Government - http://maxpages.com/minnickward4/HAMPTON

August 12, 2008

Dear Mayor Gillock:

The applicant is requesting to rezone multiple parcels (218 acres) between Stoney Ridge and Avon Belden Rds. from rural Residence District (R-1) to Planned Community Development Dist.
(PCD) for the purpose of constructing 81 single-family lots and 515 single-family cluster lots. Our comments ar based upon a review of the preliminary development plan dated July 7, 2008 compared to the city's adopted Planning and Zoning Code and the 1998 Master Plan.

In both the R-1 and PCD Districts, single-family and single-family clusters are a permitted use. To rezone to a PCD District, the applicant must submit a preliminary development plan to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Action by the Planning Commission is forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing on the request. City Council can approve, disapprove, or modify the preliminary development plan. If approved by City Council, the subject properties will be rezoned to the PCD District. At this point in the process, the applicant must submit a final development plan to the Planning Commission within one year of Council approval. The final development plan shall comply with all applicable subdivision and zoning code regulations and be approved in the same manner as the preliminary development plan.

In general, the proposal to rezone the subject properties from their current R-1 designation to a PCD is supported by the city's Master Plan because the Plan designates lands west of Rt. 83 and north of Center Ridge Rd. as Medium Density Residential, with densities comparable to those being proposed (2.4 to 3.24 units per acre). However, we have a number of concerns with the preliminary development plan being proposed to implement the PCD zoning request. We have "broken down" our concerns into three basic categories: 1) the preliminary development plan and PCD standards; 2) subdivision code requirements and; 3) traffic considerations.

For the purposes of understanding the nature of the surrounding area, we have superimposed the proposed development on an aerial photograph to show its proximity to a recent development plan submitted for the North Ridge Pointe development which is located just to the north. Figure a shows both development plans and the location of intersections that should be evaluated for traffic signals.

Preliminary Development Plan and PCD Analysis

1. The phasing for the subdivision should be illustrated on the plan to provide the Planning Commission with a reasonable idea as to what portions of the site will be developed first. This information will also be useful to define the parameters of a traffic impact study (if required by the Planning Commission - See Item #4 below).

2. Section 127903 (a) (1) requires existing landscape features to be shown on the plan. In our opinion, this includes existing trees. The first criterion listed under the intent of the PCD Dist. is the "Preservation of natural site amenities." The applicant should revise the preliminary development plan to identify the existing on-site trees and list them by species, quality, size and whether they are being proposed for removal or if they will remain and how they will be protected during construction.

3. Section 1279.03 (a) (2) requires the proposed vehicular traffic patterns and the location and design of streets be shown on the plan. This section also requires an estimate of traffic volumes generated by the development, including the assignment of traffic to the proposed entrances and exits be detailed on the plan. The assignment of traffic to the proposed entrances is not shown on the plan.

4. Section 1279.03 (a) (4) provides the Planning Commission with the authority to require any other relevant information to assist them in rendering their decision.

The extend of off-site improvements such as auxiliary turn lanes and signalization is not known. The development with 596 units can be expected to generate about 5,372 trips over an average weekday per the latest ITE Trip Generation manual for single family detached housing. The proposed development will use impacts to the adjacent roadway network due to the increased number of trips originating or destined to the development, as well as background traffic utilizing secondary roadways constructed with the development. A traffic impact study should be performed to determine what improvements, if any, are attributed to site generated traffic.

Prior to the start of a traffic impact study, an outline of study parameters is recommended to document for the applicant what assumptions are to be used for the analysis. The parameters are contained within a document referred to as a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU avoids common issues that arise during the review of a traffic study thus expediting the review and making the process more efficient for the applicant.

Parameters that may be established by the city as part of an MOU may include the following:

* Study guidelines (City and/prITE guidelines, ITE trip generation, etc.);

* Data collection requirements. Turning movement counts for peak hour analysis to be two hour duration unless site affected by trips to a school or other special, off-peak trip generator;

* Define the study area, in particular, the number of intersections to be studied;

* Establish a growth rate or define process for calculating growth rate;

* Set horizon year (10 to 20 years)

* Define acceptable land use designations that are consistent with ITE trip rates;

* Limit passby or captured trip percentages;

* Define signal warrant analysis (four-hour minimum);

* Define capacity analysis parameters including peak hour factor (0.90), lost time, minimum splits for minor phases, use of actual clearance intervals, no right turn on red, arrival type (3), balanced delay by approach, acceptable level of service (LOS), and progression analysis;

* Storage lane length and design speed. Require auxiliary turn lane warrants for intersections especially if intersections do not justify signalization opening day and;

* Schematic plan requirements. Graphics of conceptual improvements to be provided to a scale and show all access within 500 ft. of the site boundaries.

Attached is a detailed sample of an MOU that could be applied to the subject development. The extent of the analysis and size of the study area are modified to be consistent with the size (and anticipated impacts) of the development.

