HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1970/02/09The Regular Meeting of the Mounds View Village Council was called to order by
Mayor Rusted at 8:00 P.M. on Monday, February 9, 1970, at the Village Hall,
2401 Highway #10, St. Paul, Minnesota 55112.
Present:
Mayor Rusted
Councilman Hodges
Councilman Blanchard
Councilman Nelsen
Absent:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL
VILLAGE OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
February 9, 1970
Also Present:
Clerk- Administrator Zylla
Attorney Meyers
Engineer Boehm
Councilman Malvin
MSP (Blanchard /Neisen) To approve the minutes of January 26, 1970.
Mayor Rustad's Report
Mayor Rusted read the Police Report for January.
Mayor Rusted read a letter from the Metro Clean Air Committee regarding a hearing
on February 25th on three proposed amendments to the Minnesota Air Pollution
Control Regulation. Mayor Rusted explained the action the Council had taken
with regard to open burning to date and authorized Clerk- Administrator Zylla
to attend the meeting.
4 Ayes
Mayor Rusted read the Planning Commission minutes for January 20th. There was
no busyness before the Planning Commission that evening.
MSP (Rustad /Neisen) To grant a $55.00 across the board salary increase to the
Police Department adjusted to January 1st. 4 Ayes
Clerk Administrator Zylla's Report
MSP (Hodges /Blanchard) To approve the Garbage /Rubbish Haulers license for
Ace Solid Waste Management Inc. 4 Ayes
MSP (Blanchard /Hodges) To approve General cheeks #3917 -3962 except #3960 and
Payroll checks #1288 -1314. Total disbursements $52,266.42. 4 Ayes
MSP (Blanchard /Nelsen) To accept the 1969 Financial Statement from the Clerk
and order its publication in an abbreviated form. 4 Ayes
Councilman Hodges' Report
Councilman Hodges stated that the Recreation Committee was studying the possibility
of a comprehensive park study by Brauer and Associates. The cost of a comprehensive
study was estimated at $3,250.00.
Councilman Neise:l's Report
MSP (Neisen /Blanchard) To raise the salary of Walter Skiba to $858.00 per
month plus $30.00 health and life insurance adjusted to January 1, 1970.
Councilman Neisen explained to the audience the added duties taken on by
Mr. Skiba. In addition to being building inspector and plumbing and heating
inspector Mr. Skiba will supervise the Public Works Department.
MSP (Neisen /Hodges) To approve sending James Schlichtmann to the American
Pipe Services seminar on March 10th and filth at the Ambassador Motor Hotel,
Minneapolis, and to pay all related expenses.
At torney Meyers' Report
Attorney Meyers presented the Council with a copy of the Attorney General's
opinion regarding open burning. he briefly explained his interpretation of
the law. It seems that the Village is to make the determination as to whether
services are available for a total pickup.
Attorney Meyers also presented a copy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Engineer Boehm's Report
Engineer Boehm reported that
representative, last week to
Engineer Boehm also read and
Project 1968 -3.
submitted to the Council Progress Report #2 on
Mayor Rustad announced the Mounds View Appreciation Dinner and stated that
tickets would be available at the Village Hall.
he had met with Robert Greiling, the HUD field
go over the progress of the HUD project.
Mayor Rusted called the rezoning hearing to order at 8:30 P.M.
Clerk- Administrator Zylla read the legal notice and attested to
in the legal newspaper, the New Brighton Bulletin, January 29th
February 5th, 1970 and stated that 49 persons were sent notices
ordinance.
VILLAGE 02' MOUNDS VIEW
STATE FO MINNESOT'.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON REZONING
1Fotiee Is hereby given, that the
M *ode View Village eternal! will meet
l 11 February. 0. 1878 at 8:30 o'clock p.m.
ht;$he Mounds View Village Hall, 2401
Highway 10. St. Pent Minnesota 55112.
to,teonolder amending the official zoning
map pursuant to Section 11.1 of Oodi.
glance No 87. to rezone the following
gibed .property.
