Relocation ***istance". It contradicts to monetarily penalize (Relocation ***istance) a landlord for maintaining their property while at the same time penalizing them for not maintaining their property (i.e. revoked Cert of Occupancy from the Department of Safety and Inspections). Alternative solutions to the city's housing problems need to be explored. +9
Ord 20-14 3/7/2020 3:11 PM5 Against My father is landlord of 2 properties on the east side, who rents out to section 8, and low income families. He has taken a chance on many people and has been blessed and burned on mulitple occasions. My concern is that with these new ordinances you are taking away a the choice landlord have with their own properties. Which I believe is a huge overstep. I believe this will only encourage many small businesses to sell, which will bring in large companies to buy. Which will then result in higher rents. Please do you due diligence to look into rent prices in Minneapolis and Seattle. They're rediculously high. Also, listen to your constituents, it seems like the people have lost their voice in todays government. We're trying to give you our opinions. People can't afford higher rents. +11
Ord 20-14 3/7/2020 12:32 AMDiane schray Against I've sent numerous emails to several CM. I own 4 buildings that house 8 families with children. Many of my tenants are low income single moms on sect 8. I work with 2 investors who own 130 units. If this ordinance p***es as is without any provision for owner protection or benefits I will likely be selling my units and advising my clients and other numerous colleagues to do the same. In my little sphere alone that impacts 138 units housing low income tenants. The retail market is robust and nice duplexes are commanding premium prices. I will be moving my business to the suburbs away from this socialist regime and to greener pastures of the burbs. If I tell all my colleagues and they tell their colleagues to sell in response to this ridiculous punitive list of idiocy imagine how that impacts affordable housing. Even if owner occupants only occupy 50% of the sales you'll see a housing crisis of pandemic proportions as owner occupants aren't held to the same regulations as for profit owner +9
Ord 20-14 3/6/2020 10:46 PMRichelle Schenfeld Against We own 2 4 plexes on the West Side. My husband & I live in one & spent 22 years making them beautiful. We have wonderful tenants who pay $200-300 under market value. I don't check credit scores & have rented to many diverse groups, single moms & dads, couples & singles & given many people 2nd chances. These ordinances terrify us! We will definitely sell one building if these p*** or raise the rents significantly to reduce the # of inquiries (over 50 inquiries last vacancy) if you are to micromanage & control my choice as to who lives in my property. I have a responsibility to my other tenants & community! Huge property tax increases, trash & water costs are the biggest challenges to keep rents low. I was in the original 4D program 20 years ago but would never sign up for this one with the restrictions on selling my buildings which are my life savings & retirement. I see these ordinances ultimately resulting in rents going way up as landlords try to protect themselves & their tenants +13
APC 19-4 3/4/2020 9:34 PMCynthia Ahlgren For I favor this appeal. Rohn’s plans to develop here are an opportunity to consider alternatives. The toxic dump sits on a wetland that drains into the aquifer. (See Metcouncil’s St. Paul Community Pages “Surface Water Ground Water Interaction” map). It shows the NW quadrant of Kasota/280 marked “recharges aquifers.” As rain and groundwater flow through this contaminated soil, do they not leach toxins into the aquifer or carry them into the Mississippi? Should we not consider removing the contaminants? Also, the Humane Shelter has purchased the building adjacent to this site for its new headquarters. Animals need a nontoxic environment. And plans for completing the Grand Rounds will bring cyclists over the railroad tracks via a bridge to Kasota Ave. (called the Bridal Veil Trail), to be beautified by landscaping. These changes suggest the possibility of future high density housing on Kasota, if the area is decontaminated. The 2040 Plan should look to such improvements in water & housing.
