10-05-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88 Page 2 CASE #88-09 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly stated the final plat is in conformance with the original preliminary plat, it meets all of the area, width and depth requirements and no variances are required. He advised that • a recommendation for approval should include the conditions as listed in the Planner's report, page 2, under "conclusions". Member Martin questioned Item 8, page 3 of the Restrictive Covenant document, as it relates to limited enforcement by injunctive remedy rather than typical restrictions which also allow other damages and other remedies. He asked if there was a particular reason why it was done in this manner; suggested the Attorney review this item. Martin expressed concern that Item 8 coupled with Item 9, same page, which states all liability ceases when the property is sold by an individual fee owner; he stated this may be a "cut-off" where the developer or subsequent owners could encroach on it, in the event the property is sold the next owner would be forced to fix the problem and would not have recourse against the previous owner who created the problem. Martin stated the City would have the same problem and could not take action against the person who actually violated the covenant they could only take action against the land. He advised this is unusual and he has never seen it done in this manner. Martin explained that if someone encroaches on the restricted area and causes flooding that significantly damages other properties, the owners may want the right to pursue other remedies. Bergly advised the applicant's legal counsel has been in contact with Attorney Lynden; the Planner has not discussed the document with Lynden Chairman Curtis explained the City Attorney will review the minutes and could address Martin's concerns; he also noted a recommendation for approval would be • conditioned upon the City Attorney reviewing and approving the document. Member Malone expressed concern relative to Item 6, page 3; it states the covenants provide benefit to each other lot with Block 1, Valentine Hills #2; he questioned if these benefits should extend beyond that property. He questioned if a property owner beyond this area were damaged would they come to the City for remedy, as the City has the right to enforce the restrictive covenants. Malone suggested the Attorney review this item. Malone also questioned Item 4, page 2; which discusses the right to construct a retaining wall within the non-restricted area of the lot so to allow the owner to fill upon the lot. Malone commented there are other City restrictions regarding filling on property and suggested additional language be added to the paragraph such as ". . .subject to the usual City provisions concerning fill and excavation on property." Petersen moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-09, Final Plat of Valentine Hills No. 2, as submitted by the applicant and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Village Attorney's review and approval of the title information and restrictive covenants. 2. The applicant's execution of the plat and recording with Ramsey County within 60 days after the date of final Council approval. • Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) CASE #88-30; SKETCH Commission was referred to the Planner's report of 10-5-88 PLANS, WINIECKI relative to two sketch plans for development of the PROP. , C. COOK Winiecki property located on Old Highway 10.