CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

349 prior to May of 1959, and recent proposed revisions to make smaller lots legally conforming as 350 opposed to their current status as legal nonconforming. 351 Ms. Apman expressed concern about her understanding of proposed sideyard setbacks, 352 specifically an adjacent property immediately to the north of their parcel, and past attempts by 353 that property owner to split the lot for construction of a duplex. Ms. Apman sought guarantees 354 that such an attempt wouldn't be pursued again under the new zoning; and asked that the City 355 preserve the larger single family lots in the community for those long -term residents preferring 356 the larger lots in their neighborhood. 357 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Paschke assured Ms. Apman that the proposed land use 358 designation for those parcels under discussion was LDR -1, that that such zoning designation 359 would only allow for single family residential, without application for redevelopment through a 360 rezoning process. 361 Ms. Apman expressed concern that there was an attempt at subterfuge going on, addressing a 362 property further west on Woodhill currently under construction with similar zoning designation. 363 Mr. Paschke advised that the property in question had been designated LDR -2 with that lot's 364 particular zoning identified many years ago as two family, and was probably a carryover from 365 that time. Mr. Paschke suggested that the parcel may need to be included in the list of other 366 property anomalies for further research and consideration. 367 Ms. Apman expressed concern with the timing of tonight's hearing being held during the 368 summer, during people's vacation's, was inappropriate, when the Comprehensive Plan had been 369 approved by the City Council in October. Ms. Apman expressed further concern with the generic 370 information provided for informational meetings on this issue. 371 Chair Doherty reminded the public that this process has been taking place over the last three (3) 372 years, with numerous informational meetings and public hearings advertised and announced 373 throughout the process. 374 Ken Wehrle, Ramsey County Parks Planning Director, 2015 N Van Dyke Street, 375 Maplewood, MN 376 Ms. Wehrle, on behalf of the County property, expressed concern about the process for review 377 and adoption of future regulations as parcels receive new designations. 378 Mr. Paschke clarified that the regulation portion of this process was entirely separate and distinct 379 from the property zoning process, even though inter related; and advised that those requirements 380 did not exist at this time but would be brought forward to the Planning Commission through the 381 Public Hearing and vetting process, in addition to another informational meeting, prior to the 382 Commission's recommendation tot he City Council, for further discussion. Mr. Paschke opined 383 that, specific to Open Spaces and Park land use designation; their use would not change, but be 384 further clarified for better management of those areas, perhaps as legal, nonconforming uses, 385 similar to other land use designations. Mr. Paschke suggested that the County provide a specific 386 contact person to represent the County as property owner to receive notice when those regulations 387 are under discussion.