APC 19-4 3/4/2020 7:45 PMRyder and Shanan Seeler For The development at 2495 Kasota by Rohn Industries runs in direct contrast to what the city of Saint Paul has committed to in their 2019 “Climate Action and Resilience Plan”. Our family supports the SAPCC appeal and strongly opposes the development of the 2495 Kasota land parcel.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 10:59 PMRobert & Carolyn Herman For Our family supports the SAPCC appeal and opposes the development of the Kasota land parcel. When development of the site was proposed 20 years ago it was determined that the contaminated materials from a former ash dump would be hazardous to disturb. What has changed since then? We know that public health is threatened by these toxic wastes and one would think we would be cautious about digging into this site since we are now even more aware of the dangers of contaminated soil distrubance. We expect our government officials to fulfill their obligation to protect their constituents’ health.The owner of Rohn, Ron Mason, has said that a paved parking lot is probably the least disruptive option. No, the least disruptive option is to leave the land fallow, with no digging or replacement of soil. We do not oppose Rohn in its need for a parking facility but urge the company and the city of St. Paul to work together to find an alternative site.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 10:32 PMAnn Yetter   As a neighborhood resident, user of Energy Park Drive, and annual participant in the Kasota Ponds clean up every April, I am in favor of the appeal and against the truck parking plan. From a traffic perspective it would add to an already busy nexus of businesses and well-traveled roads, on and off ramps to Hwy 280, and from an environmental perspective digging up the polluted site without regard to the surrounding natural areas is nonsensical. We have precious few areas in the city for these birds and critters to make use of--why should destroying what is there for a parking lot for trucks take priority? +1
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 10:29 PMDavid Fan For I live in Saint Anthony Park in District 12. For environmental reasons, I support the appeal. I do not want Rohn Industries to proceed.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 2:44 PMMike Lukes Against I would non like to see a permiable surface within the city converted to an asphault covered parking/staging lot when there are many, multiple more appropriate currently paved areas that can be used its stead. We learn in grade school about the hydrologic cylcle and that paved surfaces concentrate runoff and the nasty chemicals that are on that surface. In order to be a good role model to our children, we must practice what we preach...so please deny the modification and use of this permiable land and set a good eample to those after us...find another paved place for this use +1
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 3:34 AMTracy Kugler For I am FOR the appeal and AGAINST development on this site. The history of this location as a tenuously stabilized dump site containing dangerous quantities of toxic materials is a clear indication that the site should not be disturbed. The fact that this area currently serves as an important remnant of wetland habitat further argues against paving it over. Let's stick to the commitments of the Climate Action and Resilience Plan when it comes time to make on-the-ground decisions like this.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 2:13 AMAaron Kerr For I am FOR the appeal. I am AGAINST the development. St. Paul's own Climate and Resilience Plan directly addresses the need for more green space in the city, and this contradicts that. Parking lots are imperious as well, further adding to excess runoff, pollution, and flooding. I don't think we need lost MPCA records to make a case for keeping this spot an undeveloped green space.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 1:36 AMMargot Monson For I am for the appeal of the SAPCC to the St Paul City Council. I am against the development of the Kasota Ave site proposed by Rohn Industries because it will require excavation in site preparation of this do***ented polluted property. Any disturbance to this site will potentially impact the ecological integrity of the surrounding wetland habitat, human health from the air pollution created by increased particulate matter from site preparation and the noise from braking and idling diesel engines for the neighbors living within 1/4 mile, increased safety issues from semis operating in already congested Kasota Ave. As committed active participants in the Transition Town movement, St Anthony Park has been working for several years to transition away from unnecessary uses of precious resources, especially reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. As we experience more effects of climate change, if allowed to proceed, this operation will increase our carbon footprint in very real terms.
