Laserfiche WebLink
021290 Marohn Letter <br /> January 29,2003 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> Further, regarding the unbuildable lands, the only area in the ordinance I even see a common <br /> thread here is under Section 150-040 B, a statement in PUD density calculations whereby <br /> wetlands, bluffs, and lands below the ordinary high water should be excluded from the suitable <br /> area for the proposed project. The other place is in the definition of"lot area" where it says lot <br /> areas shall exclude portions below the ordinary high water mark. <br /> I have reviewed the ordinance, and although it is very long with many areas that require one to <br /> page back and forth between sections to find all the criteria regarding a specific item, I have yet <br /> to find any place that says the land with slopes greater than 12% is unbuildable. I hope that by <br /> our colored slope percentages, one did not anticipate or think we were implying this to be the <br /> case. We were simply illustrating the site conditions with reference to slope. We recognize we <br /> are not in a shoreland district, so that there is no need to recognize the issues in determining <br /> bluffs or other areas previously referred to. We do realize, however, that special care is required <br /> when grading in slope areas. In most cases, based on pending rule changes by the Minnesota <br /> Pollution Control Agency(MPCA), all projects with a site over one acre will require a National <br /> Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. I would suggest, as you noted,that if <br /> someone is going to buy one of these "very expensive" lots that it would also be in their best <br /> interest to protect their investment and be a much better steward to their property than the picture <br /> you are painting. <br /> Further, in regard to the steep slopes "lands having slopes over 12%,"I find it very contrary to <br /> your opinion that this is unbuildable when further in the subdivision design standards of the <br /> `- ordinance, the City allows for collector roads to be designed at gradients not exceeding 10%for <br /> collector roads and 15% for minor roads. How can this happen? It would be interesting to know <br /> with your interpretation of unbuildable land how many non-conforming constructions currently <br /> exist in the City and how much land has now been determined to be unusable in the City as well. <br /> What will that do to the price of land? <br /> I have been involved with many projects and, quite frankly, do not see many issues with lands <br /> where slopes run up to 20%. In most cases, homes with walkouts would likely be in such a <br /> situation. <br /> We recognize you have suggested that this property be considered as a PUD using the <br /> commercial or residential zoning classes. This recommendation was provided to the Tulenchiks. <br /> They have responded and we have stated to you on different occasions that the Tulenchiks are <br /> not interested in pursuing a PUD. <br /> My clients and I do not believe a PUD is a viable solution. In fact, we believe as the land and <br /> topography is situated, there is more likely to be intensive grading with erosion and storm water <br /> concerns if the leveler areas of the property were developed to their maximum potential. A large <br /> building complex and complementing parking would require a concentrated impervious area and <br /> obtrusive visual impact from the highway and surrounding properties. <br /> We believe the plan submitted with the current lot arrangement allows for smaller projects with <br /> `.. less impact to the land while maintaining the"up north" characteristics of the area. This is not a <br />