Laserfiche WebLink
be disturbed. For any new units to be built,site lines and setbacks will be monitored by <br /> Staff and Planning Commission. Mr. Reichenbach stated that trees had been cut down in <br /> the Shore Impact Zone previously and he thought this would be a good time to have them <br /> replaced. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED. <br /> Mr. Hallan pointed out the City Attorney stated Section 12.8 of the Declaration referring <br /> to dockage should be reviewed. This has been discussed at length and Mr. Miller stated <br /> there have been no changes. <br /> Mr. Adams asked what the timeline was for implementation ofthe Vegetation Plan. Mr. <br /> Miller stated they would prefer to not disturb any areas prior to c6ustruction. The <br /> implementation will be consistent as units are constructed in the affected areas. <br /> Screening would apply to the whole property,the w <br /> Ad <br /> `plan. <br /> JOIN <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded % ark Flan,to approve', Final Plat, <br /> based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The applicant has complied with all of the co "ns upon which preliminary <br /> approval is expressly conditioned. Specifically, ` erence to the Conditional <br /> Use Permit approval of August 18,.2010,we find `« , lotiving: <br /> a. Condition 1 not applicable <br /> "I"Aie nal plat pro <br /> b. The applicant has submitted atbnwateriianagement plan that is <br /> acceptable, e Planning Commission.',"' <br /> c. Condithg plicable t6'. e final plat process. <br /> d. The Atto e has indicated, in a May 9, 2011 letter addressed to <br /> Da�� er, th he has reviewed the amended declarations and rental <br /> agreemeri em tdequate. The Planning Commission has <br /> ed sfin <br /> pp�o�e At `" r'12 ; 1 regular meeting,the Planning Commission indicated <br /> that th ply ` d not be reviewed by the City Engineer as they <br /> � a have been eparect �y a licensed engineer and are subject to MPCA <br /> oversight. <br /> ff k <br /> f, applic has submitted a vegetation enhancement plan that is <br /> a' table f"the Planning Commission. <br /> g. Con not applicable to the final plat process. <br /> h. There e no changes to the Association documents previously approved <br /> by the City. <br /> i. The City has received a copy of the applicants NPDES permit application. <br /> j. Conditions 10 through 19 are not applicable to the final plat process. <br /> 2. The final plat agrees with the approved preliminary plat. There are no changes to <br /> the layout, design, density or general configuration from the preliminary plat. <br /> 3. The City Attorney has indicated, in a May 9, 2011 letter addressed to Dawn <br /> Bittner,that all parties with an interest in the property are properly represented in <br /> the final plat'documents. <br /> MINUTES 2 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> May 19, 2011 <br />