Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-1972 SMAGENDA Y Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M., Thursday, June 29, 1972 Municipal Administration Building Meeting 72 - 21 (A) ROLL CALL, (B) PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (Century and Laru_ enteu.1: T Avenues) 1. Reading of Notice 2. Staff Report 3. Conuii.ssion Reports 4. Visitor Presentations 5. Council Discussion (C) AD ZINIS7'R1:.TIVE PRESENTATIONS ADJOU1U,,',tEi7`' Persons wishing to make statements or presentations should sign the list which is placed at the entrance to the Council Chambers. Appearances will be in the order of the listing, P Minutes of Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M. Thursday , June 29, 1972 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 72 -21 A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Village Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Minicipal Building and was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by Mayor Axdahl. 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. Special Use Permit (Century and Larpenteur Avenue) a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing on the application fo the Urban Affairs Commission - St. Paul, Minneapolis Archidocese for a Special Use Permit - Planned Unit Residential Development for 175 dwelling units located at the Southwest corner of Larpenteur and Century Avenues. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Acting Manager Ashworth presented the following Staff Report: The proposed planned unit development is for a 175 dwelling units on a 28.5 acre site located at the southwest cormer of Century Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue. Two single family dwellings now exist on the site. The present zoning is M -1 light manufacturing. The proposed financing for the project is under Section 236 of the National Housing Act for all 175 Units if approval for such is granted by the Ferderal Government. It is recommended by the Village Staff, after reviewing the specific proposals and plans submitted by the applicant, that the proposed develop- ment is premature in nature and should be denied for the following reasons: 1. Lack of sanitary sewer facilities The feasibility of providing sanitary sewer facilities to the site has not been determined. The Village of Maplewood is presently undertaking a sanitary sewer system study. Only after such study has been completed will the Village Staff be in a position to recommend design criteria, location, financing, and other relevant data for such a feasibility study. Further, the Village of Maplewood ahs not determined that such a project would be ordered if such were found feasible. It is anticipated that -1- 6/29 providing sanitary sewer facilities to this site would either nec- essitate renovation and additional lift stations on Larpenteur, or con- demnation and construction of a new sewer through presently undeveloped lands. Either of these could create a financial hardship on existing residents or property owners not desiring development at this time. These factors could cause the project not to be ordered. 2. Lack of public water A feasibility reprot has been ordered by the Vjillage Council for this site. It is anticipated that this report will be completed and present- ed to the Village Council in approximately two to three weeks. However, similar to the public sewer question, it is not known at this time whether the Village Council will order the project after a public hearing, if found to be feasible. 3. Lack of adequately demonstrating the ability to pond storm waters on the site in conformance with County regulations. The applicant has failed to adequately present detailed plan s by a licensed engineer showing the increased run -off created by the develop- ment and methods of ponding such waters in conformance with the County resolution governing the same. 4. Inability to demonstrate the relationship between the proposed develop - ment and future needs of the community. The comprehensive plan has not been completed by the Planning Commission nor has the Village Council acted upon such. Until the comprehensive plan has been adopted, it is difficult to determine the relationship of this development to the needs of the community. Proposed land uses, street right -of -ways, street widths, recreational needs, design criteria, public and private transportation needs, and public facilities are but a few of the questions which should be answered before development is allowed to occur. 5. Lack of public transportation to the site. As of this date, no commitment has been received by the Village of Maplewood from the Metropolitan Transit Commission to provide public transportation to or from the site. Lack of specific site plans. The site plans received on this proposal have not been specific enough for the staff to adequately assure that all of the Village ordinanances are being complied with. c. Commissioner Burnell Stolzman presented the Planning Commission report and the following recommendations: It is recommended by this Commission to the Village Council that the application for the Special Use Permit (PUD) on the Southwest corner of Century Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue be accepted in principle but - 2 - 6/29 tabled until such time as: 1. The applicant has satisfied all the requirements mentioned above. 