2010-06-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 02, 2010 Page 3 Ms. Apman expressed concern about her understanding of proposed sideyard 96 setbacks, specifically an adjacent property immediately to the north of their 97 parcel, and past attempts by that property owner to split the lot for construction of 98 a duplex. Ms. Apman sought guarantees that such an attempt wouldn’t be 99 pursued again under the new zoning; and asked that the City preserve the larger 100 single-family lots in the community for those long-term residents preferring the 101 larger lots in their neighborhood. 102 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Paschke assured Ms. Apman that the 103 proposed land use designation for those parcels under discussion was LDR-1, 104 that that such zoning designation would only allow for single-family residential, 105 without application for redevelopment through a rezoning process. 106 Ms. Apman expressed concern that there was an attempt at subterfuge going on, 107 addressing a property further west on Woodhill currently under construction with 108 similar zoning designation. 109 Mr. Paschke advised that the property in question had been designated LDR-2 110 with that lot’s particular zoning identified many years ago as two-family, and was 111 probably a carryover from that time. Mr. Paschke suggested that the parcel may 112 need to be included in the list of other property anomalies for further research 113 and consideration. 114 Ms. Apman expressed concern with the timing of tonight’s hearing being held 115 during the summer, during people’s vacation’s, was inappropriate, when the 116 Comprehensive Plan had been approved by the City Council in October. Ms. 117 Apman expressed further concern with the generic information provided for 118 informational meetings on this issue. 119 Chair Doherty reminded the public that this process has been taking place over 120 the last three (3) years, with numerous informational meetings and public 121 hearings advertised and announced throughout the process. 122 Ken Wehrle, Ramsey County Parks Planning Director, 2015 N Van Dyke 123 Street, Maplewood, MN 124 Ms. Wehrle, on behalf of the County property, expressed concern about the 125 process for review and adoption of future regulations as parcels receive new 126 designations. 127 Mr. Paschke clarified that the regulation portion of this process was entirely 128 separate and distinct from the property zoning process, even though inter- 129 related; and advised that those requirements did not exist at this time but would 130 be brought forward to the Planning Commission through the Public Hearing and 131 vetting process, in addition to another informational meeting, prior to the 132 Commission’s recommendation tot he City Council, for further discussion. Mr. 133 Paschke opined that, specific to Open Spaces and Park land use designation; 134 their use would not change, but be further clarified for better management of 135 those areas, perhaps as legal, nonconforming uses, similar to other land use 136 designations. Mr. Paschke suggested that the County provide a specific contact 137 person to represent the County as property owner to receive notice when those 138 regulations are under discussion. 139 Mr. Wehrle was satisfied as long as he was assured of a review process to allow 140 further dialogue and participation. 141 Liz Jaeger, 1307 W Roselawn Avenue 142 Ms. Jaeger expressed concern, specific to Ryan Street and that neighborhood, 143 how existing and/or future group homes would be impacted, and how they fit with 144 single-family residential land use designations. 145