PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)

Home Browse Search

Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 13 What measures could reduce the effects of the proposal and alternatives on land use? The alternatives considered illustrate a range of potential mitigating measures for land use including:  Development of larger 3-acre lots consistent with the existing zoning and existing large lot developments that predominate in the area as illustrated in Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3D. These alternatives provide: o A landscape that is characterized to a larger extent by natural features such as native forest vegetation is accomplished to the extent that larger lots would not be completely cleared. Alternative 3D with larger 5-acre lots would accomplish this to a somewhat greater extent than Alternatives 3A and 3B. The rural character of the area would be altered less by addition of fewer people in the area as a whole. However, the following effects would still occur as a result of development under Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3D, even though it would be large lot development consistent with existing zoning: o A person traveling through the area would observe a substantial presence of elements of the built environment such as buildings and ornamental landscaping. o These alternatives all have substantial development on the upper portions of the site and would result in readily visible structures and lights at night that would substantially change the visual character of the upper slopes of the valley from being dominated by natural features to having a substantial man-made component. o The large rural lots would not support forestry or agricultural use and few residents would be likely to be economically supported by traditional rural resource-based economies. o Lot sizes of 3 acres would provide very limited opportunities for productive wildlife habitat. The larger lots alone would not prevent the site from becoming a barrier to the movement of wildlife, especially large mammals such as elk, without specific mitigation measures such as lot depth and buffers.  Preservation of open space areas in forest resource use with limited areas of smaller lots that are clustered as illustrated in Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternative 3C also provides for preservation of the eastern portion of the site, although with 3-acre lots on the eastern portion without clustering. These alternatives provide a mix of residential opportunities while preserving areas of resource use and wildlife habitat. Benefits include: o These alternatives all have areas of open space that contribute to retention of natural vegetation. Alternatives 3C and 5 would avoid development on the upper eastern portions of the site and preserve the natural vegetation that is the dominant character of the valley.