Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200700282 Review Comments 2007-09-04 (2)• ^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 To: Megan Yaniglos, Current Development From: Scott Clark, Planning RE: SUB200700282 Mechums Bluff preliminary plat Date: September 4, 2007 Megan— Here are my comments on this Rural Preservation Development and how it meets the design standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Please let me know if you have questions, or if you need further information. Scott 10.3.3.2 INTENT; DESIGN STANDARDS (Added 11 -8 -89) The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation development shall be reviewed for: a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; b. Water supply protection; and /or c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources. More specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the commission: d. Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service; The development lots impact soils rated as Prime or Locally Important. However, avoiding these soils would not be possible without impacting other important resources. The proposed preservation tract would protect an area of Prime soils in the floodplain of the Mechums River. e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking water supply impoundments; f. Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel; Please see comments from Julie Mahon on this project for any impacts on historic resources. Lots 4, 5, and 6 include significant areas of wooded critical slopes that are important to the protection of water quality and to natural - resource protection generally. Those areas should be included in the preservation tract, to avoid disturbance of the critical slopes area by construction, access, and residential land uses. Along the Mechums River, the preservation tract would abut a riparian wetland. Maximizing protection of wooded areas and slopes in the preservation tract would protect this resources, as well as the habitat of the federally endangered James Spinymussel, which has been observed downstream of this site. g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots; The design generally meets this criterion. However, the preservation tract would be irregularly shaped, and the long,narrow area south of lots 8 and 9 would have limited conservation value. (Preservation tracts should not be used as buffers between development lots and adjacent subdivisions.) Also, the area west of lot 9 containing the Conceptual BMP is isolated from the remainder of the preservation tract, limiting its conservation value and its viability for agriculture or forestry. If drainage easements are required for this BMP, they could conflict with the terms of the conservation easement on the preservation tract. h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle; The design meets this criterion. i. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural preservation development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development. Rural Preservation Development is more appropriate than conventional development on this site. However, the design should be changed to better meet the design criteria: ➢ The areas of critical slopes on lots 4, 5, and 6 should be included in the preservation tract to the greatest extent possible. ➢ The preservation tract could be enlarged and improved by: • Making lots 5, 6, 8, and 9 smaller, and changing their locations to avoid critical slopes • Using the area around the proposed "Conceptual BMP" as part of a development lot. It has limited conservation value as part of the preservation tract, and its area could be better used as a development lot, freeing up other areas to be included in the preservation tract. • In general, making the lots smaller and moving them farther from the river would improve the conservation value of this design.