10-24-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2007 Maplewood to loop both sewer and water main through this area. Looping of sanitary sewer will eliminate the need for lift stations. Johnson presented a diagram of a typica1500 foot cul-de-sac and noted that the City's R-1 standards would allow fora 16 lot development. Even though the Richie Place cul-de-sac is proposed at 1,050 feet in length, the density is at 16 lots, 13 of which are in Little Canada and 3 in Maplewood. Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development, noted that the 500-foot diagram presented could not be developed on the Richie property given the width of the property. The diagram was being presented for illustration purposes. Allan asked if there is any chance that Maplewood will not approve the three lots proposed in that City. Johnson reported that he has had discussions with the Maplewood Planner who appears to be in support of the plat. Blesener noted for the record a July 31, 20071etter from the Watershed relative to wetland determination in the LaBore Road area. He also noted the email from Tina Carstens of the Watershed relative to the wetland delineation for the Richie Place development. Carstens noted that she reviewed this delineation with Lynda Peterson of the Board of Water & Soil Resources and Tom Peterson of the Ramsey Conservation District and both agree with her approval of the delineation. Blesener also noted for the record, a letter from three property owners to the west of proposed Richie Place asking that their property not be landlocked. At this point the meeting was opened to comments from the general public. John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street in Maplewood, appeared. John Gores indicated that throughout this process, the City of Little Canada has taken the position that a variance was not necessary for the Richie Place proposed cul-de-sac length at 1,050 feet. Gores also noted that the City Council denied the Richie Place Preliminary Plat on September 26, 2007. Blesener noted that the plat was not denied; a resolution to approve the plat failed. Gores indicated that now the developer has requested a Variance when the City said a Variance was not necessary. Gores pointed out that the basis for a variance has to be based on inequities related to the subject property such as topography or soils. Gores noted that the developer has stated that his reason for applying for a variance is to avoid litigation. Gores pointed out a copy of the Variance application noting that no reasons for the Variance request are listed on the application. Gores indicated that the 9