Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MARCH 12, 2018 15 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant indicated he has searched for reasons to deny the request as well. He commented <br />there were no reasons. He explained he did not like the proposed development. He stated he was <br />hopeful the fear of what may occur was less than what would actually occur. He explained if the <br />Council were to deny the Planning Case very specific reasons would have to be cited. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott read a portion of City Ordinance Section 1150-04 regarding Division or <br />Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record from Subdivision 3 – Public Welfare. He reported this <br />portion of Ordinance reads: it shall be determined the proposed subdivision shall not be <br />detrimental or injurious to neighboring properties in which the subdivision is located. He <br />believed that based on the testimony provided by the neighbors the proposed subdivision would <br />be injurious to the neighbors. For this reason, he would be siding with Councilmember McClung <br />and would not be offering his support to the proposed plat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden requested comment from the City Attorney regarding this portion of <br />City Code. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik stated this was a valid concern or standard. He noted courts do require the <br />City to identify external impacts that may be detrimental to try and mitigate those potentially <br />detrimental impacts. He explained the City was allowed to attach conditions to the requested plat <br />and was part of the review process. He advised the conditions for approval were incorporated in <br />the report. He indicated if the Council were to deny based on this portion of City Code, the <br />Council would have to enunciate what the impacts were, how they were injurious, and how this <br />development was unique or different when compared to other developments in the City. <br /> <br />The motion carried 3-2 (McClung and Scott opposed). <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if the Council had any further questions of staff regarding the vacation of the <br />sewer easement. The Council had no further questions. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a <br />motion to approve Resolution 2018-019 for the Vacation of a Sewer Easement <br />for Arden Hills Lift Station #12 at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the <br />findings of fact and submitted plans in the March 12, 2018 Report to the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated he would not be offering his support to this motion based on <br />Minnesota State Statute 412.851. He commented it did not appear to be in the City’s best interest <br />to vacate this easement as the City’s long-term costs would be increased in order to maintain the <br />Lift Station. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if the applicant could still proceed with the lot split even if the vacation of <br />the easement were denied. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler reported this was correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated it was not in the public’s best interest to vacate this easement <br />and therefore, he would not be supporting the request.