Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-1972 SMAGENDA Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M., Thursday, July 13, 1972 Municipal Administration Building Meeting 72 - 23 (A) 'ROLL CALL (B)_ PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Planned Unit Development - Southwest corner of Century and Larpenteur Avenues (Continued from June 29, 1972) (C) ADJOURNMENT * A "shirt- sleeve" session will take place immediately following the meeting to discuss the comprehensive water study. ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA Meeting 72 -23 I T E M B -1 This item was continued from the hearing on June 29. The The staff had recommended against the approval of the development due to the lack of (1) sanitary sewer facilities, (2) public water, (3) storm water ponding facilities, (4) public transportation facilities and (5) specific site plans. OTHER I have received a letter from John D. Hirte, of Firestone, Fink, Krawetz, Miley and Maas, requesting reconsideration of the revocation of occupancy for J & W Boat and Motor, Inc. Mr-Hirte claims to have additional information. He claims to have had no notification of the meeting, although admit- ting that his client was so notified. I am notifying Mr. Hirte that I have no authority to place his request on a special meeting agenda, but that I will forward his letter to you. if you do wish to consider the matter, I would . strongly recommend that the request be denied for the follow- ing reasons: 1. It is not the fault of the village that Mr. Hirte's client did not see fit to advise him of the July 6 meeting, and Mr. Hirte admits that he was told of the probability of the raising of that issue at the July 6 meeting; 2. J & W Boat and Motor has consistently informed the Village that steps are being taken to conform with the conditions, but no such action was actually taken. Homart has requested that its property division request not be considered at the July 13 meeting. An alternate method of accomplishing the property changes is being investigated by that firm. If the alternate method does not prove feasible it will appear on the July 20 meeting. It is requested that the staff be authorized to hold an administrative informational. meeting for area residents relative to the Beam .Avenue improvement east of White Bear Avenue. MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., Thursday, Julq 13, 1972 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 72 -23 A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Village Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal 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. Planned Unit Development - Southwest Corner of Century and Larpenteur Avenues (continued from June 29, 1972) a. Mayor Axdahl stated this item was continued from the public hearing on June 29, 1972. The public hearing had been closed and decision delayed for additional testimony. b. Manager Miller stated the Staff had recommended against the approval of the development due to the lack of 1) sanitary sewer facilities, 2) public water, 3) storm water ponding facilities, 4) public transportation facilities and 5) specific site plans. Mr. Miller stated he had received three pieces of correspondence: A letter from Mr. John Broady in favor of the proposed development; a petition signed by the residents in the area opposing the proposal and a letter from the Mayor of Oakdale opposing the proposal. c. Mayor Axdahl stated at the meeting of July 6th, the consensus was for each Council Member to be prepared to make statements regarding the Archdiocese proposal. 1. Mayor Axdahl read his statement. (statement attached to minutes) 2. Councilman Wiegert read his statement. (statement attached to minutes) 3. Councilman Haugan made comments and presented his views. (comments attached to the minutes) 4. Councilman Creavu read his statement. (statement attached to minutes) 5. Councilwoman Olson commented and questioned statements given. (comments attached to minutes) d. Councilwoman Olson moved to sus the P] - 1 - 7/13 to hear the Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - all. e. Mr. John Broady, Chairman of the Maplewood Human Relations Commission, introduced Mr. James Bradford, who commented on H.R.A. and Housing Plans 235 and 236. f. Councilwoman Olson area is not r "when taken from table" similar not residents of the surrounding area. Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Motion carried. g. Mayor Axdahl 11 Seconded by Councilwoman Olson. D. PRESENTATIONS to Ayes - Mayor Axdahl, Councilwoman Olson and Councilman Haugan. Nay - Councilmen Greavu and Wiegert. hearing for the institution of matter to the Human Relations Com- Ayes - all. 1. Manager Miller stated the Ramsey County Open Space wishes to give a pre - sentation. The date suggested is August 1, 1972 and the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission are to be invited. Councilman Wiegert moved to set August 1, 1972 for a meeting with the Ramsey County Open Space Agency to make their presentation. Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - all. 2. Manager Miller stated Council had asked the Staff to set up an area meeting for developers and property owners in the area of McKnight Road, Larpenteur Ave- nue, Stillwater Road and Century Avenue. July 25th is the suggested date. Councilwoman Olson moved to set July 31, 1972 as the date for an area in- formation meeting with the developers and DroDerty owners. Ramsev County at 7: 3. Manager Miller requested authority to set up an informal information meeting for residents relative to Beam Avenue Improvement, east of White Bear Avenue. He suggusted a Staff presentation with the Council attending. Councilman Wiegert moved to Julv 25. 