APC 19-4 3/3/2020 1:29 AMGregg Richardson   I’ve lived a couple of blocks from the proposed site for 32 years, and put in many hours of meetings and labor in trying to protect and improve adjacent wetland habitat. The proposed site is an old buried hazardous waste dump. Immediately adjacent are several pre-white-settlement wetland remnants that provide critical urban habitat for a number of species of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl. Due to continuing destruction of habitat across the continent, these urban remnants become increasingly important sanctuaries for for organisms that support crucial ecological diversity. The proposed project constitutes an imminent threat to these ecological functions. +1
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 11:38 PMLynnette hansen   PLEASE do not allow the truck parking lot to be developed on Kasota for all of the important reasons already expressed in the opinions. We must not allow more toxic pollution in our middle of the city neighborhoods for the health of our residents children and grandchildren. +1
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 11:20 PMLaurie Christopherson For I live on the other side of Hwy280 and I oppose the distruption of buried hazardous waste just to provide more parking for trucks. It doesn't make sense to expose us and the remaining wetland to any number of toxins. Paving over an area which is still rich in wildlife is disgusting. I am amazed that I can still witness dragonflies and ducks flying around my industrialized intercity neighborhood which already bears the brunt of MUCH air, noise, light, and billboard pollution. Just stop. Surely there are safer alternatives for truck parking.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 11:15 PMLori Hamilton   It is irresponsible to dig up a known toxic waste site - especially so close to where children live and play. I am for the appeal and against the development of this site. +1
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 10:58 PMRachel Fang For I support the SAPCC's appeal to the St. Paul City Council and I OPPOSE Rohn Industry's development of the site at 2495 Kasota Avenue. I live within a mile of the site (just the other side of HWY 280) and I have serious concerns about the pollution that development of the site will release into the land, air and water! As more housing is added to this area, it is foolish to further endanger residents by adding to the already considerable air pollution created by the industrial developments along Kasota, along with the considerable noise and light pollution that current industrial use has created. In addition, the site is a vital greenspace for wildlife and provides a watershed for the area.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 10:56 PMAnna Pease For I am a five year resident of 55108 and strongly believe the 2495 Kasota Avenue development should not proceed. It is 2020 and we are having on-going global conversations about environmental concerns. Preserving the small wild spaces we have in our community seems like a no-brainer. We don't need more exposure to pollutants! We urgently need as many clean and healthy spaces as possible that support wildlife and human life. Hurting those spaces is ultimately killing us and creatures that have no say in the matter. By developing the site, we would be stepping backward. We need to be walking forward by thoroughly cleaning up the 22 feet of buried contaminants and restoring the space to a source of health, not disease. Look ahead. Our wealth is held in green healthy spaces - this is the future. This is an opportunity to be a leader in environmental justice - for the sake of our future, please do not allow this development to continue.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 9:51 PMTom Lucy For Decisions like this need to be made through the lens of Saint Paul Climate Action and Resilience plan. When that happens the answer becomes clear. These wetlands need to be protected as in doing that we are protecting our residents as well. I for one thank Council Member Jalali for her leadership on this matter.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 9:50 PM    Decisions like this need to be made through the lens of Saint Paul Climate Action and Resilience plan. When that happens the answer becomes clear. These wetlands need to be protected as in doing that we are protecting our residents as well. I for one thank Council Member Jalali for her leadership on this matter. +1
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 9:07 PMJeffrey Hanson For Wetlands are critical is all watersheds, even small wetlands. Ducks, frogs, turtles, geese, beetles and all sorts of living things like small wetlands, often more than larger ones. This being a small wetland is no excuse to destroy it. Have worked for many years in the SAP area on recycling and the creation of Floating Treatment Wetlands. It is amazing how small, incremental wetlands can have a positive benefit. It is far worse when we destroy any wetland.SAP needs more wetlands, not less. This appeal should be supported and the building of this parking should NOT be allowed.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 8:58 PMNaomi Cohn For I support SAPCC's appeal of the 2495 Kasota Avenue project. I'm a 20 year resident of the 55114 zip. Developing the site would ~Expose my neighbors to contaminants from the old ash dump as well as adding to the already heavy burden of heavy truck traffic and air pollution (from 280/94 and industrial traffic). Since the City has, in recent years, approved many new units of residential housing in 55114, the number of residents who would be exposed to the health and safety risks of this development would be greatly increased. ~Reduce our resilience to stormwater and flooding events. Unpaved open space, pristine or not, is vital for human health. Saint Paul should be looking at creating more unpaved open space in our community. Not destroying it. 55114 is already woefully short of open space. Maintaining and adding to wetlands and pervious open space will improve our community's ability to absorb storm and other flooding events, and limit/reduce the heat island effect in the area
