Laserfiche WebLink
1. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. <br /> Specifically, <br /> a. The resort has developed an internal process for tracking and reporting on <br /> impervious coverage. This process is detailed in Section 7.12 of the <br /> Declarations. <br /> 2. The layout represented in the final plat is what was presented and approved in the <br /> preliminary plat. <br /> 3. The City Attorney has approved the title information. <br /> 4. The City Attorney has prepared and finalized the Developer's agreement. <br /> 5. An independent land surveyor has concurred that the fi 1 document meets the <br /> statutory requirements. <br /> 6. No financial security has been provided. The amo financial security will be <br /> identified within the development agreement, whey r d. <br /> and the following conditions: <br /> 1. Park dedication fee; <br /> 2. City Attorney has approved various d ; ;,ents; \ , <br /> 3. Road improvement must be completed b em 2007; <br /> 4. City Attorney agrees with City Engineer co ; <br /> 5. Include wording on access to, rivate road; and <br /> WHO <br /> 6. Change of Declarant name. <br /> Public Comment: None. <br /> Financial Security for „ �vements the indiv'��ual sewage treatment system <br /> were discussed. Th impro ents are pni e. Tim Houle, City Engineer, stated that <br /> the roads are not ilt to City stand ° , Tim Moore stated that Mr. Helbling <br /> cannot receive the licen lth Dep ment without the MPCA Certificate of <br /> Complian ce aste\' <br /> Park ication an d t ans bush the $17,740.80 was discussed. Ten percent of <br /> the p e would ha en$2 0.00. <br /> o® <br /> Mr. Hallan r ° j ted that t words"and others"be added on page 3, first paragraph, <br /> after Widseth Nolti <br /> ROLL CALL VOT 11"ayes". Motion carried. <br /> Mr. Williams requested to add a footnote that he is disappointed and perplexed sitting <br /> here on a Final Plat with so many loose ends and that it somehow needs to be tighter <br /> before it comes to the Planning Commission. Part of why he was perplexed is he doesn't <br /> know how you would tie the developer up, such as knowing the park dedication formula <br /> used, we have a Common Interest Community without the language we wanted in it, last <br /> minute emails by the City Attorney, City Engineer and how a condition of Preliminary <br /> Plat was missed. Also asked why the City Attorney drafted the Developer's Agreement <br /> and not the applicant's attorney. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes 2 <br /> April 19, 2007 <br />