2. Until all utilities are availabe to support the development. The recommendation in no should be interpreted as a complete accept- ance or rejection of the proposal, but an interest in reviewing the proposal at such time as all conceptual elements of the development are known. The commission has not reviewed: 1. The socio- economic tenant aspect of the proposal, 2. The minority housing opportunities that will be affored the project, 3. The urgency of the applicant in fulfilling HUD requirements, 4. The interests of other county, state, and other governmental units in this development. and the commission cannot recommend a utility plan for the development of this area until completion of the comprehensive plan and appropriate studies are made. d. Chairman John Broady presented the Human Relations Commission report as follows: "Dear Madam & Sirs: The Maplewood Human Relations Commission has considered the staff and other available reports and met with the developer on June 20, to review this project. The following motion was made and passed. The Maplewood East development substantially confoms to the criteria established by the Commission for such evaluations and, therefore, we respectfully recommend that the Maplewood Village Council give the proposal favorable consideration sub- ject to the following provisions: That the Urban Affairs Commission provide: 1. Concrete and satisfactory evidence of their ability to establish sound and efficient management procedures; 2. More detailed information on planned recreational areas for the children. The concept of a non - profit corporate structure with community representation on the board was well accepted. The membership and relation of this board to the developer and the mechanics of implementation were not clear. During the discussion one member questioned whether the developer had in the past demonstrated the capacity to manage the project in the manner described. At this stage of development formal action to implement the statements made has not been initiated. There is plenty of open space in the development, but at this point not much thought has been given to its utilization. - 3 - 6/29 The lack of available public transportation was considered but not made a part of the motion. Other official bodies have expressed this concern as well as the necessity of adequate water and sewer systems. We feel this is an excellent project and would encourage the Village and the developer to solve these physical problems." e. Mayor Axdahl called for proponents. The following were heard: 1. Joe Errigo, Urban Affairs Commission for the St. Paul Archidiocese, made a full presentation. 2. Mrs. Dorothy Barrett, 2450 North Century Avenue. 3. Mr. Gary Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development Co. 4. Mr. James Rohricht, 2152 Duluth Place. 5. Mrs. Lorraine Fisher, 1812 Furness 6. Mr. Clarence Harris, 1579 E. Grandview Avenue 7. Mr. Bill Kampf, 1902 Adolphus Street 8. Mrs. Edith Lallier, A St. Paul Resident. 9. Mr. John Carr, A Catholic Seminarian and a resident of Hopkins. 10. Acting Manager Ashworth read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Louis A. Haak, 1823 Mary Jo Lane in favor of the project. f. Mayor Axdahl called for opponenets. The following were heard: 1. Mr. Edmund Gibbs, 2415 E. Larpenteur Avenue 2. Mr. Paul Kirchoff, East Idaho Street. 3. Mr. Ray Chase, 2402 E. Larpenteur Avenue. 4. Mr. Eugene Whyte, representing the North Maplewood, North St. Paul Homeowners Association. 5. Mrs. Ann Fosburgh, 2516 E. Idaho Street. 6. Mr. Norman Anderson, 1603 Frost Avenue. 7. Mrs. John Stickler, Idaho Street presented a petition signed by 110 persons objecting to the proposal. 8. Mrs. Don Augra 9. Mr. T.R. McReynolds, 2384 E. Larpenteur Avenue - 4 - 6/29 10. State Senator John Chenoweth, explained the "Fiscal Disparity Bill" and increased State Aid for schooling in connection with the proposed project. Spoke neither for or against. 11. Father Paul Palmitessa, Holy Redeemer Church, spoke in favor. 12. Mrs. William Howard, 2169 E. Larpenteur made comments. 13. Sister Bernarda, St. Paul Priory, stated the project can go in only if the Sisters decide to sell the property. err n. 14. Mrs. Janet Kanpf, 1902 Adolphus Street, spoke in favor. 15. Mrs. James Bransford stated "s lot of people have expressed a desire to live in a townhouse type unit such as is proposed." g. Mayor Axdahl commented on Councils considering a Housing Redevelopment Authority being formed. h. Councilwoman Olson stated she has heard rumors that she had a conflict of interest and she wished to ask Village Attorney Lais, so it would be a matter of record for the paper, people of the area and herself, if this were SO. Village Attorney Lais stated it is his understanding, that just because she owns property in the area, does not mean she has a conflict of in- terest. If she were to ask him if it were proper for her to vote on this, he would say "yes, she may vote." i. Councilman Haugan moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Olson. Ayes - all. J. After considerable Council discussion, Councilman Wiegert moved to tinue the Public Hearing for two weeks so Council may consider the mat to recei Seconded by Councilman Haugan D. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Ayes - all. 1. Acting Manager Ashworth stated that the Parks and Recreation Department would like permission to have a Bike Pathway on Ripley Avenue from Wakefield Park to East Shore Drive. Staff would like the Councils opinion on this. Council favors the proposal and have no objections. 2. Acting Manager Ashworth stated a letter was received from Tim McGill and would like it to be put on the agenda for July 20, 1972 meeting. This is regarding a driveway. Nothing more will be done as far as the Village goes until after this item is heard by the Council. - 5 - 6/29 Councilwoman Olson moved to place this item on the July 20, 1972 agenda. Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. 3. Council discussed the appeals board for the Building Code,rArchitectural Review Board, and those who would be qualified to serve on this board. Perhaps the newspaper could publicize that the Village is looking for volunteers to serve. Councilman Wiegert moved for Staff to prepare a description of the duties of the Design Review Board and submit the qualifications required and ask for volunteers; this search to continue until September 1, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - all. E. ADJOMTMENT 11:20 P.M. er� e- �' o Cit Clerk - 6 - 6/29