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 8:54 PM  For I mistakenly said I was against. I am against the development. I am FOR the appeal. Here is a repeat of my comment-- We are responsible for more than the economic development of our city. We are also responsible to maintain water purity, human health, wildlife corridors, wetlands, and green space. Covering this site with impermeable surface destroys nesting grounds for turtles that live in the adjacent pond, exposes workers to hazardous waste (the do***entation of which has been lost), further destroys a natural wetland, goes against the city's climate goals, degrades the water in the adjacent natural ponds, and goes against the work of the local community who have been caring for and working to rehabilitate this area. While parking may be needed for Rohn Industries, other sites are available for lease. We need to be restoring wetlands, not paving over them.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 8:35 PMRosemary Slowiak For I support the appeal “2495 Kasota Ave - St. Anthony Park Community Council.” As a St. Paul resident who has engaged with the St. Paul Climate Action and Resilience Plan and been very involved in gr*** roots environmental justice work with St. Paul 350, I stand in solidarity with the St. Anthony Park Community Council and all the work they have done to protect their community from harmful pollutants buried at this site that would be released if it is developed. I live next to a brown field that was once considered for development, but dedicated neighbors chose to transform it into green space instead. It is now known as Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, a community ***et treasured by many. The decades of research and remediation SAPCC has done at the Kasota site exemplify the vision and goals expressed for natural infrastructure and citizen engagement in St. Paul's Climate Action and Resilience Plan. Please grant their appeal.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 8:20 PMAnna Graber For I support the appeal "2495 Kasota Ave - St. Anthony Park Community Council." I am an expectant mother living in SAP near Kasota Ave. I am deeply concerned that sufficient environmental testing has not be performed on this site. Development of this former dumpsite could very well release toxic materials into the air that will settle on my property and that of our neighbors, making it hazardous for our children to play in our yards or for us to garden on our property. We are a young family hoping to live decades in our recently purchased home in this beautiful neighborhood--this kind of development could lower our property values, harm the city's tax base, and push us to a cleaner environment in the suburbs.
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 7:32 PMFrank Steen   I'm in favor of the appeal. The issue was dealt with 20 years ago - was a good decision at the time. Why would we back track? Safety of the people and environment should take precedence over profit. +1
APC 19-4 3/2/2020 4:11 PMChelsea DeArmond For I support the appeal “2495 Kasota Ave - St. Anthony Park Community Council.” As a St. Paul resident who has engaged with the St. Paul Climate Action and Resilience Plan and been very involved in gr*** roots environmental justice work with St. Paul 350, I stand in solidarity with the St. Anthony Park Community Council and all the work they have done to protect their community from harmful pollutants buried at this site that would be released if it is developed. I live next to a brown field that was once considered for development, but dedicated neighbors chose to transform it into green space instead. It is now known as Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary, a community ***et treasured by many. The decades of research and remediation SAPCC has done at the Kasota site exemplify the vision and goals expressed for natural infrastructure and citizen engagement in St. Paul's Climate Action and Resilience Plan. Please grant their appeal.
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 11:06 PMBetty Wheeler For Wooden beams, metal pipes, nails, broken bricks, concrete, gl***, etc. (in many soil borings at varying depths) are ample evidence of demolition materials. Widespread asbestos use in 1930s-60s strongly suggests asbestos was discarded here too. Friable asbestos in soil cannot be reliably identified in the field; it must be identified by high tech lab equipment. MN rules require inspection by a certified, licensed AHERA inspector if asbestos is suspected. But NO testing for asbestos has yet been required here. CFR 40, pt. 61, subp. M (NESHAP) requires strict criteria for asbestos removal. The project consultants are not proposing to follow these rules; the MPCA's NAD letter doesn’t require them either. The MPCA's current approval basically states the proposer's on-site manager should stop digging if s/he (happens to) 'see' or 'smell' asbestos. Relying on sight and smell are unacceptable criteria. Either leave the site alone or have it remediated, rigorously following NESHAP and MN rules.
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 10:32 PMBetty Wheeler For Many soil borings show both lead and demolition materials across this Kasota site and at all depths of waste. MPCA and MDH have not taken this issue seriously. From Water Gremlin’s lead exposure case: The judge required “new changing areas and shower facilities, to ensure workers are free of lead when they leave the facility. [T]he judge ordered Water Gremlin to clean up lead contamination in employees’ vehicles and test their homes for lead contamination and abate if needed…It is essential that no lead leave the facility where it may continue to poison children.” How will on-site workers change or shower here? They will drag lead home on their clothing. How much lead will blow our way, when the contractors are digging, dumping and sending up clouds of lead into the air? MDH says “no amount of lead exposure is safe for children.” Will MPCA, MDH and the City ignore the health of the workers’ children here? The children in our community? Development ‘as usual’ here would be dangerous.
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 9:35 PMPerry So For Pat, thank you for pointing out the mistake that I and others have made. Please register my opinion in my earlier comment as being FOR the appeal, and therefore against the development.
