Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(). >" <br />.'....."".',.'" <br />. 61 ,:" .:.~ <br />"':4Jt2::J,,,~ <br />, t ~1:;3 /?i:w 1" r <br />with regard to the two rear lots being held until the access situation is resolved, this must be ~q'" ~ <br />rectified within 24 months. To him this meant that, if the situation is not rectified within 24 . <br />months he would have to walk away from the two lots and he was not willing to do this, He <br />hoped that the wording could be changed to say that, if the situation were not resolved within 20 <br />months, he would have to come back to the City Council in order to strive for a solution. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28,1999 <br /> <br />Mr. Rekuski stated that he has worked with the two neighbors for three weeks and has still not <br />come to an agreement with them. He indicated that the neighbor to the east, Ms. Rushenburg, is <br />very upset with the City Council. He believes that the only way to ease her mind would be if the <br />City Council spoke with her and explain that she would not be losing anything by allowing the <br />needed easement, It was his understanding that Ms. Rushenburg is concerned that, if she gives <br />up the easement, she will be left with a non-conforming lot <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that if there were a request from Ms, Rushenburg to clarify what an <br />easement means, the City would certainly be willing to do this. Mr. Rekuski stated that he had <br />spoken with staff and received clarification of easements. He had attempted to explain this to <br />Ms. Rushenburg; however, she is still very uncomfortable. He suggested that he bring Ms. <br />Rushenburg to the City staff in order for them to sit down and explain the situation to her. <br />Mayor Probst stated that if Ms. Rushenburg has questions, the City staff would provide answers, <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger stated that one issue from the staff's point of view was that, it is one thing for staff <br />to answer questions with regard to Code requirements and expectations of the City. However, <br />staff is trying to avoid having to negotiate what had become a part of Mr. Rekuski' s development . <br />process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated that the condition for approval of the plat was correct as it <br />appears in the minutes. The intent of the City Council was to find a way to approve the plat and <br />the problem was that there were two westerly lots that, in order for them to actually be lots, they <br />had to have public access. The easterly lots were acceptable because they have public right-of- <br />way access. The condition for approval was to allow two years to settle the access issue. If, after <br />the two years, the access situation were not resolved, the plat approval would become null. <br /> <br />Mr. Rekuski stated that the four lots could have access to Lexington Avenue at this time. He had <br />wanted to eliminate this access due to the agreement with Mr. Bachman for access to the cul-de- <br />sac. Councilmember Malone reiterated that the City Council couldn't automatically approve a <br />plat that includes two lots without access. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that the City Council would not have approved the four lots if the current <br />access situation were permanent The Council has given approval for the four-lot configuration <br />under the assumption that the final platting process would be expedited. The two-year time <br />frame was intended to ensure action was taken to rectify the access situation. Mayor Probst <br />stated that the minutes of the meeting were accurate. Mr, Rekuski stated that the City is asking <br />for something he has no control over. Councilmember Malone expressed his understanding of <br />Mr. Rekuski's predicament He pointed out, however, that the only alternative would have been . <br />to deny the plat <br />