My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8 Approval of January 17, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2019
>
02-21-2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
>
8 Approval of January 17, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2019 11:26:05 AM
Creation date
2/13/2019 11:26:03 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
stated Mr.Walberg brought up a good point;why screen his business from the roadway. <br /> The Comprehensive Plan references"up north character". If you drive through Baxter <br /> there are no trees,just shrubs and small trees. In Pequot Lakes there are mature trees, a <br /> different sort of feel, and that is the reason for the ordinance. <br /> Mr.Walberg stated to the north there are 2o acres of trees. Chair Hallan stated there <br /> are trees all the way to the Canadian border. Mr.Walberg stated he wasn't tiying to be <br /> smug,just pointing out there are trees in that area. Mr.Walberg's mechanic stated the <br /> log building is almost entirely blocked by trees. Chair Hallan stated they have not <br /> provided a survey to scale providing the coverage. Mr.Walberg's mechanic asked why <br /> the 50%screening was not included in the previous CLTP. Mr. Burslie stated the <br /> previous CUP required a landscape plan acceptable to the Planning Commission. The <br /> Planning Commission was to review it and make sure it met the 50%screening <br /> requirement. It may not have specifically stated 50%screening requirement in the CUP, <br /> but a landscape plan was required which would indicate screening. <br /> Planning Commission Member Wilson asked Mr. Burslie if the fence needed to be 10 <br /> feet from the property line. Mr. Burslie stated privacy fences can go 3 feet from the <br /> properry line to allow you to maintain the fence without going on the neighbor's <br /> property. The fence needs to be on Mr.Walberg's property and we would recommend 3 <br /> feet from the property line. Mr. Burslie further e�tplained that Staff indicated in the <br /> Staff Report that the fence begin in the southeast corner of applicant's property and <br /> continue west a distance of 20o feet creating a visua�buffer between the two commercial <br /> businesses. <br /> Planning Commission Member Birch stated he is confused by the fence. Mr.Walberg's <br /> mechan�c stated there is a neighbor clispute. Planning Commission Member Birch <br /> stated a fence would just block one car business from another car business. If fire access <br /> is to be from the DNR property, a fence may inhibit that. Chair Hallan stated there is a <br /> screening requirement and the fence was offered as an alternate to planting trees for <br /> screening. <br /> Planning Commission Member Paulbeck stated a fence is not an up north look; ,, <br /> screening by trees would be an up north look. <br /> Mr.Walberg's mechanic stated the area indicated by Mr. Burslie for the fence is not I� <br /> where they plan to place the fence. They only plan to put a fence from the back of the i <br /> front building to the front of the back building. , <br /> Planning Commission Member Birch stated if he is standing in the Crow Wing Auto � <br /> Body parlang lot,it is not an up north feel. It is an auto body business looldng at a car ' <br /> dealership. I <br /> MINUTES 5 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> January i�, 2oig , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.