Laserfiche WebLink
Council Proceedings <br />City of New Brighton ~„~ <br />Dec. 14, 1976 <br />David Jones, 1873 Stinson Blvd., stated he resided <br />adjacent to the access driveway. He questioned the <br />aesthetic appearance of the proposal noting it would <br />change the character of the neighborhood. He added <br />there were questions of grading on the property. He <br />further stated that he and other owners had been told there <br />would be no development on this parcel for 10 years. <br />He expressed concern about safety, noise and privacy <br />because of the location of the private driveway. <br />Dick Davis, 1912 Serendipity Court, stated that he <br />believed that if the Council in 1973 had the <br />information that the present Council has that that <br />Council would not have voted in the way it did. <br />Richard Beyer, 1982 Serendipity, questioned. how development <br />could be stopped on the property in that it was private property. <br />Larry Baker, 1940 Serendipity Court, stated that a majority <br />of Homes Association residents were in favor of PRD #21 <br />rather then PRD #18, primarily because of the access provided. <br />Bill Sweeney, .1911 Serendipity Court, stated that home <br />owners are split on the question adding that none wanted <br />townhouses. He stated the majority felt three homes were <br />better than 4 townhouses, and others felt that two homes were <br />better than three homes and others felt no development <br />was preferred. He stated that the rights of the property <br />owners must be protected. <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Senden to close hearing. Close <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried Hearing <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Senden to direct <br />administration to prepare a resolution making findings <br />of fact and denying PRD #21 such findings of fact to <br />include: <br />1. That PRD #21 was a revision to PRD #18; <br />2. Since PRD #21 is a revision to PRD #18 it is the <br />Council's responsibility to consider deficiencies <br />in PRD #18; <br />3. That the hearing process has evidenced problems of access <br />and surface water as to the subject property and <br />entire PRD; <br />4. That the character of lands and ponds in the common area are <br />amenities to the common area which would be disrupted by <br />the proposed development; <br />5. There is no showing that the proposed development is harmonious <br />with the earlier revisions to PRD #18; and no showing <br />of any compelling public benefit in approving the PRD <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carries <br />5 <br />