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 of the Vegetation Plan. Mr. <br /> Miller stated they would prefer to not disturb any areas prior to construction. The <br /> implementation will be consistent as units are constructed in the affected areas. <br /> Screening would apply to the whole property,the whole plan. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Mark Hallan,to approve the Final Plat, <br /> based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The applicant has complied with all of the conditions upon which preliminary <br /> approval is expressly conditioned. Specifically, in reference to the Conditional <br /> Use Permit approval of August 18, 2010,we find the following: <br /> a. Condition 1 not applicable to the final plat process. <br /> b. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan that is <br /> acceptable to the Planning Commission. <br /> c. Condition 3 not applicable to the final plat process. <br /> d. The City Attorney has indicated, in a May 9, 2011 letter addressed to <br /> Dawn Bittner, that he has reviewed the amended declarations and rental <br /> agreement and found them adequate. The Planning Commission has <br /> concurred with his finding. <br /> e. At the April 28, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning Commission indicated <br /> that the sewer plans need not be reviewed by the City Engineer as they <br /> have been prepared by a licensed engineer and are subject to MPCA <br /> oversight. <br /> f. The applicant has submitted a vegetation enhancement plan that is <br /> acceptable to the Planning Commission. <br /> g. Condition 7 not applicable to the final plat process. <br /> h. There are 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 />