HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300005 Staff Report 2013-02-20�'lRGINZF+
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2013 -00005 The Field School
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
July 16, 2013
Owners: Hurt Investment Company
Applicant: The Field School of Charlottesville
Acreage: 62.1 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2.5, Private Schools
TMP: Tax Map Parcel 04600- 00 -00- 02200, 04600 -00-
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
00- 022CO3 and 04600- 00- 00 -098AO
Location: 1717 Polo Grounds Road
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Private school with up to 30,000
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
square feet of building footprint (maximum
Area 2 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
12,000 square feet per building), play fields, and
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
parking•
resources/ density (.5 unit /acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Partially wooded, with one
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential,
existing dwelling and a disused borrow pit.
sports fields.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The defined building envelopes restrict land
1. VDOT has significant concerns with the
disturbance on the site and leave the majority of
findings and completeness of the applicants'
the site undeveloped.
traffic analysis. Without a more complete
2. The proposal would provide an additional school
study, the proposal's traffic impacts cannot be
option for County residents.
accurately assessed.
2. VDOT has described the increased delays that
the proposal would cause at the US 29/Polo
Grounds Roads intersection as "not
acceptable."
3. Traffic generation would be significantly
higher than that caused by residential
development on the site.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of SP2013 -00005 The Field School.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
July 16, 2012
TBD
SP201300005 The Field School
Hurt Investment Company
The Field School of Charlottesville
PROPOSAL:
PROPOSAL: Private school on 62.1 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Area -- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit /acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard — Overlay to provide safety and protection from
flooding
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 1717 Polo Grounds Road
TAX MAP /PARCELS: 04600- 00 -00- 02200, 04600- 00- 00- 022CO3 and 04600- 00- 00 -098AO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site is located in a section of the Rural Areas along the floodplain of the South Fork Rivanna
River, just upstream of its confluence with the North Fork Rivanna. This narrow portion of the
Rural Areas is partially open and partially wooded. Neighborhood 2 lies across the river to the
south, and the Hollymead community is across Polo Grounds Road to the north.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 90 -35: On June 6, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved (with conditions) a special use
permit for an 800 -seat church on this site. The church was never built.
SP 90 -107: On January 16, 1991, the Board of Supervisors denied a later, separate request for a
300 -seat church proposed for a portion of a larger parcel that, at the time, included this site.
SP 2006 -00008 SOCA South Fork Expansion: On April 11, 2007, the Board of Supervisors
denied a request for a soccer facility that would have included a 33,000 square -foot indoor soccer
arena building (with offices, locker and training rooms, meeting rooms, a concession stand, and
gear sales for club members), an outdoor synthetic -turf field with lighting, two outdoor training
courts, and 96 parking spaces.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The conceptual plan (Attachment C) shows building and facility envelopes for the proposed
school. The school expects to go through an extensive design process (which will include the
school's students) over the next few years, and so does not yet have detailed building designs or
site layouts. Staff and the applicant agreed that show building envelopes on the conceptual plan
was the best approach, as it sets expectations for the location and scope of site development
2
without unnecessarily restricting the school's design choices. The building envelopes show the
possible locations of buildings and other facilities and the extent of most of the land disturbance.
The proposed school use would include:
o Buildings for instruction, offices, gymnasiums, etc. The applicants have proposed a total
footprint of 30,000 square feet, with a per - building limit of 12,000 square feet. All new
structures would be located within the building envelope titled "School Campus" on
Sheet C3 of the conceptual plan.
o Two play fields
o Approximately 49 paved regular spaces, 5 paved bus /trailer spaces, and 76 pervious
spaces for events.
o After - school and weekend sports events for the school's teams.
o Non - sports- related school events such as fundraisers, meetings, etc. The applicant has
proposed to limit such events with more than 50 attendees to 12 times per year, but has
not proposed a maximum attendance.
o The school does not have specific plans for summer- school activities, but may have
school - related summer uses in the future.
The following table compares the Field School proposal with theoretical by -right residential
development on the site, and with two relevant special use permit requests:
o SP2006 -00008 SOCA South Fork Expansion: A proposed indoor /outdoor soccer facility
on a 10 -acre portion of the same site (see description above). The Board of Supervisors
denied this proposal.
o SP2010- 00036: A proposed 4 -field soccer facility located to the west on Polo Grounds
Road that raised similar concerns. The Board of Supervisors approved this proposal with
conditions.
