CC 10-10-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NlkJTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNGIL MEETING ~~J ... ~ " ~-l ~ \;-.~ """~ OJ',' r:' 'ir::: .r r Monday, October 10, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hallii,;,;,C n-:L:'_,::;s no, \.:[;,;i1",'.o;.,',(".." ,.., Co ,- / ..,. 10 ~'C; j'N Te-f;'!i~n(;e on Iv. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL The roil being called the following members were present: Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Gary Peck, Thomas . Sather and Jeanne Winiecki. Absent: Councilmember Nancy Hansen. Also present: Planner John Bergly, Public Works Supervisor Robert Raddatz, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Peck moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Council approve the minutes of the September 26, 1988 Regular Council Meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) BUSINESS FROM FLOOR None. CASE #88-09; FINAL Council was referred to Planner Bergly's report of PLAT, VALENTINE 10-5-88 relative to the Final Plat, Valentine Hills #2, HILLS #2, DNISTRAN submitted by applicant David Dnistran. Bergly explained the final plat is identical to the preliminary plat approved by the Council on 6-13-88. He referred Council to the topography map which shows existing grading on the site and identifies by use of a green line the 902.4 contour that is the 100 year flood elevation and shows the area as an easement. Bergly reviewed "Restricted Convenant" document which prohibits homeowners from further construction or fill in the restricted area identified on the map. . The Planner advised the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the final plat at their meeting held 10-5-88, subject to the Attorney's review and approval of the restrictive convenant document and title information and applicant's execution and recording of the final plat within 60 days after the date of Council approval. He noted the Engineer had submitted a letter dated 10-4-88 approving the grading plan and restricted convenant areas. Bergly explained the Commission had expressed concerns relative to the language in the "Restricted Convenant" document and requested the Attorney address the following concerns: 1. Item 4, page 2: Relates to permitted filling on the lots; the last sentence states "...such filling shall be limited to the non-restricted area of the lot." Commission suggested filling shQuld alsQ be subject to standard City Zoning CQde regulations regarding fill and excavation. 2, Item 6, page 3: Relates tQ covenants prQviding benefits tQ each other lot within the subdivision. Commission suggested a clause could be added tQ include Qther lots that may be affected by the wetland. 3. Item 8, page 3: Relates tQ limited enforcement by injunctive remedy. Commission was of the opiniQn there may be other remedies which would be applicable and shQuld not be limited to injunctive remedies. . 4. Item 9, page 3: Relates to liability Qf fee Qwners. CommissiQn questioned whether the liability of actions of previous Qwners shQuld cease when the lQt is sold; the liability does not transfer from owner to Qwner but remains with the land. Bergly stated the CQmmission requested the Village Attorney review these fQur items particularly and work with the developer's attorney to draft language which addresses the concerns. Council questioned if the CommissiQn requested the dQcument be returned to them after the AttQrney's review; Bergly advised it was his opiniQn the CommissiQn did nQt want the document returned to them only to have the Attorney review their concerns~ Council discussed reviewing the restrictive document at a future meeting in the event the Village Attorney and developer's attorney cannQt agree on the language changes related to Planning CommissiQn items of concern. t