My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06 - Planning and Zoning Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2011
>
12-06-2011 Council Meeting
>
06 - Planning and Zoning Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2014 10:23:09 AM
Creation date
3/24/2014 10:19:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
When asked if the Planning Commission was to develop a plan, Council Member Sjoblad <br />`. stated that sooner or later we will need a plan; there may be some monies available to the <br />City for improvements after the turn back. <br />TH 371 may also be turned back to the City. It would first be turned back to the County <br />and then the County may turn it back to the City. If that were to take place, the excess <br />right -of -way could be given to the adjacent property owners. <br />There is no timeframe for plan development; the overlay will take place next summer. <br />The Planning Commission has time to develop plans. <br />OLD BUSINESS: <br />a. Building Code Enforcement, Tom Nelson — Fire Chief (continuation): <br />Mr. Nelson did not attend as he didn't have any additional information to submit. Staff <br />was directed to collect the information from surrounding communities as requested last <br />month. <br />A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by John Derksen, to table this item to next <br />month to collect the information. All members voted "aye ". Motion carried. <br />b. Non - conforming Structures Ordinance Language (continuation): <br />Mr. Marohn explained the loophole in our ordinance created by the Legislature and the <br />new statutory requirements. The suggested changes may need to be approved by the City <br />Attorney. <br />Mr. Hallan asked if there could be tiered provisions, different percentages of increase <br />based on the setbacks from the OHW. We could reward the property owner that is closer <br />to the setback rather than closer to the lake. It would need to be easy to understand. <br />Staff was directed to hold a public hearing next month. <br />c. Community Supported Agriculture (continuation): <br />Mr. Marohn explained the booklet had been included in packets as an economic <br />development tool. Local restaurants and food co -ops market the locally grown food <br />items. This was an item to discuss to make the Planning Commission aware of it. <br />d. Violation Letters, Discussion (continuation): <br />After discussion last month regarding the tone of the violation letters Staff prepared a <br />draft letter that had a softer tone for first time offenders. The draft letter was very generic <br />and the Planning Commission suggested language referring to the ordinance and to <br />include a timeframe. <br />e. Comprehensive Plan, Discussion: <br />Chairman Pederson stated the Comprehensive Plan had been tabled at the Council <br />meeting earlier in the spring and the Planning Commission was to look at it in the fall. <br />MINUTES 2 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />November 17, 2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.