CCP 08-29-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 8, 1994 5 . who use the pool are latchkey children. Parents are not responsible. The pool was built in the 1970's and there are not other parks in New Brighton with a swimming pool. Someone should be supervising these children. Before someone gets killed, he would like to see the pool closed. Aplikowski stated that as an owner of a mobile home park, she can appreciate the comments on responsible parenting. The question, however, is not closing the pool for safety. Building the pool was part of the agreement for building the second half of the park. In order to close the pool, there must be an alternative plan offered to residents which has not happened in a timely manner. Mr. Husnick's chose to repair the pool rather than come up with an alternative plan. The City must prohibit closing the pool because that is the condition of the special use permit. She expressed concern about APAC stirring up residents against management. The Council does not want to participate in such action. She would have liked to see management explore more options. Mr. Myers stated that he would like to see the pool closed before someone gets hurt. Teenagers are rough, and there is nobody there to guide them. Little children, four- and five-year-olds, are not supervised. Mrs. Sherry Holmquist stated that she is the manager's wife and is present on behalf of Mr. Tom Holmquist and Mr. Husnick. They plan to go forward with the opening of the pool . because the City's demands for amenities were absurd. He was afraid the City would pull his license to operate the park. Contrary to the Council's statements, there was not enough time to communicate with the residents or do a survey. Therefore, they proceeded to repair the pool. The owner certainly wishes to keep peace. Many residents, including Mr. Myers, came and stated to them that they were glad to see the pool close for the safety of the children. She believes having the pool open will cause more problems in the park than solving them. Mayor Probst stated that the matter before the Council is approval of a special use permit. The pool was made a condition of the special use permit to allow a denser development than otherwise would have been allowed if a park dedication had been required according to the ordinance. The Council and staff in no way demanded that the pool be repaired. M part of compliance with the special use permit, there has been a pool since the park opened. Management seems to feel no obligation whatsoever to comply with the special use permit conditions . Mrs. Holmquist asked if there is any proof of signature on the special use permit requiring the pool to stay open, even if residents no longer want that amenity. Mayor Probst stated that the Council gave management the opportunity to come forward with an alternate plan. There is no alternate plan and no other way to solve this problem, except to keep the pool open. .