Parent A The W t4 of the NW 141of
the' SW 7 4, except the W 255.62' of the
27 215.63' thereof. Sec. 8. T. 30. R
di 4cheent the E 185'. To rezone from RI
(reetdential) to R8 (multiple dwelling).
Parcel 8 The NE ty of the NW 1i
of the 8E to of Sec. 7, T. 80, R. 2 2 0
also the N V of the SD 1fi of the NW 74
of the S:•: 1L es
excepting therefrom: BePinring at a
point 657 feet E of the center line of
See. 7. T. 30, R. 29 on the Ely Wly
'a line of said section. thence E D5 flit,
thence Sly on an angle of IV W feet to
a ;point, thence 'W 610 feet to point :eaf
beginning. except the Wly 135 feet there.
d¢: -Also the NE '/a of the &E 14 of gee.
30, R. 28. except the SW 14 of tie
S17 4 of said NE 7 4 of the SE lib of
Sac 7. except the 8E of the SW
of the SE ti and the 8 of the SE VI
of the NE ti of the SE x of Sec. 7, T.
se R. 2k Subject to roads and ditch
eas.ment,
Pared C The S MI of the SE %laf
the NW 54 of the SE 1i of Sec 7. ea-
cepa the W 135 fast, and the 8 76 of tite
SW 4 of the NE Va of 5 SP
See. 7. except the SE 3i of the
of the SW '4 of the NE M of the,
74 of Sec. 7, and the 8 of the SII
of .t a NE 1 of the SE ?S of Sae 7a
88, 30. 22, except the a 1 feet. To"'
sene`Parcel B and Pared .0 from
(wehlentia!) to R3 (maitiple dwe1I'
R2 (two family •reeidentiall. B2 (Ii
Parcel A generally located
beano Long Lake Road and I
of County Road 112 and No el
Ridge Lane. Parcels B C ten et,I1g
legated between Red Oak Drive and Lean
Lake Road South of Cam. to Road H2 sad
North of Woodale.
84e417 persona as desire to be beard
with reference to this matter will be
heard at this meeting.
Denis 8. Zylta
13,, .to, Jan. 30 Feb 5, 1370)
its publication
and
pursuant to
4 Ayes
4. e e
y�_
3
Perry Copeland, petitioner's attorney, made the presentation for the
petitioners relative to Parcels A, B and C as per the legal notice. He
presented the Council an original of a brief outline of the proposal as
requested by the petitioner, on file'.
tam
IRl1'!
ism
j
WNW
mo
RK EEl_ 4
4
z
a
me is MN III
11111111 III
III
NI U
.1
PkRceL
Proposal: The proposal presented to the Council consists of approximately
101 acres. Parcel F which is R2, Parcel D which is El, Parcel G which is R2,
Parcel A and B which are R3, Parcel C which is B3. Maps were placed throughout
the room so that the residents could observe the areas pointed out by fir.
Copeland. Parcel E is R3 also.
Density: The density was approximately 540 apartment units, 60 townhouse units,
24 double bungalows, 121 single family homes with a total population of the
apartment units 1,242 persons, the townhouse units 210 persons, the double
bungalows 144 persons, and the single family homes 544 persons. Total
population 2,140 persons. Units per acre were estimated at 9.
Type of Construction: 1r. Copeland stated that the single family homes would sell
for $25,000 to $35,000, double bungalows would sell at around $40,000. They would
be two to three bedroom units with 925 to 1,C50 square feet per unit. Townhouses
would have approximately 1,000 square feel and would sell for approximately
$20,000. The value of the multiple dwellings would be approximately $15,000 per
unit. There would be 735 square feet in the one bedroom unit, 9pr square feet in
a two bedroom unit. The rent would <8age anVw1 c from r r t
In the multiple dwelling area there would be two spaces ior parking oer unit,
indoor pool, tot lot, inside security system, game rooms and saunas and interior
refuse handling.
4
Mr. Copeland stated that the project would be started the summer of 1970
provided the financial market remained approximately the same. The townhouse
construction would start in the summer of 1971 and the commercial property
would begin to be developed when 407, of the living units in the remainder of
the project were occupied.
