My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06.01 - Planning Commission Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2015
>
05-05-2015 Council Meeting
>
06.01 - Planning Commission Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2015 3:44:35 PM
Creation date
4/29/2015 3:44:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
a. Blaine Jones Lot Consolidation <br /> Mr. Burslie explained the Staff Report. The ordinance requires lots to be consolidated to <br /> become conforming. Mr. Jones was present. <br /> Mr. Jones stated he is concerned with the tax increase. The County is not requiring the <br /> consolidation. He is not incompliance with his Variance approval until the <br /> consolidation takes place. He further stated he is not in favor of paying an additional <br /> $104 in taxes. They are 50 foot lots and one lot can't be built on because of the <br /> topography. When asked, he stated that the new dwelling was built on the same <br /> footprint; one corner of the building is over the lot line (of Lots 1 and 2). <br /> Planning Commission Member Hallan stated the lots are nonconforming lots. The <br /> Planning Commission's actions were typical; a Variance was requested and as a <br /> condition consolidating the 2 lots made the lot conforming. The 3 lots are being used <br /> as ge, ��� i i *perty. i /i l'/ 1�/�' � , a <br /> Mr nes states `Lot 1 not buir(lable and he will lose the $74900 benefit. Planning <br /> Commission Member Ha lan stated the dwelling s on Lots 1 and 2 and should <br /> m.�0 one lot. <br /> Chal Seils asked any a Planning Commission f Iemb ff Fe ' made a 'wrong <br /> deb on at the time of the Variance. It wasthe consensus of e Planning Commission <br /> th. ' ey were not in favor of changing the son Made d o ®g the Variance i�'ring. <br /> /; <br /> It ; ' the correct decision since dw- ht g sits on both lots. <br /> Th il i ease is $24. 7/' <br /> Mr. Jones asked why the consolidation is necessary if it doesn't make any difference to <br /> the County. Mr. Burslie explained the City has the zoning authority and the Shoreland <br /> Rules require consolidation to make the lots conforming. <br /> Mr. Jones stated he will consolidate Lots 1 and 2. This should be the last condition of <br /> the Variance approval. <br /> b. Extractive Use Ordinance — Discussion <br /> Mr. Burslie explained the Staff Report. Anderson Brothers stated our ordinance was a <br /> little vague and provided information for improvements. The language in red was added <br /> to our ordinance requiring a better survey and additional maps. If the Planning <br /> Commission agrees with the changes,we can provide an ordinance amendment. <br /> Planning Commission Member Wilson stated the haul road conditions were discussed at <br /> the public hearing; we should add language regarding the haul road conditions. <br /> MINUTES 3 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> April 16,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.