Laserfiche WebLink
Applicant requests a Metes and Bounds Subdivision <br /> Mr. Burslie explained the Staff Report. Applicant was represented by Tom Peterson. <br /> Chair Hallan stated he would like to make applicant aware that it will be more <br /> problematic to do anything with the multiple zones on Tract B. Tract C could have been <br /> modified to include the Commercial portion of Tract B. The legal description of Tract C <br /> has an error;the second to last line should read 493•21 feet, not 439•21 feet. <br /> Mr. Peterson stated he thought about including the Commercial portion of Tract B with <br /> Tract C. Mr. Burslie stated only one use will be allowed on Tract C. This should be <br /> platted. Mr. Burslie stated this application could be continued. Mr. Peterson stated he <br /> prefers to move ahead as proposed in the application. <br /> A motion was made by Planning Commission Member Wallin, seconded by <br /> Planning Commission Member Mortenson,to approve the metes and <br /> bounds subdivision,based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The subject property is currently zoned Rural Residential, Commercial and Forest <br /> Management. This application is contingent on the City Council approving the <br /> applicant's request to rezone this parcel to Rural Residential and Commercial. <br /> 2. The lot width of proposed"Tract A"meets the minimum standard of 20o feet. The <br /> lot width of the proposed "Tract B" meets the minimtun standard of 5o feet and <br /> 20o feet. The lot width of proposed"Tract C"meets the minimum standard of 50 <br /> feet. <br /> 3. The proposed "Tract A" meets the minimum area requirements of the Rural <br /> Residential zone. The proposed"Tract B"meets the minimum area requirements <br /> of the Rural Residential and Commercial zones. The proposed"Tract C"meets the <br /> minimum area requirements of the Commercial zone. <br /> 4. "Tract A" is vacant. The existing structure on "Tract B" meets all setback <br /> requirements. The existing structure on"Tract C"meets all setback requirements; <br /> the shed encroaching the lot line belongs to the property owner to the north. <br /> 5. The subject property is not adjacent to the municipal water and wastewater <br /> utilities. <br /> 6. 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 /> �. The applicant is not proposing any provisions for water-based recreation. <br /> 8. The proposed lot layout meets the requirements of the ordinance. <br /> 9. The proposed side lot lines are at right angles to the adjacent property lines. <br /> io.Each of the proposed parcels has at least 33-feet of frontage on either Hurtig Road, <br /> County Road i68 or Peterson Path. <br /> i1. The subject property meets the requirements of the code for stromwater <br /> management. <br /> i2. There are no public streets proposed within the development. <br /> Minutes 9 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> February i5, 2018 <br />