Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-1972 SMAGENDA Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 11, 1972 Harmony School Meeting 72 - 16 A) Roll Call B) Reading of Notice C) Staff Report (D) Commission Reports E) Visitor Presentations * F) Council Discussion (G) Adjourn * Persons wishing to make statements or presentations should sign the list which is placed at the entrance to the auditorium. Appearances will be in the order of the list- ing. MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 11, 1972 Harmony School Meeting No. 72 - 16 A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Village Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held at Harmony School, 1961 E. County Road C and was called to order by Mayor Axdahl at 7:35 P.M. B. ROLL CALL Lester G. Axdahl, Mayor Present John C. Greavu, Councilman Present Harald L. Haugan, Councilman Present Patricia L. Olson, Councilwoman Present Donald J. Wiegert, Councilman Present C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planned Unit Development - South of Radatz Avenue and West of White Bear Avenue. a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing on the ap- plication for Special Use Permit - Planned Unit Development south of Radatz Avenue and west of White Bear Avenue, legally described as: Except the N 200 feet and except the West 310 feet, all that part of N 1/2 of SW 1/4, Sec. 2, T. 29, R. 22, lying S of Radatz Avenue & W. of White Bear Avenue. The E 200 feet of the W 1685 feet of the N 200 feet of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Sec. 2, T. 29, R. 22, lying South of Radatz Avenue. The E. 55 feet of the W. 665 feet of the N 200 feet of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Sec.2, T. 29, R. 22, lying South of Radatz Avenue. More commonly described as a 15 acre tract of land located on the West side of White Bear Avenue approximately 200 feet south of Radatz Avenue and addressed as 2785 White Bear Avenue. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. Mayor Axdahl explained the procedures of the meeting. b. Manager Miller read the following staff report: "I. Project A. Location - West side White Bear Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Radatz Avenue. - 1 - 5/11 B. Site Area - 15.5 acres of which 11.05 acres proposed for residential development (including off - street parking, garages, open space and buildings). C. Proposed Land Use and Buildings- 1. One 12 story 165 unit apartment building 2. Four 3 story 23 unit apartment buildings 3. Eight 24 unit garage buildings (for residential) 4. One 6 story office building 5. One 365 space parking lot (for offices) D. Estimated Population and Density - Population estimate based on (1) 1 bedroom senior citizen, (2) Village trend and (3) higher than normal due to low to moderate income families. 1. One bedroom - 143 units = 172 people. 2. Two bedrooms - 90 units = 225 people. 3. Three bedrooms - 24 units = 91 people. 4. Total 257 units = 488 people. 5. School age - 25 (6 -18 yrs.) 6, 23 units /residential acre density 7. 44 persons /residential acre density (Proposed planned range for land of 21 to 46 persons /acre) E. Dwelling Cost (Applicant Figures): 1. Average construction cost - $20,700 /unit 2. 12 story - $15,750 /unit. 3. Other - $29,560 /unit. F. Phasing - (Applicants Proposal) 1. Phase I - 188 dwelling units September 1973 completion. 2. Phase II - 69 dwelling units 1975 completion. 3. Phase III - Office building - (12 story and 1 -3 story) - (3 -3 story) - September, September 1977 completion. G. Finance - According to application first phase includes Federally subsidised low and moderate income housing financing (236). II. Impacts on Area A. Streets - Access 1. Access to dwelling units to Radatz Avenue and then to White Bear Avenue. 2. Traffic would require upgrading of Radatz. Cost would normally be assessed against abutting properties on Radatz, not the applicants. 3. County will close the median at Radatz and White Bear, thus restricting cross and left turn traffic, when traffic warrants. We believe the opening of the Maplewood Mall will increase traffic enough to cause the closing of this median in 1974. - 2 - 5/11 4. To handle traffic, it appears that Southlawn Avenue would have to be extended south. 5. Public transportation is not readily accessible to this area. B. Sanitary Sewer 1. Existing 8 and 10 inch sewer in Radatz will not handle the load for the development. 2. Estimated cost of replacement $100,000.00. 3. 12 inch sewer in White Bear Avenue might accept the office building, but would push it to capacity. C. Water 1. Service as suggested from Radatz would require construct - ion of 12" water mains on Radatz and looped through the de- velopment to White Bear Avenue. D. Land Use 1. Sandwiches the single family dwellings on Radatz, thus opening the possibility of redevelopment problems for that area in future. 2. "High Rises" should be encouraged where land costs are high and development is dense in terms of building bulk and population - In this case: (1) existing land use is sparce (2) planned use is not dense (3) land costs should not be high enough to allow high rise. (4) this site should act as a transitional area between low density to south and more intensive use to the north - high rise would not accomplish transition. (5) high rise would obstruct the view from higher grounds to the north and east. (6) experience has indicated that high rise may cause social behavioral problems both for the occupants and and the surrounding neighborhood. The site is within an area - designated by Ramsey County as "open space ". E. Tax Return 1. Annual property tax for residential units approximately $45,500, less (15 %) if 236 funds are utilized as compared to non - subsidised project - Estimate based on total tax levy (including school, County, etc.) for 1972 and applicants proposed value. 