Valuations: Value of the R3 area was estimated at 8.1 million dollars. Value
of the double bungalows $960,000, the limited business $350,000, townhouses
1.2 million dollars, single family homes 3.6 million dollars and shopping
center 1 million dollars, giving a total market value of over 15 million
dollars. Mr. Copeland stated that this would yield annually a tax of over
$410,000.
Mr. Copeland stated that a sample was taken in Mounds View and the average
tax was $376.54 on a single family home and multiple dwelling taxes averaged
$492.47. Mr. Copeland stated that for the purpose of this study let us assume
that a single family home pays an average tax of $400.00 and a multiple dwelling
unit pays an average tax of $500.00. Since 707 of the tax dollar goes to
schools and since there is approximately .16 school age child in each multiple
dwelling unit and since it costs an average of $600 to educate a school age
child in School District #621 the multiple dwelling units pay an average school
tax of $350 per unit and it costs approximately $96.00 per unit to educate
each school age child. The single family home pays a school tax of $280.
Therefore there is a net loss of over $200 on a single family home. The
real estate taxes to the Village would be approximately $40,000 per year if
this project were approved, plus the Village would get approximately $12,000
in shared taxes, sales taxes, cigarette and licenses, gasoline taxes, etc.
Traffic: Mr. Copeland stressed that there would only be access to County
Roads and that no traffic would run past any single family homes with the
exception of some R2 development on Woodale Drive. Mr. Copeland stated that
this project met the needs of middle income families. The engineers stated
by letter that there were facilities for utilities. Mr. Copeland said there
was a good buffer zone and that not only was the health and welfare protected
but it was enhanced.
All of the following questions were directed to and answered by Mr. Copeland
unless otherwise noted.
Mayor Rustad called for questions from the floor. John Robertus, 2055 County
Road H, objected to the presence of a court reporter. Mr. Copeland stated
that the Court reporter was present in case the decision of the Council was
adverse to his clients and they felt it was necessary to seek recourse in
the courts.
Henry Dyslin, 5092 Brighton Lane, stated that he felt the citizens were
acting small townish and that he felt that there was nothing wrong with
the presence of the Court reporter. Richard Paradise, 5191 Eastwood
Road, stood and stated that he had no attorney present and that his (court
reporter's) notes would be recognized by the courts and that it would be unfair
to him since he was not represented by an attorney and cautioned as to what
he could say.
James Nerdahl, 7941 Edgewood Drive, stood and stated that he felt the statements
in regard to a recourse should be stricken from the record and Mr. Nerdahl noted
that a tape recorder was present at the meeting also. Gordon Ziebarth, 5150
Bona Road, felt that the recorders presence was threatening to the Council.
Henry Dyslin stated that he felt the people should find out where they stand,
that if someone has threatened them don't get mad when they threaten you. Mr.
Copeland stated that if the Council had decided to ask the recorder to leave
that his clients would abide by their decision.
The Council determined that the presence of the court reporter was disturbing
the conduct of the hearing, and was distracting. They requested Mr. Copeland
to terminate the court reporter taking notes.
Mr. Copeland stated that he wants the minutes to show that the termination
of the recording was done at the request of the Council and that in his
opinion did not present any kind of a threat to the proceedings.
John Robertus continued his comments. Mr. Robertus vehemently stated that it
was the same ground. He questioned the tax break and he wondered whether it
has improved or enhanced other villages. He felt that it was an enclosed
garbage can that it looked like a steak but it was the same baloney, and he
was tired of having people subjected to legalities. Mayor Austad informed
Mr. Robertus to leave his questions only to the issue and no campaign speeches,
questions only.
Q. Bob Glazer, 2375 Hillview, are townhouses considered low income housing?
A. Individual living units, low to middle range. Q. Isn't it true that there
will be a metro tax and that we would not in fact benefit from the tax break
as you specifically state? A. Unable to say at this time. Undoubtly there
will be a metro tax of some type in the future. Q. Richard Paradise, questioned
the sales tax rebate. Is it not true that the rebate is figured on the 1970
summer population and that it takes ten years before we realize any benefits
from the sales tax? A. A census may be taken in the interim between a general
population census and that no people were in this project area as of the summer
of 1969.
