6.5. & 6.6. SR 07-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ILE C City of EII< River Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6.1. Agenda Section I Meeting Date Prepared by I Planning I May 1, 2006 Scott Clark, Community Dev. Director Item Description Reviewed by Request by Jason Huber for Preliminaly; Plat ...~pprov.al or Carvelwood Hills, Public Hearing - Case 1\'0. P 06-01 Introduction On ~A..pril17, 2006 the City Council reviewed and continued this item until the May 1,2006 City Council meeting. The concern by some Council members \X7as the extension of the "410t5 for 40 acre" ZOnLl1g provision and allo\X;jng the applicant to ha\re a "5 for 50" (the past Council ~-\ction Request and supporting infonnat1on is attached). The City ./ittorney has submitted a written opinion on tbis subject statLi1g that the extension or adchtionallots based on ten acre units is a correct interpretation or the Ordinance. (.l\.ttached) Discussion From a planning srandpOh"1t the concept of allo~ring "smaller" lots, in this case allO\;\ring the 53 acre Ca1\Ter\\!ood subdivision to have rour 2.5 acre minimum lots mth a large 41 acre parent parcel, is logical. The parent parcel ~TjJl be further subdivided at the rime (2008) when the zoning minimum changes from 10 acres to 2.5 acre lots. It is important to note that the density over the entire 53 acre remahl.s at one lot per ten acres; it is only the lot configuration that changes w-ith the "4 ror 40" concept. Follo'\\Dng a strict ten acre zonh"'"lg mtelpretation \'"\,ould lead to severe planning inefficiencies such as 1) an mormllately long cul-de-sac and 2) not properly placing new homes on the ten acre sites could severely affect furure subdi\~sion of the property. .l\ large parent parcel allo,^,~s for ma:6.mum design flexibility for future platting. Staff has attached an illustration cOlnparing the proposed "5 ror 50:::: Caryenvood design \\:ith ha\;Jng to create it as a ten acre subdivision. In rile past the City has fa\~orably interpreted the extension of the "4 ror 40~' rule and allo\ved the type of dev>elopment being proposed (e.g. Ridge\"vood Hills and I<ingdom Estates). Financial Impact None Attachments . City ..L\ ttorney opinion o Past Council..L~ction Request and supporting hl.IOrmaUOn o Cal\Ter\vood illustration shov.:ing ten acre layout Action Requested The Planning Commission and staff recommend tllat the City Council approve the preliL'Ylhlary plat based on the fu"1dingS of Section 30-375 and wit11 the follo"\ving conditions: s: \ COI7l.'"TIu,ni:y D EvelO?men:'\Sco:: Clark \ C:l:\'e:'\'looc.GO: