Laserfiche WebLink
- Separation of the nodes in #6, <br /> - A scenario like#5 except north of CSAH ii <br /> d. Definition of Principle Structure,Building Standards <br /> Mr. Marohn presented the Staff Report. Discussion of building standards for principle <br /> structures,whether or not sewer and water,insulation,foundation, etc...would be required. <br /> It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to move forward with the amendment as <br /> proposed at the June meeting. <br /> e. Conservation Subdivision Amendments r , ' <br /> Mr. Marohn reviewed the Staff Report and the concerns of the City Cod W_ <br /> Mr.Woog asked Councilman Nagel to provide some feedback. , <br /> Mr. Nagel stated that he apologizes for not being as alert in past sessions ate die Planning <br /> Commission to bring up some questions. There are two or three different parts at the Council <br /> level. We have had some difficultly with the bypass,but have gone through that and are moving <br /> on. We have some citizens upset with police department and the economy is not doing well. <br /> This makes us rather careful as a Councnoo get too far ahead of people. We don't want to <br /> lose them. Judging from the events ova the 4bW of Adjustment where every business on <br /> Government Drive was rolled back to 2oo6,levels o-valuation, lots of businesses are not doing <br /> well. It is a tough time right now. The concefp is that.f pe le want to subdivide by metes and <br /> 14.1 bounds, going to conservation design as the'd6faiil',with a CUP for the conventional can be seen <br /> as a penalty for not doing things our way co truly the way we want to go on <br /> everything? Some citizens have asked with al- of room, why do we want to move everyone <br /> together on small lots. This may work well in the Transition zone,but there is still some question <br /> on whether this should be done this way in the resd�of the city. We may be a little ahead of the <br /> curve on this one. Not sure that it has to be the model that we use all of the time away from the <br /> City core. Councilman Nagel reiterated that being on the Council forces him to act politically, <br /> which means getting elected to represent the people of the community and be a conduit for <br /> concerns. Mr. Nagel is now not confident that making it the default is the will of the people <br /> today. Most people in Pequot are unaware of the concept. We need to educate the people. <br /> Discussion followed on the conservation design provisions. There were concerns that the lot <br /> sizes could be large was not clear. Also, consideration that there should be no fee for the CUP. <br /> Mr. Marohn was directed to write these clarifications for discussion by the Planning <br /> Commission in June. <br /> 8. Approval of Minutes <br /> a. April Minutes <br /> Question on paragraph three on page 17-Tom Adams believed that Mr. Smith said the building <br /> would not be staffed. (Staff verified that the building would not be staffed. Minutes will be <br /> resubmitted for approval at the June Planning Commission meeting.) <br /> Motion to table by Mark Hallan, seconded by Tom Adams. Motion passed unanimously. <br /> Minutes 4 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> May 15,2oo8 <br />