02-20-2003 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

021290 Planning Commission Letter February 18,2003 Page 2 of specifies that property lying within the Shoreland District and meeting the bluff definition (slopes over 30%)cannot be developed. Other than this exception, sloped property needs to be constructed on with care and with the proper erosion control methods. It is not, however, "unbuildable" as Mr. Marohn suggests. Contrary to Mr. Marohn's claims that the slope of the land is a detriment to the project, it is our belief that slopes offer many unique opportunities in building design and lot utilities. A sloped lot provides opportunity to construct two-level buildings with both levels having what is commonly referred to as"walkouts." Rather than encumbering a lot with an expansive one-level building to accommodate square footage needs, the same building can be reduced in size by half and meet the footage requirements by combining the two levels. The slope also provides an opportunity to direct drainage away from buildings,drives,roads, and adjacent properties, which minimizes erosion control impacts and storm water storage devices. In regard to Section 140, subpart"D", there appears to be some ambiguity and opinions of the interpretation and meaning of"suitable in its natural state" in Item,1,. It is our opinion that this platting of land only requires minimal alteration to construct a road system. It is not a mass grading project as you may witness in other projects in more developed areas of the state and, therefore, is suitable in its natural state. In regards to Section 60.040, lot coverage of 50%is allowed in the Commercial zone. There is no place that I have found in the ordinance that requires one to develop their Commercial property to the maximum 50% coverage, but that this is simply a maximum percentage of lot coverage. If a lot is only suitable for development of 25%or 30%of its area,then that is a self- inflicted restriction impeding it from reaching the maximum allowance. I do not think the City needs to struggle with nine lot owners unless they make that their directive. Finally,as it relates to the preliminary plat drawing and details showing the proposed lot improvement symbols of buildings, wells, and drainfield locations, I would like to remind you that these symbols are for illustrative purposes only There have been no attempts to design each lot for a specific scenario. The placement of these symbols is more for spatial=definintion, and to take them out of that context is improper use of the information. Each lot, when developed, will have its own unique design and building that will have to be taken under consideration individually. At this juncture, the Planning Commission is approving a preliminary plat lot layout, not individual.site plans. With that, each lot, except Lot 2, Block One, has more than one acre of non-steep sloped property, and each lot has over one acre of Property is buildable. All lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements as specified in''the-Commercial(C-1)District. I would like to note the following information for specific items in comparison to Mr. Marohn's report: Item 2—Lot 1, Block One, is buildable, as it has 1.04 acres of land area with slopes less than 12% and has 1.88 total acres. This lot provides a perfect setting for a walkout type construction, with drainage and storm water collection already existing in its-natural*condition on the lot. Care must be taken during design and construction to address drainage and erosion control measures This lot meets or exceeds the lot size standards of Section 60-040. `