1972 for the Villa tants to - 2 - 7/13 m Seconded by Councilwoman Olson. Ayes - all. 4. Manager Miller stated that at the hearing on Beam Avenue Project the Staff was requested to proceed with laying of the curb. Street, curb and surfacing in Tilsen's Sub - Division is scheduled for next week. A portion of curbing will be on Beam Avenue. Staff has talked to several residents and they have agreed to a continuation of the curbing alignments the same as that west of McKnight. Staff wanted Council to be aware that they are proceeding with this. 5. Manager Miller stated there is an informal meeting with a group of people from White Bear Lake, Little Canada, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake, North St. Paul and Maplewood pertaining to problems regarding the regional shopping center, due to the road systems, State Highway Departmenti.etc. At this time Staff would like the Council to formalize Village participation in the Task Force and to ask the Metro Council to assist. Councilman Wiegert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 72 - 7 - 155 WHEREAS, a Task Force Committee comprised of representatives from White Bear Lake, Little Canada, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake, North St. Paul and Maple- wood has had four (4) meetings with the major emphasis on defining the problems related to the proposed Northeast Regional Shopping Center, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the problems are of a nature and size to require Metropolitan Council assistance, as well as, that of Ramsey County, Minnesota Highway Department and the Metropolitan Transit Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Village of Maplewood, Minnesota petitions the Metropolitan Council to declare that the Northeast Shopping Center in the vicinity of T.H. 61 and I -694 is of Metropolitan significance. Ask the Metropolitan Council to direct their staff to coordinate the study which may be needed for the area, and FURTHER, that the Task Force be continued to act as a guiding body to es- tablish the direction the study is to take, Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. 6. Councilman Greavu moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure to hear the attorney representing the J & W Boats and Motors. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all. James Miley, one of the attorneys for J & W, stated some of the problems they have encountered. Well over a year ago they began negotiating with the Minn- esota State Highway Department to secure from them the right to have addit- ional parking. He gave an outline of the problems a private citizen does encounter with a State Organization. He asked Council to reconsider their decision of revocation. Councilwoman Olson moved reconsideration, which would reopen the public hear- ing, so residents of the area, as well as Staff, may have a full report at - 3 - 7/13 the next meeting and to hold off on the action of the revocation. Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. E. ADJOURNMENT 8:52 P.M. City Clerk - 4 - 7/13 Mayor Axdahl's Statement: There are physical problems related to the site, Water and sewer extensions would be required. Water and sewer studies are in process. Resolution of these problems for the whole area may be further complicated by a partial temporary solution -- such as a lift station to move sewage from this project to Larpenteur -- if engineering studies show that it should move to the SW by gravity. County roads do serve the area but these are fast becoming loaded to an extent that certain turn movements present hazards. Some upgrading will probably be required soon. Public transportation is not available. In my opinion, information supplied in support of the project is sometimes fallacious. The Human Relations Commission prepared a report (at my suggestion) to relate need data, specific to Maplewood, on which decisions could be based. In that report 7,000 families are reported to be eligible tenants and the development was primarily to serve the local area. The figure "7,000 eligible" apparently comes from the Proponents Market Study, a copy of which was supplied council on the evening of June 29th hearing. At that time, I pointed out apparent discrepancies betweeni: the "study" and 1970 Census data and yet as late as today's paper, the same 7,000 figure is continued. I believe the "need" as stated is in error because the income statistics in the study apparently ignore that 1/4 or 1/3 of the residents who moved into the Village during the last decade, instead used only 1960 incomes x 26 %. The "study" indicated that 59.5% of Maplewood.'s households would be eligible, having less than $9,600 income. Census data (using $10,000 not the 9,600) shows only 31,6% (23% of 9,000) eligible - not 59.5, The need appears to be perhaps only 1/2 of that projected by the study. This descrepancy is further reflected in the median incomes cited: No. St. Paul $8802 Maplewood "study" 8,801 census 12,000+ Oakdale 7,636 11,000 Because of BR mix it is further probable that the $9,600'' is not realistic since occupants of 1 BR - 2 BR may have to have incomes in the $6,000 - $7,000 range, to be eligible. If in fact the need for less costly housing is for about 1/3 of our families, and if 16.3% of housing is now affordable by low and moderate incomes, perhaps we have a chance of meeting our obligations. The same census data shows 180 families in the Village "below poverty level" in- come. Half of them still trying to live on income earnings and in 40 of the families the head of the house is of retirement age. There is a need for consideration, for the elderly, for young couples on marginal jobs and minimum incomes trying to get started, and for hardship cases where disaster has overtaken a family. I think the interests of the community and of the individuals is better served by dispersal through out the community. An alternate method of support for needy is a Housing & Redevelopment Authority under which housing could be acquired or leased and subsequently made available to needy at reduced rates. p. 2 In summary I believe: 1. The project is premature. A project should not be approved in:concept: without an =indication that it is feasible and when it may be started. Utilities are needed in the area, and it would be questionable use of federal funds to expend them on in- stallation of utilities which a private developer would be expected to pay. 2. Support information on need is in substantial error. 