ATTACHMENT 1
1) Amount of proposes land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District (RCD) associated with stormwater management facilities.
A Council member noted that the amount of anticipated land disturbance in the RCD was revised in the staff memorandum from 37,161 square feet to 55,970 square feet. The Council member asked staff for additional information on how much of this land disturbance is associated with the proposed stormwater facilities.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that approximately 19,334 square feet of land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District (approximately 34%) is associated with the proposed stormwater management infrastructure. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation limiting the amount of land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District to 55,970 square feet. Although the ordinance calls for minimizing land disturbance in the RCD, stormwater facilities are allowed in the outer band of the RCD.
2) Amount of proposed land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District associated with the proposed roadway stub-out to the east.
A Council member noted that the area proposed for a future roadway stub-out to the east appears to be located within the Resource Conservation District (RCD). Staff responded that it appeared that a portion of the right-of-way is within the RCD.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that no portion of the proposed stub-out is in the Resource Conservation District. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit that the Town Manager review and approve a final plan design for the proposed stub-out to the east property line. We also recommend that all grading and construction associated with the plans for this proposed stub-out not encroach or require land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District boundary.
3) Required signage for proposed roadway stub-out along east property line.
A Council member asked whether “future connection” signage would be required of the applicant.
Staff Comment: The original staff recommendation to the Advisory Board included the following stipulation:
That at such time as the applicant completes construction activity associated with the clearing and grading for the road bed, signage shall be located at each roadway stub-out. That the signage indicates that the roadway will be extended for future development. The size, text, and color of the signs shall be subject to the Town Manager’s approval. That the final plat and final plans include a note stating that “Future development of the adjoining property may include the extension of the stub-out on the adjacent property”
This stipulation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A.
4) Landscape buffers along the east and south property lines.
At the Planning Board meeting, citizens from the Northwood neighborhood expressed concerns about ambient light, the potential visibility of headlights from cars in Chapel Watch Village, and general screening of the Chapel Watch Village buildings. The applicant has provided additional detail to the neighborhood and to staff as to how they will achieve the required Type “B” buffer with screening that specifically meets the Northwood neighbors’ concerns (Attachment 7). During the Public Hearing a Council member asked the applicant to return with greater details on the proposed buffer.
Staff Comment: We have asked the applicant to provide additional information on this proposed planting area. We understand that the applicant will be presenting the Council with information at tonight’s meeting in addition to the original planting plan proposal (Attachment 7).
5) Design options for a vehicle to turn around at the south end of the project if a full vehicular access to Larkspur is not approved.
Several Council members raised questions about the proposed vehicular “turn-around” at the southern end of the project. In particular, the Council questioned a design that seems to require an excessive amount of impervious surface and land disturbance. The Council asked the staff and applicant to return with an alternate design that would eliminate the turn-around or decrease the amount of impervious surface/land disturbance.
Staff Comment: If this proposed development is approved without full vehicular access to Larkspur, we recommend that the applicant construct a 40’-radius cul-de-sac. This recommendation has not been included in Revised Resolution A.