TO:                 Don Wagner, Applicant

                        Ron Keeney, Architect

                        Chuck Rotgin, Applicant


FROM:           Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner


SUBJECT:     Staff Comments on Application Plan submitted April 16, 2004

ZMA 00- ZMA 00-009:  North Pointe Development and

SP O2-072:  North Pointe Residential Uses


DATE:            May 26, 2004


* * * * *


Please find below a consolidated list of staff comments on the above referenced plan.  The staff report also contains substantive recommendations, which, if acted on, would need to be addressed on the Application Plan.


Planning and Zoning Comments


1.      Sheet A -- Cover Page --The note on the cover page doesn’t work because it results in the proposed setbacks at the perimeter of the site being at odds with the development shown on your plan.  Section 21 requires that buildings be set back 50 feet from residential zones, which includes RA.  RA setbacks are also 50 feet. 


We are recommending that the Board modify Section 21 requirements to require only a 20 foot setback at the perimeter of the property.  We recommend that you change the sentence that begins:  “However, where proposed commercial uses….” to the following sentence:  “Where commercial uses at the perimeter of the district abut a residential district, the setback shall be 20 feet”.


2.      Sheet A – Cover Page – the Commercial Land Use Breakdown Table for buildings 1 & 2 references the Residential Land Use table.  The Residential Land Use table provides no information.


3.      Sheet B – Application Plan – The design of the “block” within which Park H and the Library are placed differs significantly from the Board’s suggestion that Building 20 be brought closer to the street and that such an expansive parking area not be placed in front of the park in front of the library.  We will ask for Board input at the Worksession on this item.


4.      Sheet B – Application Plan – the alley turnarounds in Section X (Charleston Homes) face directly onto North Pointe Blvd.  Aesthetically, and practically, this should not happen.  Please modify the alleys to extend onto the adjacent streets in between lots or otherwise modify the configuration.


5.      Sheet B -- As previously noted, on your plan you are showing for the lake two fountains a path, and a park.  The limited nature of this depiction does not guarantee that the lake will become an amenity for the development.  Please provide more commitment to the “amenity” aspect of the lake.  As previously stated, a conceptual design of the park and lake area would provide for more certainty that the lake will be developed as an amenity.


6.      Sheet B – Application Plan -- Potential development on application plan?


7.      Sheet A or B – Previously, we asked you to add the note to the application plan that indicates any stream crossings or building in the floodplain require an SP.  You responded that you believe your application covers the proposed floodplain crossings and that they are intended to be approved with this rezoning. 


Requests for floodplain crossings require application for an SP which you have not done.  If you had requested an SP for the crossing with the rezoning, you would have had to provide detailed engineering information related specifically to the crossing.  We explained this information to Mr. Wagner in Fall of 2002 when we originally requested the note on the application plan indicating that SP’s for the crossings were not a part of the rezoning.  We offered the option of applying for a special use permit for the crossings at that time, but said that they would have to be advertised for the Planning Commission and additional information was needed.  We said in our December 2002 staff report that there was an understanding that the stream crossing at Northwest Passage across from Lewis and Clark crossing was already determined when North Fork was approved.  We said we supported the general location of the road and that future SP applications would be necessary in order to provide detail engineering information. 


Adding the requested note to the application plan or title page is not required; it is recommended to prevent future confusion.  Please note, however, that if an SP is desired to be approved with the rezoning, it must be requested with an application, fee, and detailed engineering information.  It will also require a public hearing by the Planning Commission prior to action by the Board of Supervisors.


8.      Sheets A & G contain patterns that are not used in the legends.  One pattern surrounds the school on Sheet A and the easements show a different pattern on Sheet G.  Please correct these legend deficiencies.


9.      Sheet G – Open Space – When we last spoke I had several questions which you responded to with information from a missing table.  I have not been able to complete my analysis of the new table.   My comments at this time are the following:


·        The residential area to which the table refers should be identified on this sheet. 

·        The heading, “Privately owned residential space” should be changed to something like “Residential Area not in Open Space”.

·        Do you really want the Park H maintained by a homeowner’s association?  We would be interested in this park becoming public since it sits in front of the library.


