Laserfiche WebLink
2. <br />Both of the proposed properties have more than 6,250 square feet of buildable <br />area. Neither Tract A nor Tract B would be constrained from future development. <br />3. <br />Tract "A" contains two non - conforming structures. One of the non - conforming <br />structures crosses the eastern property line and is approximately 3.26' into the <br />public right -of -way. The other non - conforming accessory structure is <br />approximately 6.62' from the south property line, while typically 10' is required. <br />4. <br />Tract `B" contains a non - conforming accessory structure which is approximately <br />4.96 from the side property line while typically 10' is required. It also contains a <br />conforming dwelling. <br />5. <br />Tract "A" has approximately 13% impervious surface coverage while Tract `B" <br />has approximately 29% impervious surface coverage. :Both are below the 40% <br />maximum. <br />6. <br />The property is suitable in its natural state for the intended purpose and this lot <br />split would not be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents or of <br />the community. <br />7. <br />The subject property is currently served by the municipal water and sewer system. <br />Tract "A" is adjacent to the public sewer and water system. It may be connected <br />to the systems in the future. <br />8. <br />The applicant is not proposing any provisions for water -based recreation. <br />9. <br />Both tracts will conform to the minimum requirements of the Urban Residential <br />Zone. <br />10. Lot layouts are compatible with the existing layout of adjoining properties. <br />11. Both Tract A and Tract B meet the minimum frontage on public right -of -way <br />requirement of 33 feet, <br />I,%.- subject to the following condition: <br />1. The accessory structure encroaching into the public right -of -way on Tract "A ", <br />shall be removed. <br />All members voted "aye' Motion carried. <br />b. Building Code Enforcement, Tom Nelson — Fire Chief <br />Tom Nelson, Fire Chief, was present. He explained he hopes to persuade the City to <br />adopt the Building Code again. He feels the City needs something for public safety, the <br />citizens and the firemen. <br />The State of Minnesota follows the International Building Code and all contractors are <br />required to build to that Code. Cities of more than 5,000 populations are required to <br />administer the Code. The entire Code would need to be enforced, not just certain parts. <br />Breezy Point administers the Code. Cities may contract with an individual or a company. <br />There would be a fee structure. Municipalities with the Building Code have a higher <br />value; there are higher interest rates and less growth without it. <br />Vice -Chair Adams suggested the following: <br />1. Have the Fire Chief look over commercial plans; or <br />Minutes 2 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />September 15, 2011 <br />