Laserfiche WebLink
� s <br /> -3- <br /> The Chairman Pro Tem outlined the procedure -to be followed for public <br /> input to Mrs. Marland Johnson., . the only other -,person present , telling <br /> her that although the proponent was not present, he believed his <br /> variance request had been adequately presented by staff. Mrs. John- <br /> son told the Commission members she lives directly behind the town- <br /> house project at 4008 Penrod Lane and hoped granting the variance would <br /> assure. that the existing path in front of the property along Silver <br /> Lake Road would be retained as a walkway forthe many pedestrians who <br /> use it. now to reach Apache. She would favor sidewalks for pedestrian <br /> safety in the area. <br /> Mr. Jones told her Ramsey. County holds 5 feet of open space in front <br /> of the Johnson property and he wondered if sidewalks could not be <br /> requested as a condition for granting the variance. Mr. . Bjorklund <br /> indicated he believes the City can attach- any condition it deems <br /> necessary to a .variance and the installation costs could be assessed <br /> to the property owners. <br /> At this point, Mr. Bowerman stated he believed "The Commission is <br /> becoming too lax regarding the requirement that petitioners should <br /> appear in person to present their requests" , citing Mr. Johnson' s <br /> absence and that .of Craig -Morris- the previous month when non-conformance <br /> with his development plans was discussed. The Commission member <br /> contended that "a valid public hearing cannot be held without the <br /> applicant for the variance being present to answer questions from <br /> Commission members and. the public regarding his petition" . <br /> At 8: 10 , Mr. Jones closed the .public hearing for. Commission action. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund stated he would like to see the easement returned to the <br /> private domain which will assure it can 't be used later by the county. <br /> He was not pleased to have to consider a variance for this proposal <br /> after the neighbors, many of whom have been actively involved in this <br /> property ' s development, had been promised- there would be no variances <br /> necessary. <br /> Mr. Peterson agreed with Mr. Bowerman that the matter should probably <br /> be tabled until the developer appears to justify the variance. <br /> Mr. Enrooth concurred saying he doesn' t believe an educated judgement <br /> can be made at a public hearing where the petitioner is not present. <br /> Mr. Johnson had indicated to him that he would be present for the <br /> hearing, Mr. Berg reported. <br /> Mr. Sopcinski was in. agreement that the .developer should be present so <br /> a record can be. made of his response to questions and recommendations <br /> related to his request, but the Commission member did not see the <br /> sidewalks as an issue, but rather, theproblem with the ten foot <br /> easement which creates a non-conforming density for the site. <br /> Mrs. Makowske: believed it was unfortunate Mr. Johnson was not present <br /> and agreed the Commission should probably table the request until <br /> he could present his application personally. <br /> Although he agrees it would probably be advantageous to the City to <br /> have the county retain the easement so signage , etc. , could be con- <br /> trolled, Mr. Jones sees it as "imperative to get sidewalks installed <br /> with the Johnson project because once the Hedlund tract is fully <br />