Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />City of New Brighton <br />September 27, 1983 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />The applicant was present to answer questions and stated <br />that the original opposition to the project was when it <br />was proposed as a duplex. <br /> <br />Councilmember Benke stated that he felt this was an ideal <br />solution to the problem of that parcel, and that in his <br />opinion this was an excellent development and commended the <br />applicant for it. <br /> <br />Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Benke to waive the reading <br />and adopt a RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING <br />SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP-114 <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes - motion carried <br /> <br />The City Planner reviewed the staff report regarding <br />a request by Gordon Hedlund for a special use permit <br />to fill in a floodway district. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schmidt questioned if the applicant had <br />indicated to the Planning Commission why he would not <br />meet the conditions in the Resolution? <br /> <br />The City Planner responded that he had, and <br />he would need too m~ch fill to make access to the parking <br />pad off the driveway. <br /> <br />Councilmember Blomquist questioned if the Resolution before <br />the Council was the one denied by the Planning Commission? <br /> <br />The City Planner responded that it was. <br /> <br />Councilmember Benke questioned whether the Planning <br />Commission would have recommended approval of the <br />Resolution if the applicant had agreed to those condi- <br />tions. <br /> <br />The City Planner responded that they would have recommended <br />approval. <br /> <br />Request to Fill <br />In Floodway <br />District-Report <br />#83-254 <br />RESOL.#83-1l5 <br /> <br />Gordon Hedlund, applicant, stated the existing driveway <br />was very steep and that the property had an existing <br />driveway on a dedicated street; he felt that the <br />proposed parking pad would not create any additional <br />traffic but would only provide more parking. He further stated Ramsey <br />County had been out to inspect tne property and that <br />their major concern was that of drainage. He also indicated <br />that the Rice Creek Watershed had no problems with it, and that <br />he felt this was a minor request for an improvement to his <br />property. <br />