2. Averages $177.00 per unit. III Recommendation - From report. - 3 - 5/11 It is recommended that the Special Use Permit not be approved for the project as proposed for the following reasons: 1. The public facilities of street ( Radatz and Southlawn Avenue) sanitary sewer, and public water, and public transportation are in- adequate to serve the proposed development at this time. 2. The planned development creates future planning and potential development problems to the properties along the south side of Radatz Avenue. 3. The proposed access for the residential portion of the develop- ment is inadequate for safety purposes, and is further inconvenient to both the site and surrounding development. 4. The availability of on -site open space recreation facilities is grossly lacking. 5. The scale of building or structure bulk on the site is incom- patible with surrounding existing development as well as the pre- liminary planned land use activity of the general area. 6. The proposed operational activity of the residential portion of the project is undefined and therefore constitutes an undue risk by the public to take without such information being provided or offered. 7. The proposed development fails to sufficiently demonstrate: 1. The need for both "high rise" supplement housing as well as the proposed mix of housing type in this area of the community; 2. What the minority housing opportunities that this project will afford management policies; 3. Why this specific location is an improved location for lower income families; 4. How this housing and commercial development proposal relates to the orderly growth and development of the area; 5. How this proposed specific building design and structure placement relate to the physical environment of the specific area; 6. How the applicant is able or has the ability to perform to the proposal and ability or confirmation to execute the project. 7. What the management methods will be for this project - par- ticularly th6 housing portion. This recommendation in no way should be interpreted as a rejection of subsidized housing for the lower income group. It should be understood by all that above and beyond mere federal subsidized programs for housing goes the local responsibility to insure that a quality environment is - 4 - 5/11 maintained at all times. To jeopardize that environment for the sole purpose of allowing subsidized housing would in the Staff's opinion be contrary to the purpose of both local government and the federal housing programs being proposed." C. Chairman Lyman Coombs presented the Planning Commission report and their recommendation: "It is the opinion of the Maplewood Planning Commission that the pro- posed P.U.D. project does not promote health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the inhabitants of Maplewood, by lessening congestion in the streets, preventing overcrowding of the land, avoiding undue concentration of population, conserving the value of properties, or encourage the most appropriate use of the land. It is,therefore, the recommendation of this Commission to the Village Council of the Village of Maplewood that a Special use permit for planned residential unit development on the west side of White Bear Avenue, south of Radatz Avenue, be denied." d. Chairman John Broady presented the Human Relations Commission report and their recommendation: "The consensus of the commission was that it could not support this project on the basis of information available at this time. We are very pleased that a developer is interested in moderate income housing. We hope that we, the planning commission, the Village Staff and other citizens groups of Maplewood can work with him to provide the housing at other locations." e, Mr. Bernie Edmunds, Ramsey County Department of Parks and Recreation, presented a report relative to Open Space Planning for the area in question. f. Proponents: Mayor Axdahl called for persons who wished to speak in favor of the project. The following were heard: Mr. James Lammers, Gingold -Pink Architecture, spoke on behalf of the proposed project. g. Opponents: Mayor Axdahl called for persons who wished to speak in opposition. The following were heard: Mr. Theodore Collins, attorney representing the North Maplewood - North Saint Paul Homeowners. Mr. Rudolph Curley, 1874 Radatz read a letter of opposition from Mrs. Lloyd Soderbeck. Mr. Jerry Bucher, presented a petition signed by 271 persons opposing the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Arthur Meyers, 1889 E. County Road C. Mr. Eugene White, 1850 Radatz Avenue. - 5 - 5/11 Mr. Fred Schoenberger, 2811 White Bear Avenue Mr. Norman Anderson, 1603 Frost Avenue. Mr. Joseph Zappa, 2522 Flandrau Street. Mr. Richard Leko, 1890 Radatz Mrs. William Fox, 1893 Kohlman Avenue. Mr. Patrick O'Brien, 2759 Hazelwood Street. h. Mayor Axdahl called for formal objections. He stated the signers of the petition would be accepted as formal objectors. He stated that any persons who had not signed the petition and wished to file a formal objection could at this time do so. The following were heard: Mr. John O'Bfien, 2775 Hazelwood Street Mr. Joseph Zappa, 2522 Flandrau Street Gerald Weekes, 2684 VanDyke Street Charles Hoppe, 1675 E. County Road C Roger D. Prill, 2696 Gem Street Eugene Trepanier, 1681 E. County Road C Norman Anderson, 1603 Frost Avenue Franklyn Yoch, 1826 Radatz Avenue Mrs. Eleanor B. Ekblad, 1910 Radatz Avenue Lucille M. Huber, 1846 Radatz Avenue Lloyd W. Soderberg, 1800 Radatz Avenue Thomas P. Dunbar, 1895 E. County Road C Dominic J. Cincotta, 2160 Mohawk Drive Robert Overson, 2647 Gem Street Richard E. Moriarity, 2245 Mapleview Avenue Donald D. Heitland, 2246 Beam Avenue i. Mayor Axdahl closed the public hearing. j. Councilman Haugan moved to waive the Rules of Procedure to proceed in making a decision on this matter this evening. Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. - 6 - 5/11 k. Councilman Greavu.moved that the Planned Unit Development - Special Use Permit located at South of Radatz Avenue, West of White Bear Avenue, be denied for the reasons stated in the Staff Report, Planning Commission Report and the Human Relations Commission Report, which the Council adopts as its own findings. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all. D ADJOURNMENT 9:10 P.M. Ci y Clerk - 7 - 5/11