Agenda - Council - 05/26/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

10 Minutes CASE #4: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL OF PINEVIEW ESTATES SECOND ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPT ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM I-1 INDUSTRIAL TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; CASE OF MR. GILBERT MENKVELD AND MR. ART RAUDIO By: Anne Norris, Community Development Director Background: Mr. Gilbert Menkveld is proposing a planned unit developmerlt consisting of ten lots to be located on the south side of 149th Avenue NW west of County Road ~56. The lots are proposed to be approximately 2-1/2 acres each. Mr. Menkveld is proposing that the northern portion of the lots would be used for residential development and the southern portion of the lots would be used for commercial and industrial uses by the adjacent residents, specifically for home occupations. The southern portion of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed PUD are located in a protected wetland. Enclosed are the following items for your information: a) Site location map b) Proposed preliminary plat c) Proposed grading plan d> Proposed covenant s e) Letter from City Engineer Raatikka dated April 16, 1987 f) Letter from Mr. John Stine, DNR, dated April 23, 1987 Observations: The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this request and covenants over several meetings. At its meeting on April 23, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission reoom~,~ended approval of the preliminary development plan for the PUD. As you recall, the Council directed Mr. Art Raudio, representing Mr. Menkveld, to obtain expert assistance in drafting a planned unit development plan, including the site plan and restrictive covenants for the PUD. Section 170.016K of the City Code outlines the following criteria to be considered when reviewing planned unit development proposals: 1) That the proposal allows for a wider range of housing than permitted under existiog zoning; 2) That the proposal provides amenities and facilities greater than minimum requirements under existing zoning; 3) That the proposal is compatible with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; 4) That the proposal provides for public or private open space; ~ 5) That the proposal will not have a substantial detrimental influence on surrounding market values; 6) That the proposal will have a favorable economic impact on the community; 7) That the proposal will not have a detrimental influence on the environment; 8) That the proposal will not place an undue burden on public services; 9) That the proposed development forms a desirable and unified environment; 10) That the proposal is consistent with all other applicable regulations.