Comparison of
Development 1 1
1
Theoretical By -right
SP 2013 -00005 The
SP 2006 -00008
SP 2010 -00036 MonU
Residential
Field School
SOCA South Fork
Park (approved on
Development
Expansion (denied)
different site on Polo
Grounds Road
Site Acreage
62.1
62.1
10
79.5
New Structures
Six dwellings, plus
Approximately four
One structure of more
None
accessory structures
structures. Overall limit
than 30,000 square
of 30,000 square feet,
feet, 75 feet from
individual - building limit
Polo Grounds Road
of 12,000 square feet.
Buildings approximately
400 feet or more from
Polo Grounds Road.
Number of fields
n/a
Two
One outdoor, one
Four
indoor
Outdoor lighting
?
Full- cutoff building
Field lighting
None
lights only
Distance to
?
Approximately 330 feet
300 feet
1,200 feet
nearest dwelling
from edge of play fields,
880 feet from building
envelope
Other uses
n/a
No
Originally requested
No
proposed
4 non - soccer events
per year; request was
withdrawn
Season
Year -round
Currently operates
Year -round indoors,
Spring and fall games,
during typical school
spring and fall
some summer practice
year. Summer- school
outdoors
uses possible but not
specifically proposed.
Estimated
53 to 61 vehicle trips
Applicant estimate: 194
515 vehicles trips /day
230 vehicle trips /day at
Traffic
per day
vehicle trips /day on
at peak use
peak (weekends with
Generation
weekdays (ITE
games)
"Elementary School"
category)
VDOT estimate: 372
vehicle trips /day (ITE
"Private School"
category)
Public - facilities
None
None
Sewer
None
Demand
Parking
Typical residential
Approximately 49
96 spaces
96 spaces
facilities
paved regular spaces, 5
paved bus /trailer spaces,
and 76 pervious spaces
for events
Critical slopes
?
Yes -- specific waivers
Yes
No
disturbance
to be requested during
site -plan review if
approved
Tree clearing
?
Yes
Yes
No
proposed?
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots.The nearest dwelling is approximately 330 feet from the edge of the envelope
for play fields shown on the conceptual plan, and could be impacted by noise from those
fields. That dwelling is approximately 880 feet from the proposed building envelope. As no
outdoor lighting (other than full- cutoff building lighting) and no outdoor amplification are
proposed, nearby residences should not be impacted by activities in the building envelope.
However, nearby residences would be impacted by additional traffic on Polo Grounds Road.
See below for an assessment of traffic impacts.
Character of district unchanjzed. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use. This portion of the RA zoning district is characterized by residential,
agricultural, horticultural, and recreational uses. The proposed school use would be more
intense than those rural uses, but more in harmony with the suburban residential uses of the
Hollymead Community, which is located directly across Polo Grounds Road, and in the urban
area, which is located just south of the river.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter,
Schools do not directly support or conflict with the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning
district, and are permitted by special use permit.
...with the uses permitted by right in the district
The uses permitted by right in the RA zoning district support agriculture, forestry, and land
conservation, or permit residential uses. This school use would be more intense than by -right
uses, but would use a limited portion (approximately 10 acres) of the 62 -acre site.
The building envelopes indicate that some small areas of critical slopes may be impacted by
the eventual development of the school. The specific areas to be impacted, and the exact
acreage to be impacted, cannot be calculated at this conceptual level of planning for the
proposal. Staff therefore recommends that any critical slope waivers, if needed, be evaluated
with the review of the site development plan for the site.
Open -space use of the remainder of the property would be in harmony with by -right uses in
the district, and could limit land disturbance and vegetation changes compared to residential
development of the entire property.
Also, the site is bounded on two sides by the South Fork Rivanna River and Powell's Creek.
However, as the developed portions of the site would be approximately 750 feet from the
South Fork Rivanna and 300 feet from Powell's Creek, both of which are protected by the
County's Water Protection Ordinance, water - quality impacts on the river are not considered to
be a significant issue for this proposal.
5
This area along the South Fork Rivanna is known to have been the location of Native
American settlements (of the Monacan nation). For previous approvals in this area, staff has
typically recommended conditions of approval requiring an initial archaeological assessment
of the site and appropriate mitigation measures. In this case, given the relatively small area of
the 62 -acre parcel that is proposed for development, staff would recommend that that
condition apply only to the areas to be graded.
