My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06 - Planning and Zoning Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2010
>
09-07-2010 Council Meeting
>
06 - Planning and Zoning Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 11:53:29 AM
Creation date
5/8/2014 11:52:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Page 5 (a), 6 -b, Mrs. Beaver suggested the Planning Commission may want to add to <br />`-' clearing, "trimming and limbing ", rather than just clearing. <br /># 13: Mrs. Beaver asked if the 22 unit number is still correct. Mr. Miller stated that <br />number is outdated. <br />#17: Mrs. Beaver questioned whether what was required was accomplished regarding the <br />second beach not being allowed. Chairman Woog asked Mr. Marohn if restoration has <br />been met. Mr. Marohn stated staff is satisfied that vegetation has been established and is <br />growing. It is new vegetation and will take time to mature. <br />Becky Hurst, 27557 Nature Drive: supports what Ann Beaver stated as it related to the <br />City overseeing the trimming or what is done with the vegetation. <br />Dick Rydell, has been part of the resort property for 26 years and years ago where that <br />second beach was, there were 3 trailers parked. What is there now is a huge <br />improvement. He doesn't understand why someone buying in there is held to a different <br />standard than someone buying a freestanding cabin on the lake. Mr. Marohn explained <br />that there is a difference. This property is being developed as a PUD and they are <br />allowed densities and number of structures and building beyond regular property owners. <br />There are different restrictions to clearing and vegetation removal. <br />Mr. Jaeger, 27567 Nature Drive: His concern is the 6 cabins in the back and asked if the <br />plan is for a big lodge up there. Mr. Miller stated that yes, that is the plan. Mr. Jaeger <br />stated he has no objection to the cabins 100 yards back from him, but he is concerned <br />with the commotion from the lodge and pool noise. The peace and tranquility will not be <br />there. Trees have been removed. He doesn't understand what trees will be taken down. <br />His objection is to what is being put where the 6 cabins are. This is not Breezy Point. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED. <br />Mr. Habein stated he doesn't think that the Planning Commission should be asked to <br />micromanage cutting of every tree. We should set standards for size, etc and leave it at <br />that. We can't go out each time they want to cut a tree. We need to set standards and <br />conditions and abide by those. <br />Mr. Pederson stated he heard positive input out at the site visit and one point is they are <br />not intending on whipping out everything. They are choosing areas, from the decks <br />looking out. He is in favor of assisting when one is done and then not having to go out <br />after that. There is a lot of vegetation and he likes the window area, maybe 30 feet in <br />front of the cabin. He is in favor of someone assisting on the first one, such as the DRT. <br />Ms. Brown is concerned with the limbing and is a real believer of natural vegetation from <br />the lake. Who decides what view is the best? Not everyone's view is the right view. She <br />is not comfortable to give a free pass to limb at their discretion. Who would enforce this? <br />Dead trees and limbs should come down. How do we come to a middle ground? <br />Minutes 3 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />July 19, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.