Q. John Krawczyk, 5128 Eastwood Road, questioned the sampling techniques. How
was it arrived at? A. Every third house on every block which was platted. He
stated that it was not professional but he felt that it was representative.
Over 55 homes sampled, 7 were non homesteaded. There were only single family
hones tested.
Q. D. Bayerkohler, 5095 Sunnyside Road, stated that he had just bought his house
and the real estate man said that the property to the north was Ri. 1!e asked why
he should approve this rezoning? A. It still was a family neighborhood, that the
change would have to be made by the Council and that at the present time there was
no change. Q. John Krawczyk, is it true that if property is not yours you do not
take as good care of it? A. Unable to say.
Mr. Krawczyk asked abo• :t the apartment study report. Acres rezoned then and now.
Councilman Neisen summarized the report then yielded to Norman Chervany who was
also on the report committee. Mr. Chervany talked about the 1959 Planning Report.
He stated that in that report there was less than 37 of the land zoned multiple
dwelling. At the present time there was 67. Mr. Chervany asked about the density
in Mr. Copeland's R3 area. Mr. Copeland stated Parcel A had 16 to 17 units per
acre. Mr. Cherva, talked about the land to the north of County Road H2 which
was zoned multiple dwelling. Mr. Chervany stated that there were 1,250 units now
planned or actively planned on the south side of Highway #10 which was double the
amount as advised by the planning report. Mr. Copeland stated that he had talked
to the planner of 1959 and he stated that the conclusions drawn from that study
were no longer apprcpriate.
Q. Harold Hjelle, 5161 Red Oak Drive, Questioned the open area in Parcel A.
A. That would be a recreation area. John Robertus asked about the distance
between the units, stating that it could be a hazard as was the fire in New
Brighton. Q. Mr. Chervany asked about financing. A. They have the financing
if the financial market does not worsen. Q. Mr. Glazer asked why the developers
don't speak for themselves? A. Mr. Copeland was hired by them because it would
be easier for one man to give their presentation than to have two or three -yen
giving their views at the same time or arguing who was going to speak.
Q. Gordon Ziebarth asked for a description of the townhouses. A. They would
be approximately 1,000 square feet and would have an area of a 26 X 40 bungalow.
Same quality as a common rambler. Q. John Krawczyk asked for a comparison to
the existing townhouses in the area. A. They would not be as deluxe as the
Penton $40,000 townhouses. Q. ir. Glazer asked if they would be stacked?
A. No.
Q. Mrs. Carol Merker, 5136 Irondale Road, asked if all of the apartments in the
Village were filled now, as there was a demand? A. The vacancy rate was as low
as anywhere in the area. Q. Mrs. Merker asked is it true that apartments not
filled are a tax deduction? A. Not true to my knowledge. John Robertus said
apartments resemble army type barracks. Mr. Copeland stated he was not in the
army and was not aware of what army type barracks would fit his description.
Q. H. Swanson, 5064 Irondale Road, is there any restriction on the size of the
family? A. It doesn't present a problem. Q. Mr. Glazer, is there sewer and
water available now? A. Yes they are available and we have letters to this
effect. Q. Mr. Kobe, 5071 Brighton Lane, do developers own the land? A. Yes.
Q. Gerry Blanski, 1881 Woodale Drive, are they reliable builders? A. If they
were not reliable the mortgage companies would not be willing to grant them
money to build. Q. Resident, who takes care of the buildings after they are
built? A. Maintenance is serious to all in that there is an 8 million dollar
investment. They would dedicate green areas and that if a maintenance problem
did exist the developers would sign something to the effect that the Council
could order the improvement and assess the property owners if it was not taken
care of. Mr. Copeland stated that agreements like this can work.
Q. Arden Wahlberg, 5092 Red Oak Drive, what assurance do we have that the red
area outlining the project for a single family area won't tried to be rezoned
at a later date? A. Will file deeds with covenants to protect your interest.