3. We do have needy persons and they can best be helped by being interspersed within the community. 4. Village should begin process of establishing hRA, the first step of which is a public hearing to establish need. LGA Don Wiegert's Statement If a councilman ever thinks of this job as an opportunity to make people happy, he soon learns that the best he can usually do is to make only half the room happy. Tonight I think I have worked things out so that I can make both sides unhappy. Most prominent of the things I have done to make people in this particular area un- happy is to participate in the approval of two multiple- family complexes, the Doro project, now called Maple Woods, and the Fred Moore project, now called Forest Green. The people in the area have not hesitated to let me know, both at election time and in between. And prominently among them have been some people at this table who are tonight urging me to approve yet another complex for the area. But at least when I participated in those other two projects, there was sewer and water in the ground and described to me as adequate or easily correctable. In going over-.the written and oral presentations of the proponents of this project, and the Oommission reports, I am impressed with the goals of the project and the means to achieve =;them. Their use of the land appears to be good, and I commend their designers for it. The preliminary expression of architecture appears likewise to be good, and I commend them again. Their willingness and preliminary demonstration of same to do what- ever the Village and the citizens of the area feel would make this an excellent project is also commendable. Although I recognize that often things are said during courtship that sometimes do not occur after the wedding ceremony. I think the ci';,sens of 1aplewood should come to realize that in all likelihood we will have a 236 project. We are told that this is the way we should think, by the Federal Government- thru HUD, by the Metropolitan Council through Housing Policy 13, by the St. Paul Dispatch editorial page; and by the Minneapolis Star editorial page, which tells me in addition that as a Village Councilman I should provide leadership in my community in acceptance of subsidized housing. Recently the Council passed a resolution which I introduced saying that this Village encourages subsidized housing, A primary reason for this resolution was to allow the Human Relations Commission to convince the citizens of this Village, including me, that this kind of thing can and does work, to show as what it is and what it is not. We all have got to open up our minds and let them tell us what they have to tell us, and try to listen with objectivity. Consider that there just might be the possibility that what they have learned and what they have to say could be right. Give them a fair hear- ing, like you request of your Council. But because this job has not yet begun, we have one of three defects, in my opinion, to this particular project. This one has not been spoken of much, but I consider it quite important, in view of the fact that a council of neighbors is to be advisory, if they don't accept the project, will the council work? I don't believe that "try ice- you!11 like it" will work here, but rather the Missouri approach, show me (before I buy). The staff report, which calls this project premature, includes two defects which I believe to be fatal; that is the lack of sewer and lack c" water, I think it is understood that more is involved than merely running the pipes down the street from the nearest connection. I referred last time to a water study which this Council ordered. We willbe going through it together later tonight for the first time. It gives us three or four alternative sources of water, all of which involve either or both a booster station and water tower for this area. What is involved is a period of evaluating those alternatives, choosing one, and effectuating it. I do not see this happening in a very short time. The study does not go far in helping us in those alternatives, even tho it recommends one to us. It says Maplewood would be best off by continuing to obtain water from St. Paul as it presently does. St. Paul bills each water customer, Maplewood does not, and therefore we do not receive any revenue which we can use to erect a water tower. They suggest that St. Paul would be willing to add on an amount fior that purpose, - 1 - But they do not say whether we should make everybody hook up who is not presently hooked up so we can collect from all, They do not say whether I should help pay, I live in an area which does not and will not ever need a water tower. There are any number of such questions to be answered and many others to be asked and answered before we can begin -, to determine and effectuate a plan for furnishing water to this site. Whether it is used for this or any other purpose (except utter idleness). The same story could be gone through for sanitary sewer, except that the Council has not yet even received the study groundwork. Storm sewer has only partially been spoken of, but I would guess might be more easily solved. But we are not allowed to guess. If this were any other project than what it is, if it were a commercial venture, or a private housing venture, it would, I think, be unan- imously rejected for those utility reasons I have mentioned. I think it would be a gross injustice, as much to the developers as anyone, and extremely irresponsible of me, to