...with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, and with the public health,
safety and general welfare.
Traffic impacts on the existing levels of use of Polo Grounds Road have been a significant
concern with past development proposals in this location and elsewhere along the road.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has identified the following concerns with the
proposal's potential traffic impacts and the applicants' traffic analysis:
o Traffic Generation: The applicants' traffic analysis, using the "Elementary School"
category in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip - generation manual, shows an
increase of 194 vehicle trips per day for weekdays. VDOT feels that the "Private
School" category in the ITE manual would more accurately reflect this use. That
category would predict an increase of 372 vehicle trips per day.
It is difficult to put either estimate in the context of the total traffic load on Polo
Grounds Road, as the applicants' traffic study does not establish what that load is, and
VDOT does not have sufficient traffic -count data to show when peak traffic occurs.
o Impacts on US 29 Intersection: VDOT notes that while the applicants' traffic study
assesses the proposal's impacts on delays for traffic westbound on Polo Grounds Road
in terms of Levels of Service, it is more appropriate to consider this matter in terms of
increased delay times. VDOT states that the westbound delay at that intersection "goes
from 51.7 seconds in the future background case to 83.6 seconds under the future build
scenario. This amounts to a 61.7% increase in delay, which is not acceptable."
o Traffic Anal.. s�VDOT has noted that the traffic analysis does not account for traffic
before 8:30 a.m., which is expected to occur due to staff arrivals, etc. VDOT needs a
more detailed and complete analysis of traffic impacts in order to completely assess
the impacts of the proposal.
There are some potential mitigating factors related to the traffic impacts of this proposal:
o The applicants recently contacted VDOT to note a problem with traffic- signal timing
at the US 29 /Polo Grounds Road intersection. Vehicles leaving the adjacent SOCA
facility after practices, usually around 6:30 p.m., were experiencing significant delays
at that intersection. The signal timing did not change to let more vehicles turn onto
US 29 until 7:00 p.m. In response, VDOT increased the time available for left - turning
vehicles during the following periods:
0
o Weekdays from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
o Weekends from 7 a.m.to 11 p.m. on weekends and Monday- Friday 9am to
3pm and 7pm to 9pm.
The applicants are to be commended for making VDOT aware of this problem,
especially for addressing an existing problem that was not related to their own
proposal. The weekday portion of the timing change may in fact reduce the delays
caused by the proposed use. However, VDOT needs the traffic analysis to be revised
to reflect this change before they can verify or quantify any reduction.
o According to the applicants, a significant portion of the school's existing students
travel to and from the school by bus. This significantly decreases the school's total
traffic generation. However, as the applicant is unable to commit to any specific level
of bus ridership for the proposed use, and no commitments to such a level of use are
proposed, it is impossible to quantify the potential reduction in traffic generation.
Given that lack of assurance, and the fact that the special use permit could be used by
some other future owner with a different transportation plan, staff and VDOT can
only assess the proposed use without taking bus ridership into account.
o VDOT has recently awarded funding to the County for VDOT to install more
adaptive timing circuits on traffic signal along US 29. This change could potentially
improve traffic flow at the intersection of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road. However,
no design specifics are available on this newly- approved project, and staff cannot
estimate what (if any) impacts it will have on that intersection.
In past proposals in this area, the railroad underpass located to the east on Polo Grounds
Road has raised concerns. The underpass is narrow and located at a turn, so drivers have
extremely limited sight lines. Traffic proceeds in one direction at a time and drivers
typically signal with their horns before starting through. While VDOT has no record of
significant traffic - safety issues with the underpass, both VDOT and the County Engineer
are concerned that the cumulative impacts of development along Polo Grounds Road
could lead to this underpass becoming a bottleneck that limits traffic capacity. No
information is available on what level of traffic would generate that effect. The applicants
in this case expect a large majority of traffic generated by the proposal to come from
US29 rather than through the underpass.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas -. preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/ acre in development lots)
The proposed school does not actively support agricultural or forestal uses, and would
require some impacts on natural and scenic resources. However, similar impacts would be
generated through by -right residential development of the site or by other uses permitted by-
right in the RA zoning district. The defined extent of development on the site would limit the
area of land disturbance compared to some other uses, and so would help to protect natural
resources in the areas not designated for development. Therefore, while the proposal is not
7
directly supportive of Comprehensive Plan goals, it is no less consistent than some by -right
uses in its zoning district.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The defined building envelopes restrict land disturbance on the site and leave the
majority of the site undeveloped.
