Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />MAY 28, 2002 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />neighborhood, and this was much more difficult for the neighbors. He stated <br />approving this encouraged the next property owner to do the same type of a <br />development. He asked if the City wanted a lot of flag lots. He urged Council to <br />accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. <br /> <br />John Gibson, 1297 Wyncrest Court, stated he did not support granting this <br />proposal. He stated the City rules existed for good reasons and this proposed <br />development was not a good reason for granting what was being requested. He <br />expressed concern about granting the variances. He urged Council to not grant the <br />vanances, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Joann Pastorius, 1350 Wyncrest Court, stated after the last hard rain and Mr. <br />Colson's yard was actually sinking. There was a major drainage issue and while <br />there was a drainage system there, it took days to drain the water. She stated there <br />was also a fire hydrant that might need to be moved and expressed concern about a <br />fire engine being able to access tbe hydrant. She stated there was not a natural <br />frontage for this proposal and she questioned tbe City setting tbis type of <br />precedence. She urged Council to deny this request. <br /> <br />Council Member Grant stated applicants had a right to come forward with a plan <br />and what they wanted to do with their land, <br /> <br />Council Member Aplikowski asked the City Engineer to comment on the drainage <br />issue. City Engineer Brown replied he concurred with applicant's characterization <br />as to how things flowed, and as long as the driveway drained into Hamline <br />Avenue, there really should be no reason this would create a drainage problem. He <br />stated some reworking needed to be done, and while there may be a low spot or <br />two, this proposal might actually help any drainage problems the residents <br />indicated they experienced. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he would not support this motion. He agreed the property <br />owner had a right to present their proposal, but it did not obligate the City to accept <br />the proposal. He expressed concern about setting precedence if this was approved. <br />He stated he did not believe this was a good plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council Member Larson stated he would support the motion. He believed Mr. <br />Goserud in good faith came back to the City with a new proposal after the Council <br />rejected the previous plan, He indicated he believed the proposal was a good one, <br />