FLOOD04031 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Figure 4-1. Subdivision Design Hierarchy LEVEL 1 su~g~~~~~~TI~tAN RECOMMENDED APPROACH NO LOTS IN FLOODPLAIN 2 PORTION OF SOME LOTS IN FLOODPLAIN; EACH LOT HAS BUILDABLE APEA ON NATURAL HIGH GROUND FOR USE IN CASE,S WHERE FLOODPLAIN DEVElOPMENl IS UNAVOIDABLE 3 SOME LOTS ENTIRELY IN FLOODPLAIN' FILL ONLY TO PROVIDE BUILDING SITES AND ROAD ACCESS '-f MOST LOTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY IN FLOODPLAI N; CLUSTERING RECOMMENDED ON AREA OF SHALLOWEST FLOODING adequate lot sizes and configurations, roads, s€\vers, and drainage. Most communities have developed a detailed checklist of requirements for what a developer must provide \vhen submitting a subdivision proposal. The subdivision approval process is typically done in two or three stages: 1) a concept plan approval; 2) preliminary plat approval; and 3) final plat approval. Often certain information is required at a preliminary stage, and more detailed information is required in a later stage of revie\'\'. Subdivision approvals by local government are the official means by \vhich the size, location, and configuration of lots, public spaces, and streets are publicly recorded. Increasingly, local governments are adopting site plan revievv ordinances that establish a higher level of scrutiny in the revie\v process for certain classes of development (e.g., all residential subdivisions over a certain acreage or lot quantity, or all proposed development that is not listed as permitted in the zoning ordinance). Also, most communities that have adopted special purpose zoning districts, such as planned unit development or cluster development districts, have established site plan revielvv standards to guide these processes. The assumption of this report is that a community should have a detailed site plan revie\.\' process for subdivisions that have the potential to affect the floodplain or to be at risk from flooding. If this is not possible, the requirements and recommendations described in this chapter would have to be applied through the community's conventional subdivision and floodplain ordinances. The site plan reviev,! procedure for a subdivision usually begins ,,,rith a preapplication conference behveen the applicant and the planning staff. This meeting gives both parties the chance to informally discuss the contents of the proposed development 28 before the official review process gets undenvay and a large amount of time and money is spent. Planning staff should provide the developer with a checklist of items that must be included on the site plan to be submitted for revie\v. (An example of the site plan review checklist appears in Appendix DJ Following the preapplication conference, the developer submits a site plan that should include all required information and that reflects the comments and suggestions offered in the meeting. There are a couple of vvays that communities accomplish site plan revie\v. Some establish a committee of staff from the pfanning, building, public \vorks, and zoning departments. This committee meets \-...'eekly to review and discuss site plans. A member of the committee then summarizes the results of that meeting and mails a copy to the applicant and submits another to the appropriate review board. Other communities forego the committee structure and simply distribute the site plan to the various departments, where it is assigned to a staff member, \,vho then is given a deadline for commenting on the plan and returning it to the planning department. In either arrangement, a planner \-'\'ill summarize all of the comments and present the case to the planning or zoning board \-'\'ith the list of conditions that should be met for the development to be approved. The site plan revie\'\' process is an implementing mechanism for the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and the comprehensive plan. For the site plan review process to work in favor of flood protection and water-quality protection, floodplain protection goals have to be made a part of those documents and processes. Better yet, a floodplain management plan should be prepared, and the site plan review procedure would be identified as one method of implementation. Another simple task would be to add floodplain considerations to the site plan review checklist. At a