Laserfiche WebLink
Public comment: None. <br />A motion was made by Planning Commission Member Oraskovich, seconded by <br />Planning Commission Member Snyder, to recommend the City Council approve <br />the Rezone request, based on the following fifteen Findings of Fact: <br />1. The applicant is proposing to rezone 12.56 acres of a 37.56 acre tract from <br />"Agriculture" to "Forest Management." <br />2. The subject property does not contain any natural se��itive areas. <br />The sub ect ro e is rivatel owned. The �o��e owner has not <br />3• J P P r"�3' � P Y p,,.�`,.. �' <br />indicated any plans for future development. <br />4. The subject property is not within the Shor��nd Area and no Shoreland <br />soil types have been identified. `��. <br />�!�; . • ''�,, <br />5. The only lowland on the subject prope !, ,;1�;�.,n the lower southeast corner. <br />The remaining area appears to be bui�d�le. <br />6. The vegetative cover of the subject property con,sists of trees an�,;grasses. <br />�. The subject property is not adjacent fio a pu�1i� water bod� "In-water <br />physical characteristics" and recreational t�s�e of surface water do not <br />apply. <br />8. The subject property has l,050 >feet of frontage adjacent to County Road <br />112. <br />9. The proposed rezoning does nc�t increase the sociQ=economic development <br />needs of the public. ;,, <br />lo. The public sewer and water utilit:�e"s are not;�vailable in the vicinity of the <br />subject property. There are no p��ns to e�end the public utilities to the <br />area f the subject propei�ty. ' <br />; ,, <br />ii. The subject property;aa�s,�ot conta(��i any known significan� historical or <br />ecolo��cal value. � % ' ;� �� <br />��; ,.i i ,,� <br />12. T�i,�''��plicant wishes split the "subject property into two tracts. The <br />"southern tract must be r�zo�ed to "Forest Management" so it meets the <br />,,, <br />�"��� �total lot area" requireme��of the Ordinance. <br />�3. 7`he, ;subject property is surrounded by "Rural Residential," "Forest <br />Manage�nent," and other properties zoned "Agriculture." The proposed <br />reclassi�i�ation is �`ot considered "spot zoning." <br />14. The propased xe�oning is in conformance with the City of Pequot Lakes <br />Comprehen��i�e Plan. The proposed zone will require the subject property <br />to remain in large tracts, preserving the rural character in this part of the <br />City. <br />15. The future land use map identifies the subject property as "Agriculture." <br />Rezoning a portion of the subject property to "Forest Management" is <br />compatible with that classification and with the future land use map. <br />All members voted "aye". Motion carried. <br />MINUTES <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />April 18, 2013 <br />5 <br />