Laserfiche WebLink
Staff was directed to draft guidelines for the Park Board, commercial vs. residential and <br /> `-- to set minimum and maximum amounts,with considerations. They should consider what <br /> was done in the past, giving weight to Open Space. <br /> Mr. Pederson stated he would be happy with a Fee of$500.00 per lot. <br /> A motion was made by Dean Williams, seconded by Mark Hallan,to set the Park <br /> Dedication Fee at$1,000.00 per lot, for 15 lots. All members voted"aye". Motion <br /> carried. <br /> Mr. Pederson stated he will appeal this decision to the City Co <br /> APPLICANT: City of Pequot Lakes <br /> Applicants requests to Rezone from Residential ura Reside Paul and <br /> Debra DeWolfe,property owners, Parcel No. 263401DB0009 a ' nald and <br /> Rita Stangler,property owners, Parcel No 63401GAA009. <br /> Property owners were not present. Mr. Marohn exp the Staff Report. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, ed by Bill Ha e to recommend the City <br /> Council rezone these parcels to Rural 1 based on owing Findings of <br /> Fact: <br /> 1. The rezoning t e Residen is not e rely consistent with the City's <br /> Comprehens Plan uture Lan se Map, which designates these properties <br /> as Shoreli 1 identi near the sh ine with East Twin Lake and Rural <br /> Residential in off--1 <br /> 2. Rez oral Ra ent `� ' e consistent with the City's Comprehensive <br /> P, an an Map as the map designates the majority of this area as <br /> ural Residen <br /> Shoreline R\\ nhal treline is compatible with the zoning of the surrounding <br /> \\ which are ned Residential alon East Twin Lake and Rural <br /> p g <br /> Resi 1 to the e " of County Road 107. <br /> 4. Rezoni ,a Shore, Residential does not meet the compatibility requirement of <br /> being adja y \the Water Resource zone as neither of these properties is <br /> adjacent to t Twin Lake. The DeWolfe property (290263401DB0009) is <br /> approximately 40 feet from East Twin Lake at the closest point, while the <br /> Stangler property is more than 500 feet from the lake. <br /> 5. Rezoning the two properties to Rural Residential would not be consistent with the <br /> previous zoning classification of Residential, as the minimum lot size and <br /> dimension standards would increase. <br /> 6. The properties do not meet the minimum lot size of five acres for the Rural <br /> Residential district, being 3.6 and 1.4 acres each. These lots would be considered <br /> non-conforming under this zoning classification. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes 4 <br /> January 18, 2007 <br />