2. The proposal would provide an additional school option for County residents.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. VDOT has significant concerns with the findings and completeness of the applicants'
traffic analysis. Without a more complete study, the proposal's traffic impacts cannot be
accurately assessed.
2. VDOT has described the increased delays that the proposal would cause at the US
29 /Polo Grounds Roads intersection as "not acceptable."
3. Traffic generation would be significantly higher than that caused by residential
development on the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SP 2013 -00005 The Field School due to
the unfavorable factors listed above. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of this proposal, staff has provided the following recommended conditions
of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C3 of the Conceptual Plan
entitled "Special Use Permit Application Plan for The Field School of Charlottesville,
prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C., revision #2, dated 6/20/13, as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• Locations of buildings and facilities within the indicated building envelopes
• Total building footprint of 30,000 square feet
• Maximum footprint of '12,000 square feet for any single building
• Retention of the existing house on the property
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Modifications are to be
considered in terms of minimizing or improving impacts on adjoining properties and
roadways. Buildings and parking may be developed in phases
2. The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students.
3. Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall not continue later than
5:00 p.m. These hours shall not apply to sports events. Classes shall not be held on
Saturday or Sunday.
4. Non - sporting school - related events shall with more than 50 attendees not occur more than
12 times per calendar year and attendance shall not exceed 200 persons. The facility shall
not be used for events not related to the school use.
5. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed entrance
location and design from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
6. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed water -
supply well and septic facilities from the Virginia Department of Health.
7. Construction of the parking area shown as "Overflow Pervious Parking Area" shall not
commence without written approval of the proposed surface materials from the County
Engineer.
8. No outdoor lighting of sports fields shall be installed for this use.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut -off fixtures and shielded to reflect
light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all
property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or her designee for approval
10. A Phase I archaeological survey and any appropriate mitigation measures as
approved by the Planning Director shall be completed for areas to be graded for
this use prior to issuance of a grading permit.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan
The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this request:
I move to recommend approval of SP 2013 -00005 The Field School with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planniniz Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 2013 -00005 The Field School. (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
9
4 P;"""/
• � X00 RcKFITRp a
Attachment A
z
XiNG eo e o RIVERVIEW FARM
BRIDLE PAT{{DR SEDcpRD 111LLS DR
L'
9R.0t,
°ooRO �t � _ , I Pp_ es LN o�
a �?� ITHGRNRIDGE WAY
O
r'OR-
� 4
OpDeL�D o p�?
HALF MOON CT
FALL FIELDS OR
Rip ML S � z
• WIV�LN g ° m
o z
LOCMRIDOE LN LOORIXIArps RD N °a �(9 Q2 O
� A
P�'r APP COJVRRp v
P C
.[4 ¢e OOH
>= ARROW,,
y, 3
o �\ 9ssP�F�e
f c�� aE' o o� Po 9iaG m M��R AMR,
r SERPENTINE LN AQ
�WENDOVER LN �a N
- SP 2013 -05 Site
a A o �
Development Areas
2 /J TpWME LN ¢�AOa .
WILLOW DALE LN
N
SP2013 -00005 The Field School
10
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
SP2013 -00005 The Field School
11
A, mmmmm::��� 0 250 500 1,000
Feet
II i
II I�
II
11I I
III 1_
\I,
"p
>
TERRACED ATHcE,C
FIELDS AND GRADING'•
4ARRROX. 5.3 ACRES)'
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
-o
'I 'rte • <_Ann r �-'
\ / / GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES:
THIS SHEET PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5P 201300005.
v ENTRANCE LOCATION, ALONG WITH FEFT /RIGHT TURN AND TAPER LANE
WARRANTS SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE APPROVAL OF ANY FINAL SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
FINAL SITE DE51GN SHALL PROVIDE GRADING AND OTHER MEASURES TO
LIMIT 5TORMWATER RUNOFF ONTO CRITICAL SLOPES ABOVE THE
ADJACENT SOUTH FORK SOCCER PARK.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A FINAL
DESIGN FOR PRIVATE WELL AND SEPTIC, TO SERVE THE PROPOSED USE
ADDITIONAL WAIVERS, SUCH AS CURB /GUTTER, AND CRITICAL SLOPES
DISTURBANCES, SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A FUTURE DATE
WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION
ANY PERVIOUS PARKING AREAS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ENGINEER.
i
V ` Z ,� A PARKING ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE DATE, ALONG
/ WITH A SITE PLAN APPLICATION, TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNT`( ZONING
DEPARTMENT, TO VERIFY REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE USE.
