Laserfiche WebLink
15-3731 � . <br /> May 13,2015 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> Woodland Impacts & Conaervation Design <br /> The applicant is advised that this subdivision would be subject to the City's Conservation Design <br /> Ordinance. The property will be reviewed in terms of the Rura1 Oasis goals and policies which <br /> have been appmved by the City Council and are supported within this ordinance; attached in its <br /> entirety as Eghibit D. The preliminary plat application would be required to include a complete <br /> conservatian desigt�ana.iysis of the entire site for review. <br /> Issues for Discussion <br /> 1. The prim.a�ry issue for discussion is that the property does not contain 4.0 acres of <br /> contiguous dry buildable land. The City simply does not approve variances for the <br /> creation of substandaxd lots, and by definition the lack of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry <br /> buildable in ea.ch lot would result in a nonconfornuty and would require a variance. Only <br /> in PRDJRPUD planned development situations has the city allowed the crea.tion of lots <br /> less than the required mini�mum dry buildable acreage. In the opinion of staff the <br /> property does not have characteristics that meet the cztiteria for a planned development <br /> process in that: <br /> - The property does not contain the minimum 4A acres of contiguous dry buildable <br /> land required to meet the provisions for PRD development in Section 78-602. <br /> - The praperty does not meet the minimum 5.0 acres of dry buildable land required in <br /> 78-626 to qua,tify for RPUD development, and in staf�s view does not appear to meet <br /> any one of the following specified criteria in lieu of the 5-acre requirement: <br /> a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding <br /> neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or <br /> topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. <br /> b. The properry is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property <br /> which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential <br /> development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that <br /> previously approved development. <br /> c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a <br /> transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential <br /> area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive <br /> plan. <br /> d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number af significant trees <br /> that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings ar other design <br /> techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. <br /> The most reeent request for credit for non-contiguous dry buildable land was a sketch <br /> plan in 2049 for subdivision of a property on Wakefield Road that would result in a lot <br /> with 1.7 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. The Ciiy Council advised the applicant <br /> that they were not in favor of the subdivision. <br /> 2. Layout Option A results in only 1.42 acres of contiguous dry buildable Iand. While <br /> Layout Option B results in 1.9 acres contiguous dry buildable, it is a very contrived <br /> layout at best. <br />