Laserfiche WebLink
L i <br /> Gavin <br /> Olson <br /> April 21, 2005 <br /> Winters Planning Commission <br /> City of Pequot Lakes <br /> Ltd* Pequot Lakes, MN <br /> RE: Various request of Corilss Holley <br /> GAVIN LAW BUILDING Property Partial ID No: 291080020230009 <br /> 1017 HENNEPIN AVENUE <br /> GLENCOE, MINNESOTA Dear Planning Commission: <br /> 55336-2287 <br /> This writer represents Mr. Thomas Drong who is the owner of the property on <br /> PHONE Pequot Boulevard immediate west of the property under consideration a variance <br /> (320)864-5142 scheduled for public hearing on April 21, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Drong wishes to <br /> METRO LINE object to the granting of a variance. His objection is: <br /> (952)467-2994 <br /> 1. Permitting reduction in the set backs and side yards would cause <br /> `.• FAX to a traffic hazard at the intersection of Pequot Boulevard and <br /> (320)864-5146 Brown Street. As you know there is significant traffic that uses <br /> these streets to access a Timber Ridge Restaurant as well as <br /> residence. No building should be permitted other than the <br /> standard corner side and yards that are required by your ordinance. <br /> To do otherwise would create a traffic hazzard especially for the <br /> use of pedestrians and children playing in the area. <br /> 2. The property in question has a severe water problem. Water <br /> stands there at times of snow melt and rain. Developing the <br /> property is going to constitute water problems for Mr. Drong's <br /> property to the west and because of the lay of the land will <br /> actually flood his house. Even if a variance is permitted the City <br /> must impose a condition that a drainage plan be submitted and <br /> approved by the City which will provide for reasonable drainage <br /> from the property and not upon neighboring properties, <br /> particularly Mr. Drong's. To do otherwise will result in liabilities <br /> for the property owner and the City for permitting the alteration of <br /> the drainage in the area. <br /> Mr. Drong takes significant exception the paragraph eleven of the staff report <br /> which states"the property currently does not have any significant drainage or <br /> topographic features"this is not true. There is a significant water impounding <br /> problem on this lot and to alter this feature will result in others receiving the <br /> water. Also the suggestion that development will not generate additional surface <br />