04/23/87 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Refer to page 4 for further action. Case #5: Request For Prelimimary Development Plan R~¥i~w FO~ A Planned Umit Development: Case Of Mr. Gilbert Menk¥~ld: Mr. Gilbert Menkveld and Mr. Art Raudio were present proposing a planned unit development consisting of 10 lots to be located on the south side of 149th Avenue N.W., west of Cry. Rd. #56. It is proposed that the northern portion of the lots would be used for residential development and the southern portion would be used for commercial or industrial uses. Ms. Norris stated that John Stine of DNR has reviewed the proposed development and commented that the wetland south of Lots 4-8 is protected; the drainage easement should be revised to include all areas with elevations less than 867.5; it is recommended that Lots 9 and 10 be combined to create one lot due to elevation of proposed Lot 10 (any filling of Lot 10 would be through wetland which is not permitted); wetland areas may not be filled for driveway access; and basement elevations hould take into account high water table fluctuations. Mr. Raudio disagreed with some of Mr. Stine's comments, especially the need to combine Lots 9 and 10. Mr. Raudio stated that the grading plans reflect that the development will meet 100 year flood requirements and actually increase the area's drainage capacity. The Commission noted that Mr. Stine's comments are not demands but rather comments for consideration. The Commission agreed and Ms. Norris confirmed that the wetland on Lot 10 is not so designated and protected. The Commission proceeded to review the proposed covenants. The Commission had no problem with the covenants as proposed and noted that it is impossible to anticipate every type of situation that may arise and therefore the covenants may require amending in the future. Chairman Peterson inquired if there is a need for the city to have some control over the covenants as it appears only the property owners have the initiative to amend the covenants and city ordinances may become more restrictive in the future. Ms. Norris noted that the most restrictive ordinances always apply. Chairman Peterson requested that the City Attorney determine if language is necessary in the covenants that would reflect that most restrictive, be it covenants or city ordinance, would apply. In the event the covenants is more restrictive than the city ordinances, the landowners are responsible for that enforcement that exceeds the city code. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that he sees no language in the covenants that guarantees the covenants will be enforced; this leaves the option for the property owners to unify and ignore the restrictions. It should also be made very clear that the zoning is such that half of the parcel shall be developed as residential to prevent property owners from developing their Planning & Zoning/April 23, 1987 Page 3 of 6