My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11 - P&Z Admin Report
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2006
>
05-18-2006 Planning Commission Meeting
>
11 - P&Z Admin Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2016 11:13:17 AM
Creation date
6/16/2016 11:13:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
COMMUNITYGROWTH <br /> VIA E-mail I N S T I T U T E <br /> `' MEMORANDUM <br /> To: Dan Helbling, Project Proposer <br /> Jeff Miller, Widseth Smith Nolting <br /> From: Charles Marohn, Community Growth Institute <br /> Lisa Barajas, Community Growth Institute <br /> Date: May 8, 2006 <br /> Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for RV Resort Village at the Preserve <br /> City of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota <br /> We have reviewed the revised EAW that was submitted April 20 and have the following <br /> remarks: <br /> Question 8.The City of Pequot Lakes does not issue building permits. This permit should be referred <br /> to as a "Land Use Permit." There is no final plat or land use permit pending, and so these items <br /> should be list as 'To be applied for". Also, please clarify for us(by phone or email is adequate)why a <br /> Section 401 Certification is needed on this project. <br /> Question 18b. We appreciate the thorough explanation. In the seventh line, the phrase "first couple <br /> of years"would sound clearer if rewritten to say"initial operation". <br /> Question 21. In the second paragraph, Hurtig Road should be identified as a city road (not a <br /> township road). <br /> We are unclear what is being expressed in the third paragraph. Is the statement essentially that <br /> Mn/DOT has anticipated the growth, including this proposal, and that the traffic generated by this <br /> proposal thus falls within their parameters? While we are not going to argue with the conclusion that <br /> the Highway 371 project will accommodate this development, it is likely that the Planning <br /> Commission is going to want to see some feedback from Mn/DOT to that effect. Also, are there any <br /> temporary measures (i.e. temporary turn lanes) that Mn/DOT is going to require as part of this <br /> development? <br /> Regarding Hurtig Road, there needs to be some type of analysis as to whether or not the road is <br /> capable of handling the projected 2,746 trips (or what portion is projected to utilize that road). <br /> Question 27. Please replace what has been written with the following: <br /> "The proposed project falls under the land use jurisdiction of the City of Pequot Lakes. The City of <br /> Pequot Lakes adopted a comprehensive land use plan in 2004. This proposal is consistent with that <br /> plan in the following respects: <br /> INSERT COMP PLAN ANALYSIS <br /> 14084 Baxter Drive, Suite 7 <br /> Baxter, NIN 56425 <br /> (218) 828-3064 <br /> www.communitygrowth.com <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.