THE AREAS SHOWN IN THI5 PLAN ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE CONCEPTUAL
',{ \ LIMITS OF GRADING FOR THE AREAS SHOWN. GENERAL LOCATIONS ARE
PROVIDED FOR CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE, BUILDING/PAFMNG
LOCATIONS/ TREE CLEARING, AND GRADING; HOWEVER, SOME FLEXIBILITY
IN THE SHAPE LOCATION OF THESE AREAS SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN A
SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 15 SUBMITTED AT A FUTURE DATE.
Nz
f, �� l I � \ �� •t N K l� / / / /
` / \
\
,
YPROUNDS,.
DING) aosslOLe ++ •'\
�'ES) \ DRAINFIELD +�+ _ •� "� /
LOCATION `\ I
_ OVLE\RVIOUS
RAR(CIN(j AREA \ \
klY5
T�
V
W
O
4
V
o�
mN
Z
N
w
Z
M z
w
w a
Z E
0
d
Z
N
N
N
E N
W N
r Q
J 1
N
r �
N �
Z W
1 r
� 0
w tt
a
a s
N U
ACRES)
LL —
°
\
ozi
.r �
IL
lti , w N Lu
CC
Lu
co
IL
Q
--
Q-
,.
_4 Date
02/19/13
100 0 100 200 300 .- _ _ - - -'•—"- 1 =
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1" = 100'
r _
!,
_ _ _ _ _ -_ ___- ___ File No 3
� OF4
/ 11000
3
�... ..........
Vr
_�
\ / / GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES:
THIS SHEET PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5P 201300005.
v ENTRANCE LOCATION, ALONG WITH FEFT /RIGHT TURN AND TAPER LANE
WARRANTS SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE APPROVAL OF ANY FINAL SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
FINAL SITE DE51GN SHALL PROVIDE GRADING AND OTHER MEASURES TO
LIMIT 5TORMWATER RUNOFF ONTO CRITICAL SLOPES ABOVE THE
ADJACENT SOUTH FORK SOCCER PARK.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A FINAL
DESIGN FOR PRIVATE WELL AND SEPTIC, TO SERVE THE PROPOSED USE
ADDITIONAL WAIVERS, SUCH AS CURB /GUTTER, AND CRITICAL SLOPES
DISTURBANCES, SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AT A FUTURE DATE
WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION
ANY PERVIOUS PARKING AREAS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ENGINEER.
i
V ` Z ,� A PARKING ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE DATE, ALONG
/ WITH A SITE PLAN APPLICATION, TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNT`( ZONING
DEPARTMENT, TO VERIFY REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE USE.
THE AREAS SHOWN IN THI5 PLAN ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE CONCEPTUAL
',{ \ LIMITS OF GRADING FOR THE AREAS SHOWN. GENERAL LOCATIONS ARE
PROVIDED FOR CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE, BUILDING/PAFMNG
LOCATIONS/ TREE CLEARING, AND GRADING; HOWEVER, SOME FLEXIBILITY
IN THE SHAPE LOCATION OF THESE AREAS SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN A
SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 15 SUBMITTED AT A FUTURE DATE.
Nz
f, �� l I � \ �� •t N K l� / / / /
` / \
\
,
YPROUNDS,.
DING) aosslOLe ++ •'\
�'ES) \ DRAINFIELD +�+ _ •� "� /
LOCATION `\ I
_ OVLE\RVIOUS
RAR(CIN(j AREA \ \
klY5
T�
V
W
O
4
V
o�
mN
Z
N
w
Z
M z
w
w a
Z E
0
d
Z
N
N
N
E N
W N
r Q
J 1
N
r �
N �
Z W
1 r
� 0
w tt
a
a s
N U
ACRES)
LL —
°
\
ozi
.r �
IL
lti , w N Lu
CC
Lu
co
IL
Q
--
Q-
,.
_4 Date
02/19/13
100 0 100 200 300 .- _ _ - - -'•—"- 1 =
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1" = 100'
r _
!,
_ _ _ _ _ -_ ___- ___ File No 3
� OF4
/ 11000