Laserfiche WebLink
6. The property is suitable in its natural state for the intended purpose and this <br />lot split would not be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future <br />�' residents or of the community. <br />�. The applicant is not proposing any provisions for water-based recreation. <br />8. The proposed lot layout is compatible with the existing layout of adjoining <br />properties and the proposed lot lines are parallel and perpendicular to <br />existing lot lines. Future development will not be constrained by the proposed <br />lot layouts. <br />9. The proposed side lot lines are at right angles to the existing road line and the <br />property lines of the adjacent properties. <br />io. The property contains more than the 33-feet of minimum frontage on public <br />right-of-way. <br />ii. The subject property meets the requirements of the code for stormwater <br />management. There is not a proposal to increase impervious surface <br />coverage. <br />i2. There are no public streets proposed within the development. <br />Note: Before the Citv Council anproves the subdivision, an undated survev shall <br />be submitted indicatin� the imvervious surface covera�e of the pronert� is less <br />than �o%. At the time this report was written, an undated survev has not been <br />submitted. <br />2. Final Plat of SuperValu Addition to Pequot Lakes. Steven & Ruth <br />Quisberg, Applicants. Application 12-4i6o. In order to expedite the <br />platting of the subject property, the final plat public hearing was held in <br />conjunction with the preliminary plat hearing. Once all the items listed below for <br />`„ the final plat are submitted, the City Council may approve the plat. The applicant <br />has indicated the outstanding items will be submitted before the meeting. <br />1. A survey indicating that the subject property contains less than 50 0 <br />impervious surface coverage. <br />2. A plat check by an independent land surveyor indicating the final plat is <br />consistent with the preliminary plat and that it meets statutory <br />requirements. <br />3. A title opinion acceptable to the City Attorney. <br />The Planning Commission recommends that once the final <br />documents are submitted, the plat shall be approved. The following <br />findings offact were cited at the meeting: <br />i. There were no conditions of the preliminary plat approval. <br />2. A plat check for the development has not been submitted to the City. <br />3. The City Attorney has not indicated that adequate title insurance has been <br />provided to assure all parties with an interest are represented. <br />4. There are no required improvements with this subdivision. <br />5. An independent land surveyor has not verified that the final document <br />meets the statutory requirements. <br />6. No financial security is required. <br />*����*����� <br />� <br />� � � � � � � �� <br />WWW.COMMUNITYGROWTH.COM ; WWW.STRONGTOWNS.ORG <br />