2010 08-10 PC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1270 & 1300 Goose Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 July 7, 2010 Mayor Robert Uzpen Planning Commission Chair Craig Rafferty City of Gem Lake Heritage Hall Gem Lake, MN 55110 Dear Mayor Uzpen and Chairman Rafferty: We understand that you are considering changing the zoning classification for our properties, and quite possibly only our properties, to a new Estate classification with a 5 acre minimum lot size. We have not heard this from either of you and, if we are in error, please forgive us our concern. But if this is true, we wish to object to such treatment and to the procedure by which it is being done. First, we are disappointed that you would even contemplate such a significant change in the classification of our properties without the courtesy of at least a "heads up" call. Gem Lake is small enough and it has hitherto been characterized by that sort of neighborly courtesy from our elected officials. We would hate to see that spirit of courtesy and cooperation replaced by an anonymous regulatory regime which citizens must closely monitor to make sure their interests are not at peril. We believe that such extremely large -lot zoning is exactly the opposite approach that Gem Lake should be taking with this unique landscape in light of what has been learned in the past 40 years. Such a rigid approach fails to utilize the best land use planning ideas and techniques that are available today. It ignores the unique attributes of both the land and the Gem Lake situation. It would indicate that Gem Lake has learned nothing from the Great Recession and the market's clear rejection of such large lots. We request that you join with us in a more sophisticated and enlightened review of the latest planning theory about how our properties can eventually be developed in a way that reflects and emphasizes the aesthetic strengths of the land while responding to the realities of changes in demographics and the market. What we feel is needed is something closer to the process that you engaged in with Mark Putman to help you consider a new approach to the property around 61 and E. We would like to join with the city in a meaningful discussion of how we together could best achieve the enlightened eventual development of our properties with the sewer service that your comp plan calls for. We feel that the 5 acre lot requirement pushes exactly opposite that goal. We look forward to hearing from either of you on how you would propose to proceed. Sincerely yours, JConnie Kunin Dan Kunin Linda Hoeschler Jack Hoeschler