approve this project in any measure at the present time, given these totally,,unahswered questions. The staff, professional people whom we hire to advise us, advise us to deny it. The Planning Commission, whose job it is as volunteer citzens to advise us on these matters, came very close (5 - 5) to telling us the very same thing. I have to choose this course. If you must think me a bigot, or if you must consider I pay lip service to the concept, so be it. I cannot believe that I must accept, St. Paul Dispatch to the con- trary, any proposal that comes down the pike labelled subsidized. It, like anything else, has got to be something that can work, and if this were on any other piece of ground, I am inclined to believe that it might work. But unfortunately, in my opinion, they couldn't have chosen a worse location in Maplewood today. Three years from today might be a entirely different story, but I can't ever gamble on that, given today's knowledge. COUNCILMAN HAUGAN'S STATEMENT: Councilman Haugan stated he expressed his opinion at the last Council Meeting and has not changed his opinion. He agrees with quite a_`few of Council - man'Wiegert's statements. He believes the project is premature and we do have problems with sewer and water and also transportation. We also have problems with our housing. He doesn't believe we should drop the concept. It is a very worth while project. The Archdiocese, he believes, know they have problems that have to be resolved. If this was approved it would have to be subject to sewer being provided, adequate water and reasonable transportation for the people. He doesn't see how it could be built this year, possibly next year. Councilman Greavu also stated there is so much good in it, he doesn't see how we can drop it. If Council decides, at this time, it is premature, he thinks atleast we should "shelf" it- -table it; there's too much here to drop it. Councilman Greavu's Statement July 13, 1972 I have given this project much thought and have arrived at a decision, a decision that will please some and upset others. It was not an easy decision to make.. I know that something must be done to help these people. Very sincerely, I do not believe that this proposal is the answer to the problem of helping those who are of low and moderate income and the elderly. This is a temporary short -range plan, costly to all citizens, this is a burden of the local community which needs the cooperation of the State government only, Federal solutions are not the answer. Already, 236 housing is obsolete because of the tremendous increase in cost of homes. I suggest as a short and a long range solution to this pressing urgentcsocial problem, a property tax relief formula based on the elderly's ability to pay. For example, a retired or disable person, living in their homes would have all property tax forgiven if their total income was $3,600 a year or less than a small granduated percentage rise, consistent with their level of income. Further, if the income was sufficient to maintain their home in a safe, sanitary, comfort- able condition the State government then Welfare would underwrite the cost, this is a subsidy also,tut it secret value is that it allows the retired person the privilege of remaining in their own home with all of its cherished memories. Unconcerned that they will lose;it`because taxes exceed their income. As for 235, the requirements should be changed to allow the building or purchasing of homes at current prices and should be dispersed throughout the community. I vote against the project for the following reasons: No utilities available or near the site. Traffic problems Transportation Additional service required which would place additional taxes on the community which serves schools, etc. It really disturbs me that local, units of government have an ultimatum or a threat placed on them by other levels of government. If we do not accept some form of low or moderate income housing we then stand to lose Federal Aid. In other words,.. I am trying to say that these levels of government have taken our money and now refuse to give it back to us in some form because we will not heed to their demands. Councilwoman Olson stated she would like to make several comments on the statements -hat were made here tonight. "I question the fact that we have a water study, based on a land use plan that I don't believe is realistic in that area. If it is, show me! At this point our two utility studies are not based on anything but open space on the Hillcrest Development Land. However, the road plans don't reflect what the land use plan reflects. I would ask the question of the Councilmen who are opposed to it -- are we going to stop all projects on the basis of streets? You are saying that these two streets are overcrowded, no question, but I think that some projects went in on streets that are far more over crowded. Are we going to say at this point that we use this as we did in the Inland Case and go to court as we did in the case of Inland. Are we going to use this excuse in the future and be put in the position of going to court again? What about Federal Funding? Whether we want to accept it philosophically or not, what about Federal Funding since we have projects facing this Village. Are we telling the citizens we will not put in the 236; that we do not want Federal Funding. If this is what we are telling them, let's say so. I'm not saying that this is the only project, I'm saying - -are we really saying we don't want Federal Funding? Is that it? Then let's tell the tax payers their pocket books will not be relieved by Federal Funding but capital improvement-projects will be paid for by local taxes. The Council accepted a petition and asked for a feasibility study on water and sewer. for the Archdiocese Project. Was this just an exercise in futility? Was that just to be put in a file - -file 13 - -or was that to really be studied?