Q. Gerald Johnson, 5140 Greenwood Drive, asked about the property north of County
Road 82, asked about a shopping center, about how many shopping centers there were
now planned in the village and why has nothing been done in this area to date?
A. Mayor Rusted stated that the last time they had talked to Cushman Minar the
project was approximately two years off. Q. Mr. Johnson asked if a covenant
could be put on the recreation area that would be dedicated to the project?
A. Yes it could, that they would not guarantee the exact same area but the
same amount of square feet would be dedicated to Parcel #A.
Q. Charles Ross, 5142 Eastwood Road, asked about blowing sand. A. They would
do their best to control it. Q. Howard Hovland, 5093 Irondale Road, how many
stories would the buildings be? A. 21 stories high. Q. Mr. Blanski, this is
one of the largest developments we have had; is there any difference in the
contractors reliability? A. The developers don't have 8 million dollars so
they have to go to the bank. Village licenses, but they must have credit
reliability to satisfy a mortgage. Council issues permits. Lloyd Beult,
5085 Brighton Lane, stated developers may build some and then the rest would
just sit there. Q. Ardan Walberg asked about covenants again. A. Attorney
Meyers explained covenants and their validity.
Mayor Rusted stated that at this time he would take remarks and objections to
the proposal. John Robertus stated that he had no comment yet.
A ten minute recess at 9:55 P.M.
At ?:55 Mayor Rustad called for objectors.
Richard Paradise cited a study in Orange, New Jersey, stating that high density
me it high taxes.
HE )ld Hjelle, petitions presented in objection with 442 signatures.
Mr. Glazer objected. Three reasons. He felt the taxes would be collected by
metro government, so will not realize nny tax break, second, felt the housing
was moderate to low income, high density aggravated higher taxes, third, was
concerned for the single family neighborhood.
Mayor Rusted stated that it is very possible that all zoning would be done by
a metro zoning commission in years ahead.
John Robertus stated that he is opposed to apartments because they look like
army barracks and it would be the same old baloney.
Mr. Chervany stated that he was against it because of the uncertainty of the
50 acres to the north of County Road H2. He felt that there were too many
units, 1,100 to 1,200 units south of Highway #10 in a very small area.
Howard Obert, 5092 Sunnyside Road, stated that there is no resident that
appears for the development. That if the Council represents the people they
must deny the rezoning.
Attorney Meyers commented that the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the
Council shall consider the health, safety and welfare of the area and entire
community when reviewing a zoning request or petition.
Mr. Krawczyk is against because $20,000 townhouses is low cost and he is opposed
to apartment buildings.
Mrs. Merker, opposed to apartments, wants to keep the area single family homes.
Mr. Kobe, land was zoned R1 originally, let it remain R1.
Mr. Blanski, not for or against apartments coming, they should be centrally
located on a big piece of property. Am not for or against the proposal.
Mr. Wahlberg, purchased property zoned R1. Builder purchased knowing it was
R1 also.
Martin Ehrhardt, 5126 Greenwood, opposed to the proposal.
Mr. Hjelle, opposed to apartments. Stated that there was some land that was
unsuitable for single family homes but much of the land was suitable for single
family homes.
Gary Payment, 5165 Red Oak Drive, residential area won't go as planned. It destroys
residential atmosphere.
Robert Larson, 7960 Fairchild, if developers willing to go 8 million dollars in the
hole then the developers will make the buildings liveable.
Mrs. Robert Barrett, 5066 Irondale, the apartment buildings that close cause
traffic. It would be hard to sell a home. Irondale now is a race track.
Mrs. Richard Brockway, 5059 Red Oak Drive, the density may effect our mental
health also. She would rather pay more taxes for a better community.
Richard Paradise stated that we would not need big complex to lower taxes if
we can't stand to live there any longer.
Robert Barrett, what happens to the value of our property? It was his opinion
that his property value would go down.
Gary Platt, 5131 Greenwood, stated he had come from California and property
value had decreased steadily for five years in apartment area.
