pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • Bill Malinen From: John Livingston [livingston@cognoscente.biz] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:1 Q PM To: AmylhlanWork; Bill Malinen; Craig Klausing Subject: 2700 Cleveland Avenue Mayor Klausing, Council Member Ihlan and Manager Malinen: Thank you again for your response(s) and attention to this matter. I have conducted additional research and am preparing a letter to Staff outlining my position on their continued and expanding claims. Here are the main points I plan to cover. 1. I believe the application to be complete for the following reasons. Under Statute 15.99 the City had an obligation to tell "the requester what information is missing." The only letters sent by staff within this time period were the April 12th and April 27th letters (please note that the April 27th letter was not sent to the applicant or to the applicant's address). In the first letter Mr. Paschke requested a Division of Land application be added to the prior two applications. This was done. The April 27th letter does not specifically list any items deemed incomplete and only seems to "seek further resolution to the following issues:" Mr. Stark sought to expand the scope of issues in a letter dated May 4th which is clearly beyond the statutory time allowed for notice of incomplete issues. 2. I have been advised that the EAW "requirement" (item "a" of the April 27 letter) has not been made by the authority responsible for its issuance. I have discussed the matter with Gregg Downing, Director of Environmental Review, of the Minnesota EQB who informed me that a City Council "finding" is first needed prior to any EAW being required. Further, he advised in situations meeting this description he has prepared many letters to cities advising them that requests such as this are ill advised and not consistent with the EQB standards. He offered to render an opinion about the lack of foundation for such a requirement with regard to the 2700 Cleveland Avenue application. Therefore any suggestion that an EAW is required is, at this point, not supported. 3. Regarding Traffic Study. I support the City's desire to properly manage traffic. The traffic concerns expressed by staff are an extreme interpretation of the design and an extrapolation of other concepts not requested in my application. However, I recognize this desire and will gladly work to satisfy any City Council required study. I believe the Council can best determine the scope of any study deemed necessary, and if professional services are required, with all reasonable costs to be reimbursed by the applicant. I do not agree that a traffic study has been officially requested or is an incomplete element to the application. 4. Regarding Design Principles. I do not see that any of the items listed in Mr. Stark's letter of the 27th constitutes a demand for incomplete information. He seems to disagree with the design submitted and I plan to address each item as they relate to the design principals provided. Please note that while Mr. Stark has provided a"Draft" Design Principles for the Twin Lakes Master Plan & Redevelopment Area I find no evidence that these design principals are "a component of the approved Twin Lakes Master Plan" as Mr. Stark represents. I do find design principals enacted in 1988. With respect to either set of design principles I believe they have been sufficiently ac3dressed in the application. I believe it desirable to work toward the City's goals for Twin Lakes and will continue to do so. However, to suggest the Design Principles referenced are so specific, required or even enacted, is a extreme interpretation. I suggest that they are useful in a general sense but using that document as a basis in determining the application incomplete is unsupportable and probably inconsistent with law. The Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lake9 A4aster Plan make many broad and sweeping statements with regard to dates of completion, etc that have not been met. I've made many attempts to determine Staff's requirements thru meetings, phone conversations and emails. I believe Staff has exceed its authority with regard to some demands. They distanced themselves from some of those representations by softening of their wording regarding "requirements" in recent letters. 1