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 8:46 PMMari Hirabayashi For I would respectfully submit that it is irresponsible to excavate this site unless a full removal/clean-up of contaminants is planned, and that especially in areas with very few wetlands it is important to preserve what wetlands exist.
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 7:03 PMSherman Eagles For For the last twenty years of my work career I analyzed the safety of life-critical medical devices. Because a failure of these devices could cause severe injury or death, they were rigorously designed and tested to ensure they worked as intended, and analyzed that if they did fail could the consequence of the failure be mitigated. If there was no mitigation, an analysis was performed to justify that the benefits received by the patient population was worth the risk of a failure. If this was not satisfactory, the device could not be used. The safety analysis performed by MPCA for this site is, in my opinion, inadequate to show that there will be no hazardous pollution released if the site is disturbed. When considering whether this is acceptable and worth the risk to health if hazardous material is released, please consider environmental justice, over 26% of the residents at risk downwind of the site in SSAP are in poverty. Please support the appeal. +1
APC 19-4 3/1/2020 3:34 AMPat Thompson For Please note that multiple commenters have checked the incorrect box for their stance (Against when it should be For), indicating how confusing this form is. They are for the appeal and against the development. I ***ume this will be reconciled in City Council review rather than just counted as-is. +1
APC 19-4 2/29/2020 10:59 PMKarlyn Eckman   I live in South Saint Anthony and am a water quality researcher at UMN. This site contains 22 feet of buried contaminants from the historic Elm Street Ash Dump. I have studied the pond complex for about 35 years and read the original do***ents at MPCA, which are now missing. Approvals by City staff, MPCA and Health Departments were not informed by a thorough do***ent review, because archived do***ents are now lost. Disturbing the soil will release contaminants (asbestos, lead, arsenic, cadmium) that are difficult to detect by observation alone. These will be carried by wind, and if wetted, will flow into the ponds, sewers and Mississippi. I strongly disagree with development at the site and urge you to reconsider this appeal. Doing otherwise negates decades of community, agency and business investment at the Kasota Pond complex. +1
APC 19-4 2/29/2020 7:41 PMLisa Habeck   I am fully against the proposed parking hub to be built on a known toxic waste site. This is an opportunity for St. Paul to be forward-thinking, follow their own Comprehensive plan, and preserve green space. Land and soil management is crucial to climate change mitigation, and this is a chance for members to show they are not stuck in "business as usual". To ignore glaring detrimental environmental factors and expose citizens to toxins is irresponsible. The Kasota Ponds are teeming with life, thanks to the help of hundreds of volunteers over the last 33 years. The run-off and pollution caused by this development will harm the ponds and the people. +1
APC 19-4 2/29/2020 3:29 PMPat Thompson For The Planning Commission members who voted against SAPCC's appeal and city staff have relied on MPCA's opinion. But MPCA has lost important records about this site. 20 years ago SAPCC members read the contents of boxes of files describing the toxic contents of the Elm Street Ash Dump, including 2495 Kasota. Despite this, MPCA has signed off on plans that don't meet its published sampling guidelines for depth and spacing. Will MPCA now approve development on all the brownfields where they have lost records? Is that the standard St. Paul wants for its people? The toxins on this site can't be seen or smelled--the recommended method in the approved work plan--and by the time an "onsite expert" might be called to run a test, the toxins will be exposed to air. Planning Commissioner Taqee Khaled, who studied epidemiology at the U, said during the Commission's discussion, "these things don’t get proven out until the people are dead." I don't want that for my city. Please vote yes! +1
APC 19-4 2/29/2020 1:06 PMTom Hysell   The development of 2495 Kasota Avenue should NOT proceed. The only appropriate action at this site is to remove the polluted material and restore it to its original wetland. Or, at a minimum, leave the polluted ash dump undisturbed. I am for the appeal of the CUP and against the development. +1
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 10:22 PMSteven Yetter Against Please, please, please DO NOT ALLOW the development of 2495 Kasota Avenue to proceed. This proposal should never have been approved in the first place. The only appropriate actions at this site are to either remove the polluted material and restore it to its original wetland or leave the polluted ash dump undisturbed. There are other places nearby for Rohn Industries to put their trailer transfer station. Amy Brendmoen, Mitra Jalali, Jane Prince, Dai Thao, Chris Tolbert, Nelsie Yang, Rebecca Noecker, please do the right thing and vote against this proposal. +1