Mr. Copeland summarized the presentation. He stated that there was a nog farm
there before and that this development could do nothing but enhance the area
compared to the hog farm. He stated that we could sell the townhouses for a
higher price. He stated also that he was not the comedienne that John Robertus
was. That he and the developers had listened to the problems of the residents
at two previous hearings and tried to solve their objections. There is no
multiple or commercial property now adjacent to single family homes and all
traffic would flow on County roads. The decision would be of long range importance
and he feels that the Council should close the hearing until the whole Council
is present.
Mr. G'azer asked if he could have a chance to present on non-piece meal basis
a rebutal at a later date?
John Robertus wanted to know who would pay for it.
Mayor Rusted stated that rather than close he was considering continuiok the
hearing for two weeks.
D. Bayerkohler, asked any more facts by petitioners? He also inquired about
the lingering illness of the other councilman. Wanted to know if it would
interfere with the two week recess.
Mr. Krawczyk stated that even if a professional came in to speak for us we
could not say any more than we've already said.
D. Bayerkohler wanted to know if they could have a preliminary vote on the
rezoning?
Another resident wanted to know how many times he would be dragged out of his
home? Mayor Rusted stated that all Council meetings were important and he hated
to see that residents feel they they were being dragged out of their homes and
that they should come willingly to more of the Council meetings, we always have
the chairs and the space available.
Mayor Rusted recessed the meeting for order. Mr. Robertus was making repeated
outbursts. Mayor Rusted stated that if there were any more outbreaks he would
recess the meeting automatically for two weeks.
Richard Barrett stated that he felt the hog farm comparison was ridiculous.
Councilman Neisen stated that he had first of all received his booklet not two
days ago but only last night. Second he questioned the adviseability of directing
180 apartment units traffic onto County Road H2 or Ridge Lane from Parcel #A and #E.
Mr. Copeland stated that the solution would be either to vacate or to make Ridge
Lane a one way street. Councilman Neisen also questioned the square footage
requirement. Mr. Copeland stated that they did comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Welberg wanted a vote taken at the present time. Councilman Blanchard
stated that it would make a very rough position for Councilman Malvin if
there was a 3 to 1 vote for the rezoning.
Mayor Rusted closed the hearing at 10:50 P.M.
Councilman Neisen stated that he felt there should be a buffer zone on the
north end of the lake, it should have an R2 zoning or a buffer. Councilman
Hodges questioned tax base versus over crowding and in his opinion under the
circumstances he would vote against it. Councilman Neisen stated that there
should be a consideration for the home owners property values. That the present
R2 buffer and Parcel #G was constructed very nicely on the proposal. Mayor
Rusted stated that it would take four members to approve the rezoning.
MSP (Neisen /Hodges) To deny the rezoning request of all three parcels due to
the density that will effect the health, safety and welfare of all citizens on
all three parcels. Neisen -Aye, Hodges -Aye, Blanchard -Naye, Rustad -Aye
Mr. Copeland requested a separate vote since there were three parcels. His
request was denied by Mayor Rusted since the hearing was closed and the vote
had already been taken.
Councilman Blanchard stated that he could find only two statements by the
objectors that could be construed as pertaining to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, and he felt the proposal would be an advantage to
the village. He further stated that he thought the Council had made a mistake
in this matter.
Mayor Rusted requested the audience to stay until the meeting was completed.
9
Engineer Boehm's Report Continued
MSP (Rustad /Blanchard) To approve change order #2 for Schedule E, Well #3
deducting $792.00 from the contract and adding $137.50, net change of $654.50.
r"1 Adjusted completed contract price $24,607.50.
MSP (Blanchard /Nelsen) To approve the final estimate for Layne- Minnesota
with HUD concurrence and to enter into a one year maintenance agreement on
1968 -3 Schedule E Well #3.
A number of residents questioned what was happening with the water system
construction which was taking place. Some discussion of HUD project ensued.
MSP (Hessen /Hodges) To adjourn at 11:08 P.M. 4 Ayes
Ryspectfully Submitted,
Dennis S. Zyl
Clerk- Administrator
,e&
4 Ayes
4 Ayes