My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06 - Planning & Zoning Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2010
>
08-03-2010 Council Meeting
>
06 - Planning & Zoning Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2014 9:47:55 AM
Creation date
4/28/2014 9:47:21 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
`' Mr. Adams asked why the swimming pool and lodge have been moved to a new location. <br />Mr. Miller stated that with any resort, you drive into the lodge and check in. They always <br />thought they should have the lodge as you drive into the resort. Activities would be <br />centered in that area. The resort property will be used as a resort. Mr. Steffens stated it is <br />better to have that activity as you enter the resort. <br />Chairman Woog stated there had been a lot of discussion regarding the location of the <br />lodge and pool, especially for bathroom access from the beach and mooring slips. It was <br />important to have the lodge and pool in the center of the resort. The City's intent was to <br />keep this as a resort is more long -term sustainable when it exists in that area. It is now an <br />auto oriented location. It should be built now to maintain this as a resort. If something <br />happens, it may never be built. It needs to be viable as a resort. Moving it changes the <br />dynamic of the resort. <br />Mr. Steffens stated they plan to start construction of the amenities building. They need <br />an indoor facility, indoor pool and fitness room. This will move the resort to a new level. <br />Mr. Habein asked about fire protection. The pool was going to be the reservoir for fire <br />protection. Mr. Miller stated they will need to have an engineer design a hydrant down <br />by the lake. <br />Mr. Adams stated that they have taken the amenity to a place it is largely inconvenient <br />`•.- for the rest of the resort to use. He can't see how owners will see that as useful or <br />attractive. <br />Sue Moore, representing an individual property owner is concerned with cost. When <br />they build these buildings, who pays for them? Mr. Steffens stated there is a one time <br />assessment of $10,000. There have been no dues levied in 5 years. Ms. Moore asked <br />how many units have to be built before the amenities are constructed. Mr. Steffens stated <br />the covenants state 20 units built. Construction of pool building would trigger the <br />$10,000 payment. Their assessment won't increase. The carrying cost is covered and <br />will not be paid by individual owners. <br />Ms. Moore stated some units were sold as individual units; the resale of current units is <br />difficult and in jeopardy by construction of smaller units. This is a huge financial <br />consideration for individual unit owners. <br />Chairman Woog asked who decides where and when things get built. <br />Mr. Marohn stated the Association and Plat Documents need to be rewritten and they <br />become encumbrances as partial owners. Is there a mechanism allowing you to make this <br />amendment? Mr. Steffens stated all owners are in favor of the changes being made. A <br />twin lot could be purchased and a larger, single unit could be built. <br />Minutes 13 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />July 17, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.