CC 06-28-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1999 12 . with regard to tl1c two rear lots bcing hcld until the access situation is resolved, this must be rectified within 24 months. To him this meant that, if the situation is not rectificd witl1in24 months hc would have to walk away from the two lots and he was not willing to do this. He hoped tl1at the wording could be changed to say that, if the situation were not resolved within 20 months, he would have to come back to the City COill1Cil in order to strive tor a solution. Mr. Rekuski stated that hc has worked with the two neighbors for three weeks and has still not come to an agreement with them. He indicated that the neighbor to the east, Ms. Rushenburg, is very upset with tl1e City Council. He believes that the only way to ease her mind would be if the City Council spoke with her and explain that she would not be losing anything by allowing tl1e necdcd easement. It was his understanding that Ms. Rushenburg is concerned that, if she gives up the easement, she will be left with a non-conforming lot. Mayor Probst statcd tl1at if there were a request from Ms. Rushenburg to clarify what an easemcnt means, the City would certainly be willing to do tl1is. Mr. Rekuski stated tl1at he had spoken with staff and received clarification of easements. He had attempted to explain this to Ms. Rushenburg; however, she is still very uncomfortable. He suggested that he bring Ms. Rushenburg to the City staff in order for them to sit down and cxplain the situation to her. Mayor Probst stated that if Ms. Rushenburg has questions, the City staff would provide answers. . Mr. Fritsinger stated tl1at one issue from the staffs point of view was that, it is one thing for staff to answer questions with regard to Code requirements and expectations of the City. However, staff is trying to avoid having to negotiate what had become a part of Mr. Rekuski' s development process. Councilmember Malone stated that the condition for approval of the plat was correct as it appears in the minutes. The intent of the City Council was to find a way to approve tl1e plat and the problem was tl1at there were two westerly lots that, in order for them to actually be lots, they had to have public access. The easterly lots wcrc acceptable because they have public right-of- way access. The condition for approval was to allow two years to scttle the access issue. If, after the two years, the access situation were not resolved, the plat approval would become null. Mr. Rekuski statcd that the four lots could have access to Lexington A venuc at tl1is time. He had wantcd to eliminate this access due to the agreement with Mr. Bachman for access to the cul-de- sac. Councilmcmber Malone reiterated that the City COill1cil couldn't automatically approve a plat that includes two lots without access. . Mayor Probst stated that the City Council would not have approved the four lots if the current access situation were permanent. The Council has given approval for the four-lot configuration under tl1e assumption that the final platting process would be expedited. Thc two-year time trame was intended to cnsure action was taken to rcctify tl1e access situation. Mayor Probst stated that the minutes of the meeting were accurate. Mr. Rekuski stated that the City is asking for something hc has no control over. Councilmember Malone exprcssed his understanding of Mr. Rckuski's prcdicament. He pointed out, howcver, that the only alternative would have been to deny the plat.