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 10:08 PMcatherine ryan   I am not sure what I think about this proposal yet because I haven't been following it clobusin sely. On the surface, it seems to me that it would be good to have the business use the lot, remain in St. Paul and pay taxes. I have participated in the Kasota Pond clean up and I don't see why having the parking lot across the street would harm the pond, since it is already immersed in not only an urban environment, but also an industrial one. Why would one more business there cause any further damage? Couldn't Rohn's relocation be off-set by a commitment to contribute to the well-being and upkeep of the pond? Or planting more trees in SAP, which has been devastated by Emerald Ash disease? I think it's best to keep our businesses here in St. Paul and require them to be good stewards of the surrounding land. +1 -3 2
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 8:13 PMTim Wulling For Some of the policies in 2040 Comprehensive Plan that support retaining natural, open spaces follow. Policy LU-21 The Kasota Ponds natural habitat should be protected rather than be split into smaller, unconnected pieces. Policy LU-48 To be consistent with this policy, it would be better to make use of existing parking surfaces in South St. Anthony Park for Rohn Industries’ trailer parking, rather than break apart Kasota Ponds which is one of the few remaining natural areas amid the industrial area along Kasota Avenue and extending into South St. Anthony Park. Policy LU-57 With the Kasota railroad crossing and Hwy 280 ramps opposite the driveway to the proposed parking, congestion could back up to the railroad crossing. Policy PR-28 The project would inhibit the ecological function of the performed the the existing larger, contiguous natural space. Kasota Ponds is valuable open space serving ecological functions. Do not diminish it. +1
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 8:07 PMRanae Hanson Against We are responsible for more than the economic development of our city. We are also responsible to maintain water purity, human health, wildlife corridors, wetlands, and green space. Covering this site with impermeable surface destroys nesting grounds for turtles that live in the adjacent pond, exposes workers to hazardous waste (the do***entation of which has been lost), further destroys a natural wetland, goes against the city's climate goals, degrades the water in the adjacent natural ponds, and goes against the work of the local community who have been caring for and working to rehabilitate this area. While parking may be needed for Rohn Industries, other sites are available for lease. We need to be restoring wetlands, not paving over them. +1
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 8:05 PMTim Wulling For I live in St. Anthony Park. I support the appeal “2495 Kasota Ave - St. Anthony Park Community Council.” I oppose the Rohn Industries Trailer Storage Project at 2495 Kasota Avenue. The project would pave land that is now undeveloped, natural habitat. Further, the land is part of approximately 17 acres of undeveloped land, ponds, and wetlands. Even though the project would affect only 1.67 acres, that land is in the middle of the 17 acres and would break the larger natural habitat into smaller, separated pieces. The four Kasota Ponds and ***ociated wetlands are identified as “public waters and wetlands” in the St. Paul For All 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Map WR-1, p. 201) and by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (map at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands). Kasota Ponds provide habitat for both resident and migratory species. +1
APC 19-4 2/28/2020 7:27 PMSandra Jacobs Against I support the Rohn Industries development and I oppose the appeal by the council. I think there is a way to get this done in a safe manner. Rohn Industries is a good St. Paul company and we should support our businesses. I am a neighboring business in the district. -1
APC 19-4 12/7/2019 1:04 AMPerry So Against We are new to the neighborhood, and our house is located 1500 feet from the proposed site. Any potential release of toxins from construction work at the site is unacceptable to us particularly as we are expecting our first child. As we work to mitigate against toxins within our structure, this one decision could potentially render all our efforts useless. Langford Park, St Anthony Park Elementary School, the Co-op Pre-School are all well within 3000 feet of this site, so the number of children at risk is much higher than those who live in the immediate vicinity of the site. Rohn Industry is a valued member of our community and we should work together to find sustainable and safe ways for them to grow. It simply shouldn’t take precedence over the safety and health of the neighborhood. +1
APC 19-4 12/2/2019 11:42 PMMary Boyd-Brent Against For those of us living in this area who daily drive past the site where Rohn proposes to build without remediation, this development poses a real threat to health. I do not oppose the development in principle but most definitely do unless remediation occurs first. Thank you. +1