5. The applicant i proposing 67.23 acres of open space to comply with the code requirement which states that , "A minimum of 25% of the entire PCD Dist. shall be reserved in perpetuity for open space and recreational uses." While the 67.23 acres complies with the numerical standard of the Code, we are very concerned with the size, functionality, and composition of many of the open spaces being provided.

Section 1279.19 (a) (2) and (4) sets forth design standards for open spaces provided in a PCD. We have closely examined the proposed open space compared to the design standards and determined that a vast majority of the open space being proposed is non-compliant for a variety of reasons. For instance, the area shown as open space and labeled, "Partly Wooded Recreation Area" is primarily encompassed by the extensive wetland. The same holds true for the open spaces surrounding the recreational lake and storm management area.

Sections 1279.19 and 1279.21 provide the Planning Commission with criteria to determine if the open space meets the intent of the Code. Specifically, this sections states that, "The open space should not solely include land areas merely because they have a shape or natural characteristics which make the unsuitable for conventional development." Many of the smaller open spaces proposed throughout the development are essentially "left over" land fragments from subdividing the property to maximize density. These land fragments cannot be included in the overall open space calculation because they do not comply with the standards outlined in Sections 1279.19 and 1279.21. We are not advocating that all the open spaces within the development be fully useable, void of natural features such as wetlands or steep slopes. However, we believe the intent of the Code is to provide a variety of open spaces--passive and active--that create an interconnected system of open spaces.

This concept of providing interconnected open space (greenways) is also a goal documented on Page 10 of the city's Master Plan, which states that, "..an interconnected greenway system should be embraced by developers...(and) emphasis is placed on combining human scale, pedestrian mobility and aesthetic qualities of neighborhood functions with adjoining open space areas." Because the vast majority of the proposed open space does not meet the expressed intent of Sections 1279.19 and 1279.2 and the city's Master Plan, we believe the preliminary plan should be revised to create larger open spaces that connect the residential neighborhoods while providing a means of active and passive recreation.

6. The site plan includes a proposal to create a recreational lake adjacent to the existing ponds and the Slate Ditch. This may be a desirable amenity to the lot owners within the development if the lake can be utilized as active recreational open space. The Planning Commission should consider requiring the applicant to provide details regarding how the applicant will make the lake useable. The following questions should be considered: What is the proposed depth of the lake? Will the lake be stocked with fish? will non-motorized boats such as paddle boats be permitted on the lake? How will the lake be maintained? Will an indoor facility or pavilion be constructed by the applicant to complement the lake?

7. Section 1279.23 sets forth area and yard standards for the proposed lots. We recommend that the applicant illustrate the building envelopes for all of the proposed lots to determine if the setback requirements are being met and if any existing natural features are affected by the home construction.

In addition, this section requires a 20 ft. setback for cluster single-family units from the nearest edge of street or sidewalk pavement. The plan proposes a 17 ft. front yard setback. We believe the applicant should revise the plans to comply with the required 20 ft. setback. If the applicant does not desire to comply with the requirement, then a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is necessary.

Finally, this section also requires a 35 ft. setback from any cluster single-family property line to a standard single-family property line. The following cluster lots are not set back 35 ft. from an adjacent single-family lot: 326, 327, 336, 356, 379, 386, 387, 496, 529, 560, and 592. Note: cluster lot 356 is not properly set back from 2 single-family lots.

8. The preliminary development plan does not set aside any area for guest parking. Section 1279.25 requires one guest parking space for every five cluster single-family units. Based on the proposal, 103 guest parking spaces are required. Land should be set aside throughout the cluster single-family areas of the development to accommodate guest parking.

9. Section 1279.26 requires a separate detailed site plan for the cluster areas being proposed. The proposed plan includes a majority of the items required in this section with the exception of architectural plans that detail the design of the proposed cluster dwelling units. Revised plans must include the design of the proposed cluster units. To support the objectives of the city's Master Plan, consideration should be given to a traditional neighborhood housing design.

10. Future plan submittals should be drawn to a 1:50 scale to reasonably dimension the elements of the plan and determine the relationship between the driveway, streets, and the required setbacks.

11. At the current scale, it is very difficult to determine the limits of the wetlands and how they may affect the proposed lots. For example, it appears that lots 46, 308 and 571 may be impacted by wetlands.

Subdivision Code Analysis

1. Section 1226.09 (d) requires a minimum right-of-way width for roadway design. Street "D" and Atlantic Ave. are designed with a 60 ft. right-of-way and are both connector roads through the subdivision between Stoney Ridge and Avon Beldon Rds. In our opinion, these streets will serve not only the subdivision, but also background traffic. Therefore, we suggest that Atlantic Ave. should be designed with a 100 ft. right-of-way at the following locations:

* A median should be constructed on Atlantic Ave. to restrict the Harbor Dr. intersection to be right-in/right-out (RIRO) operation. Development of an eastbound left turn lane on Atlantic Ave. would be adversely affected by the Harbor Drive intersection without the presence of a raised median.

