02-20-2003 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

021290 Marohn Letter January 29,2003 Page 2 of 4 I found my letter very difficult to write because your normal response style is to provide facts and conclusions based on the ordinance. In your letter, however, there appear to be opinions and comments in many places without a solid foundation to base them upon. I,therefore, am commenting with the understanding that I am opening myself to the same criticism. Regarding the second paragraph in your email, I am confused as to how to respond exactly. You seem to mix up personal opinion and conjecture with specific ordinance information. What I can tell you is that the lots meet or exceed the design standards for District 60: Commercial (C-1) regulations. In fact, the area of land with slope less than 12%on each lot exceeds the one-acre minimum required on all lots, with the exception of Lot 2, Block One, which is the sketch you refer to. It is our opinion that these lots are very large by commercial standards in comparison with other lots in similar developments within the City. We recognize the Commercial C-1 lot requirements and agree there is a 50%impervious coverage allowance. In our opinion, this does not seem to pose a problem with any development scheme we envision on the lots, and it is a very common requirement in most communities in which we do business. I cannot see where the City has to"fight"with anyone when issuing permits unless they create that atmosphere themselves. The Tulenchiks are mindful of their duties as local residents and developers in this area, and they intend to provide a high-quality commercial development in compliance with all relevant legal and official controls. Furthermore, the Tulenchiks have agreed to add additional private restrictions on the project to further protect the land and parcels from many of the effects to which you have alluded. I trust that you can realize that the nearly 2900 square foot building on our yellow and green site plan for Lot 2,Block One, with a"small" building and parking lot, as you refer to it, is not that "tiny". In fact, for comparison purposes, the Landecker&Associates, Inc. building footprint is approximately 3000 square feet, or nearly the same size. I could very easily see establishments of this type in the proposed plat area. The slope in the land provides a unique opportunity to do a multi-level building and parking area. We were simply trying to provide an illustrative exhibit for the Planning Commission to view as they contemplated the use of the lots. We took the smallest lot to represent an idea only—nothing more and nothing less,just an idea. The Al Berens proposal of which you speak would have been situated on proposed Lot 6, Block Two. The level portion of that lot was two acres and his planned improvements could have been placed on it quite nicely. If you would visit his facility in Pine River, you would see that it would have been a nice addition to the Pequot Lakes landscape and economy. Your reference to Section 140, Subpart D, "Lots are buildable in natural state with minimal alteration" and further down, assuming it applies to roads as well, is unfounded as you are interpreting it, in my opinion. It does not say"lot" and it does not say"road" in this section of the ordinance. It says "land" which is referred to in the opening part of Subsection D as"of the proposed subdivision." Therefore, it is our opinion that the land or subdivision should be suitable in its state with minimal alteration. If we were doing a mass grading project like you see �. in the metropolitan area, then I could see your concern. That is not the case here.