10.  Sheet G – Open space – The exercise path still lacks sufficient information relative to width of easement or r.o.w. and locations of plantings. We noted previously that the addition of plantings between the lots and the path would significantly reduce the issues related to having the lots in Section F back up to North Pointe Blvd.  In speaking with the Parks and Recreation Department on this matter, they do not recommend that exercise equipment be put on this path.  In their experience, the equipment is rarely, if ever, used by walkers and joggers on the path.


With this additional information, we recommend that if you want to have a meandering asphalt path on this side of the street, you still establish a screen of plantings between the back of the lots and the path and provide a cross-section of the path you would like to build.  We also recommend that the screening meet the standards set out in the zoning ordinance for “screening of objectionable features”.


11.  Sheets A & G – Trails --  Planning and Parks and Recreation have worked with you to help identify which trails should be public, which ones should be private, and what the standards should be.  The plan reflects our agreement to date.  However, in the final review of this project, Planning was asked by another department to go back to Parks and Recreation for verification of the appropriateness of the location, construction, and future ownership of the trails.  The end result is that staff needs to request changes to the plan.  These changes are listed below:


a.       Please change note at bottom of Pedestrian Pathway key to say that “All trails shall be constructed in accordance with the County’s Design Manual for Class A and Class B trails.”


b.      Please remove from the plan the three trails shown to be constructed by the County that are in the floodplain and greenway going down to the river.


c.       Please change the statement for the (to be removed) trail in the northwest corner of the plan from “public access easement” to “pedestrian access easement to Homeowners Association”.


d.      Please change the statement for the (to be removed) trail in the most eastern part of the apartment complex in on Northwest Passage from “public access easement” to “pedestrian access easement to public”.


e.       Staff asks that the applicant construct the trail from the lake all the way to Northwest passage.


f.        Staff asks that the applicant construct a Class A path around the perimeter of the school property.  Where the path adjoins the public street, it would substitute for the sidewalk.


g.       Please add the note, “Pdestrian access easements and public access easement locations are conceptual locations only and must be able to accommodate Class A & B paths as indicated in County’s Design Manual.”


h.       Two trails are missing construction information and an additional primitive trail is recommended.  Staff will provide the details for these paths in a subsequent memo.


12.  Sheets A & G – Floodplain adjacent to Route 29 – The floodplain limits on Sheet A and the land offered to be dedicated to the County don’t match with each other.  This wouldn’t be a problem except that the proffers only indicated that the floodplain will be dedicated.  Please clarify this situation on a subsequent submittal.


Regarding the trails, staff would be happy to meet with you to clarify any of these comments.


Engineering Comments


1.                  Sheet C-1 is inconsistent with the application plan.  Please remove this sheet from the plan.  Engineering will find it acceptable to rely upon sheet C.

2.                  Road comment 1-a from County comments provided April 1, 2004 has not been addressed.  The shown right of way is inadequate, median break spacing is unacceptable, and the section relies upon use of the gutter for the bike lane, which is an unacceptable practice.  The shown Leake Road section is considered acceptable. 

3.                  Road comment 1-b has not been addressed.  The shown typical section exceeds Engineering’s comment, but the right of way is still not adequate.

4.                  Road comment 1-c has not been addressed.  The shown typical section exceeds Engineering’s comment, but the right of way is not adequate, the placement of the  sidewalk is not acceptable, and  the sidewalk is only shown on one side of this street.

5.                  Road comment 1-d has not been addressed.  The road section is not consistent with Engineering’s recommendation and no typical section has been provided for the 4lane section of this street.

6.                  Road comment 1-e has not been addressed.  No typical section has been provided and a crossover has been shown on this street despite Engineering’s previous objection to this crossover. 

7.                  Road comment 1-f has not been addressed.  No typical section has been provided and no commitment to any improvement has been offered.

8.                  Road comment 1-g has not  been addressed.  The shown residential street typical section would be applied to this street, but the proffer 10.2 is unacceptable with regard to restricting use of a public right of way..

9.                  Road comment 5 has not been addressed.  The proffer is not consistent with the labeling on the plan.

10.              Road comment 6. has not been addressed.  The proffer is not consistent with the labeling on the plan.


Return to staff report