09-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 7 of 8 flowage easements. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of any wetland mitigation requirements. The City will require a minimum structure setback of 35' from the wetland boundary, or 10 feet in addition to a MCWD required buffer. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Approximately half of the upland area of the property is wooded, with most of that growth occurring in the past 50-60 years. A tree survey will be required as part of the conservation design process. Substantial woods on the steep slopes is likely to be lost based on the road and house pad conceptual designs submitted. Conservation Design The developer is advised that this subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The property will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which have been approved by the City Council and are supported within the ordinance. The preliminary plat application should include a complete conservation design analysis of the entire site for review. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: Is this property a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding, and allow higher density development? 2. If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. Applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. Does Planning Commission support this flexibility? 4. The property is not in the MUSA, and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for the reduction of density buffer? 5. The steep slopes surrounding the existing homesite are heavily wooded. Development of new homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and vision of the Comprehensive Plan? 6. Should the internal road be public or private? 7. Can Planning Commission identify any issues that should be addressed regarding this concept plan review?