* In the absence of a traffic study, side-by-side left turn lanes may be justified on Atlantic Ave. between Stoney Ridge Rd. and Street F.

* Converting Atlantic Ave. to a boulevard should be considered to provide the following benefits: 1) reduces operating speeds; 2) preserves the residential character of the corridor; 3) provides additional green space (in the median) and; 4) maintains a single travel lane in both directions.

2. Section 1226.09 (g) (a) states that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac shall be 600 ft. However, the code does state that if "...good design practice and sound judgment are exercised, this requirement may be waived." Streets "O" and "F" and "M" exceed cul-de-sac lengths of 600 ft. which are not recommended.

Street "F" may meet maximum cul-de-sac requirements if a future street connection is provided through Lot 222. A street extension would extend through the Sedivec property and connect opposite the FJD Properties parcel.

The FJD properties/Sedivec intersection is located at 1/2 mile +/- intervals from other intersections along the Stoney Ridge Rd. corridor thus providing near perfect progression in the event future intersections are signalized. perfect progression is feasible along Stoney Ridge Rd. at 0.5 mile intervals assuming operating speeds of 35 mph and a cycle length of 100 seconds.

Development of parcels on Street "F" beyond the 600 ft. threshold should be delayed until a roadway connection is made to Stoney Ridge Rd.

3. We strongly recommend that lots 477 and 478 be removed from the plan and a stub road be provided for a future connection to Road "N" in the proposed North Ridge Pointe subdivision. Absent this stub road in this location, the Hampton Place PCD will not have any internal connectivity to the North Ridge Pointe subdivision. See Figure A for illustrative details.

4. Lots 585 and 586 should also be considered for removal and a stub road connection (from Street "A:) added for future connectivity to the North Ridge Pointe subdivision and the vacant land to the north and east of the Hampton Place PCD>

5. Section 1226.09 (G( (B) states that cul-de-sacs shall have a diameter of at least 120 ft. It appears that Street "I" is slightly less than the required 120 ft.

6. Street trees are required pursuant to Section 1226.03. Future submittals should indicate the type, quantity, and spacing of the street trees being provided. We recommend that the application utilize salt tolerant street trees such as the Celebration Maple, Seedless Sweet Gum and Cleveland Select Pear.

7. Street lights are required pursuant to Section 1226.15 and the type shall conform to Section 1228.06. Future submittals should indicate the type, quantity and location of the street lights.

8. Sidewalks are required pursuant to Section 1226.13.

9. Section 1226.02 Storm and Sanitary Sewers; Protection of Natural Drainage Courses part (b) states that "No natural drainage course shall be altered..., unless recommended by the City Engineer and approved by Council." What is the proposed disposition of the existing drainage courses, ditches, Slater Ditch, and ponds on site?

10. Is it the intent of the developer to utilize the four entry way lakes as storm water detention areas or maintain them as aesthetic wet retention ponds?

11. Storm water management areas for site detention need to be contained entirely within designated open space areas and not encumbering adjacent residential lots.

12. A legend of line types, cross-hatched, and shaded areas should be provided to distinguish existing and proposed plan features.

13. Without a Preliminary Plat or additional dimensions, we are not able to determine roadway centerline and right of way radii, including cul-de-sacs, at 1"=100' scale.

14. Why is there a proposed break between Lots 430 and 431? That will happen to the existing drainage path that naturally drains to the east existing ditch?

15. Section 1226.09 Streets part (d) alignment (1)C. states that "Approaches to street intersections shall be perpendicular for a distance of at least 100 ft. from the centerline of the street intersected."

The following streets do not meet this requirement:

* Harbor Drive at Atlantic Ave.

* Harbor Drive at Street A - all three directions less than 100 ft.

* Street O at Street F, 98'

* Street F at Atlantic Ave, 50'

* Street M at Atlantic Ave. 58'

* Street C at Street D, 14'

* Street E at Street D, 61'

* Street F at Street D, 13'

* Street D at Stoney Ridge Rd., 41'

16. Lots 232 and 238 are not a desirable lot configuration as there is little to no rear yard area. Consideration should be given realign the lot lines for lots 231, 233, 237, and 239 to create a more function lot configuration.

17. Sheets 10-12 Utility Plans lack the following information:

* Proposed connections to existing waterline, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer are not provided or labeled.

* Proposed preliminary layout of domestic waterline is not shown or labeled.

* Proposed preliminary layout of storm sewer infrastructure is not shown or labeled.

* No notes or labels are provided to determine the disposition of existing site watercourses, ditches, and ponds in relation to the proposed storm water management areas.

(continued on HAMPTOM PLACE, Page 2)

minnickgail@hotmail.com

Page Updated Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:38pm EDT