My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9A - Minutes 081910
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010
>
09-16-2010 Planning Commission Meeting
>
9A - Minutes 081910
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2016 2:53:57 PM
Creation date
5/13/2016 2:53:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Plat approval accepting submittals. There should be an interim step where everyone is <br /> comfortable with the submittals. <br /> Mr. Marohn further stated it locks the Planning Commission into approving the Final Plat <br /> so long as it meets the conditions of Preliminary Plat approval. The only condition is the <br /> conditions of the Conditional Use Permit being implemented before Final Plat. <br /> Mr. Adams asked when the pool was going to be built. Mr. Marohn stated that was part <br /> of the Conditional Use Permit discussion. The CUP sets up the operation of the resort <br /> and the Preliminary Plat is giving you a layout of where the lots are physically located. <br /> By approving the CUP you have already approved the concept,the basic layout, <br /> amenities, etc. Final Plat is approving the details. <br /> Ann Beaver stated that the big issue is about where the amenities are located. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated there are going to be modifications to this; the tennis courts cannot be <br /> built where it is indicated. Mr. Marohn stated the Final Plat agrees with the layout of <br /> Preliminary Plat layout with any agreed upon changes. Technically, if we approve <br /> Preliminary Plat,they have a right to finalize what we approved as Preliminary Plat. We <br /> can agree to changes but we are not obligated to. <br /> Mr. Miller stated the Lodge is not big enough to be sprinkled. There are two scenarios <br /> for fire protection;they may put a hydrant in but if they can't do that with the total water <br /> system the alternative would be a dry hydrant in the lake. <br /> Mr. Adams asked Mr. Steffens if they plan to build the lodge and pool this fall. Mr. <br /> Steffens stated they plan to build the amenities building this fall. <br /> A motion was made by TomAdams, seconded by Mark Hallan,to reconsider the <br /> Conditional Use Permit just approved. The reason to reconsider is to add a condition that <br /> developer would build pool and lodge buildings within the next 12 months. <br /> Mr. Steffens stated that they are not building the lodge in the next 12 months. They are <br /> attempting to build the amenities building to start this fall but they are running out of <br /> time. They have meetings with the MPCA,the declarations documents have to be redone <br /> and meet with the association. He desperately wants to get the amenities building done, <br /> but why does it have to hinge on 12 months? Mr. Adams stated that last month applicant <br /> stated the first building was going to be the pool, an important amenity for future <br /> purchasers. It is important that the amenities buildings are built and for this to stay a <br /> resort. Mr. Steffens stated it will remain a resort. He is concerned with tying something <br /> to timing; he hopes to meet the deadline and will make every effort to meet it. There are <br /> a number of things that need to take place this fall and he doesn't know if he can make it <br /> happen. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated if they build 60 units with no lodge, it is not a resort. It is necessary to <br /> tie the amenities building to number of permits pulled. <br /> Minutes 10 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> August 19, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.