Laserfiche WebLink
T .andecker 8z Associates, Inc. 4646 County Rd. 11 •P.O.Box 120•Pequot Lakes,MN 56472 <br /> 218-568-4940.888-866-4940•Fax:218-568-5404 <br /> Engineering • Surveying • Planning www.landecker.com <br /> February 18, 2003 <br /> City of Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> P. O. Box 361 <br /> Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 <br /> RE: Tulenchik Preliminary Plat"The Ridge" <br /> Dear Staff and Planning Commission Members: <br /> This letter is being written in response to the staff report dated 2/13/03 which was prepared by <br /> your planning and zoning consultant, Charles Marohn of Community Growth Consultants. <br /> The first two and one half pages of Mr. Marohn's report basically reiterate the existing city <br /> ordinance and, for the most part, are copies of existing information with which I have no issues. <br /> My comments will be focused on the"staff findings" portion of the report. <br /> First,I have some apprehension regarding the discussion of the zoning of this property based on <br /> Commercial I District versus Forestry District. I understand that the City's position is that this <br /> issue is unresolved based on Mr. Marohn's opinion. However, as he notes, for the sake of <br /> processing this application it should be processed under the assumption that it will be zoned <br /> Commercial. It is our belief that the plat could be approved based on the condition that it is <br /> zoned as such. <br /> Mr. Marohn has provided information copied from the ordinance out of a few select sections. <br /> One area which I believe is also important for you to recognize in this discussion is the <br /> "Minimum Lot Requirements and Setbacks" under Section 60-040. Specifically note the design <br /> features in the Commercial (C-1)District: lot area minimum is 1 acre and lot width minimum is ' <br /> 150 feet. <br /> One of the most significant factors that needs to be addressed is the distinction between steep <br /> slopes and unbuildable land. In almost each point that Mr. Marohn makes, he disqualifies a tract <br /> as being "marginally buildable" or"not buildable" with the suggestion that there are erosion <br /> problems or that steep slope areas are unbuildable. I have studied the ordinance quite <br /> extensively in this regard and find no reference to lands being unbuildable based on slope <br /> conditions. The one exception I found was in the shorelarid'section of the ordinance wherein <br />