The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-28-2006 Continuation of Meeting 09-25-06MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 5:00 P.M. Thursday, September 28, 2006 Continuation of Monday, September 25, 2006 Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06-25 A. B. C. L. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at 5:00 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present NEW BUSINESS Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right-of-Way and Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat Planner Roberts presented the report. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development presented the Carver Crossing of Maplewood proposal and answered council questions. The following persons were heard: George Gonzales, 2359 Heights Avenue, Maplewood Steve Mylnarczyk, 1364 Dorland Road South, Maplewood Don Tellin, owner of 2431 Carver Avenue (across from the new road) Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood Rick Urban, 1356 Dorland Road South, Maplewood Councilmember Cave Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nay-Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach 09-28-06 (Continuation of the 09-25-06 City Council Meeting) Findings of Denial Mayor Longrie Under City Ordinance 44-1091, the city is not obligated to approve a conditional use permit. Under City Ordinance 44-1097, the applicant has the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the standards required for the approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant has not proven the use would meet all of the standards required. Looking at the plain reading of the ordinance creating R-1 (R) zoning and its intent, the applicant's request is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. The proposed PUD would not be located, designed or maintained or constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and the code of ordinances. While the use of single residential dwellings in the proposed PUD is consistent for the land use under the comprehensive plan, it would not be in conformity with Maplewood's public policy to preserve this property for rural residential R-1 (R) as it is currently zoned. R-1 (R) is consistent with the comprehensive plan as a subcategory of single dwelling residential and is to preserve a low density housing option in Maplewood. Specifically, the primary purpose for the R-1 (R) zoning district that was applied to this area was to prevent overcrowding. This statement is from the memorandum of October 28, 2003. The R-1 (R) zoning ordinance specifically says that the intent of the ordinance is that Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of those areas of the city, because of topography or other factors, do not have, or does the city expect to have, sanitary municipal sanitary sewer or water service. This is not the only reason this zoning was placed on the property. Maplewood also has the intent to allow for, and protect, a very low density, semi rural, residential life style and that is why the city created an R-1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for those areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation, or other factors. The city finds that the most suitable use for these areas is with single dwellings on large lots in that these low density residential developments will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water and vegetation in wooded areas. There has been a lot of testimony regarding the special factors of this property, including being within the Mississippi Critical Area. We have not heard any particular reasons why the public policy should change for what has been used to land guide this property in the past. Councilmember Hjelle: The proposed plan conflicts with the following required condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. Councilmember Cave: Councilmember Cave concurred with Mayor Longrie's findings. Mr. Kantrud, City Attorney, followed up the Council's Findings by stating that there is no conflict between the City's comprehensive plan designating the property's use as single dwelling residential and the current R-1 (R) zoning since R-1 (R) zoning, as a subcategory of single dwelling residential, further delineates the land use as to a specific type of single dwelling residential. R-1 (R) provides for the orderly development of the property within the framework of the designation of single dwelling residential within the comprehensive plan. E. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 09-28-06 (Continuation of the 09-25-06 City Council Meeting)